Have Marvel comics changed for the better or worse?

[kelly_warrior_princess]

story quality IS subjective.

Story is not the same thing as writing.

Especially when the story being talked about is relatively commercially successful.

An yet 2009, all the Avengers books were selling twice as well. Heck Dark Avengers was great: Individuated story telling, individual focused characterisation, brilliant use of narrative causality, solid plot escelation, perfect pacing within individual issues, great arc pacing & a high level a technical excellence across the board. Not to mention the fact it was just an interesting story as well (but of course that last part is purely subjective).

However if you compare those objective writing qualities to say the recent volume of Avengers, it almost completely lacks for any of that.

[kelly_warrior_princess]

I can tolerate you having an opinion, as much as I disagree, but please edit this post so your actual facts, e.g. the date of Bendis' DD, are correct. I am having trouble taking you seriously as it is without your actual facts being completely wrong.

sorry, but i don't own the inidividual issues of Daredevil. But the fact remains that the DD run with bendis was volume 2 (which is apparently incorrectly marked as the work of bendis & not Brubaker). Not that it matters as it end long before the end of Dark Avengers & the end of Dark Reign, which is the take away point.

[Spaced]

Not really. People can argue there personal preference, they can't argue against the existance of something in a book, when the thing is demonstrable. For instance "individual characterisation" in Avengers, versus Dark Avengers: Dark Avengers had it, Avengers does not. Thats not subjective conjecture in the form of opinion, its objective demonstrable fact. Because individual characterisations existance can be judged solely objectively, without the use of personal preference.

Artistic Merit & personal preference = subjectivily judged.
Technical Skill with a recognised medium = Objectively judged.

Sorry but that just dosen't gel. Your opinion of what constitutes "fact" in regards to characterisation in a given storyline dosen't make it concrete in regards to everyone else. People can think differently to you :)

Um, no offense but i think you missed the point entirely. Bendises run on DD finished in August of 2009, Dark Reign finished in June 2010: By definition that would make his run of DD a pre Dark Avengers title: This would mean that not only does it sit outside of the exclusion rate given for the example (as can be evidenced by the numerous mentionings in this very thread), it also puts it outside of the 2 year time window specifically given no less then a dozen times in this very thread.

An lastly its not Bendis hate, to point out that his technical acumen has faltered. I'm a huge Powers fan, but even his technical skills on that have dropped recognisably over the last two years.

Again sorry, not sure on your point there. Followed the links back six pages on the quotes before posting and this is what I saw, no mention of Dark Reign or Dark Avengers.

Quote Originally Posted by kelly_warrior_princess
Um, actually it is objective fact. As i've already pointed out, while artistic merit is indeed judged subjectively, technical skill within a medium is judged objectively. So the decrease in the skill of the writers against 2 years ago as an overall statement & in specific Bendis & his work on Avengers books is judged entirely objectively. This would make it not an opinion, but a demonstrable fact, that can be measured against past application of skill, with an objective list of qualifiers (as have been already listed in part on a previous page).

----------

Quote Originally Posted by RDMacQ
Uh, no, it's not something that CAN be tracked. But, just for arguments sake, let's say that it IS a "demonstrable fact."

So.... demonstrate it.

Demonstrate how the skill of writers have decreased in the past 2 years. Go ahead. Show us how.

Don't TELL us how, in that YOU just dislike the stories. SHOW how these stories have gone downhill with specific examples and figures. SHOW how- in an OBJECTIVE manner- that the skill of the writers have gone downhill since 2010.

We'll be waiting.

----------

Originally Posted by USERNAME TAKEN
I was going to ask Kelly the same thing.

How can you objectively say that writing has gotten worse over the last two (2) years?

----------

Originally Posted by kelly_warrior_princess
Um, you an i have already done this dance mate. But let me just quote whats come before when i already answered this question twice in this thread: We went from fully nuanced writing, with individual characterisation that was internally consistent (with individual plot points & interal narrative conflict), plot pacing (which included nuanced character driven & solo scenes), well written objectives, narrative conflict & narrative causality: now we predominately don't.

----------

Originally Posted by RDMacQ
Or, we still have all of that in the books.

----------

Originally Posted by kelly_warrior_princess View Post
I'm sure there are a few that still do. However as i have already said, the writing talent has predominately decreased, with Bendis being a prime example of the decreasing standard in technical skill (prime example because his work is prolific enough that it becomes obvious).

[RDMacQ]

Story is not the same thing as writing.

I repeat- story quality IS subjective. Your statement doesn't disprove that.

An yet 2009, all the Avengers books were selling twice as well. Heck Dark Avengers was great: Individuated story telling, individual focused characterisation, brilliant use of narrative causality, solid plot escelation, perfect pacing within individual issues, great arc pacing & a high level a technical excellence across the board. Not to mention the fact it was just an interesting story as well (but of course that last part is purely subjective).

And since 2009, all of print publishing has seen a decline. It's not just the Avengers books, but ALL books.

You want to explain the decline of newspaper sales and magazine sales on the writing talents of some Marvel writers?

Also, you've still done NOTHING to show how the TECHNICAL skill has declined, or why books that are selling BETTER than the Avengers TECHNICALLY succeed with DEMONSTRABLE facts.

These are the terms YOU used to explain your position. Why are you afraid of using them to explain your position with examples.

However if you compare those objective writing qualities to say the recent volume of Avengers, it almost completely lacks for any of that.

WHAT DO WE COMPARE? What stories? You pointed to the "characterization" in Dark Avengers, but- as I pointed out- that's not objective. Because I PERSONALLY didn't like it for my PERSONAL reasons. I've pointed out that several times to others that I REALLY liked Spidey and Hawkeye's characterization during the arc where they faced off against the Hood and Osborn's forces, but people stated they disliked it because Cage was on the team, "all they did was sit around and eat," and that they thought all of Bendis' characters "sounded alike."

So where are all these other "comparisons?" What stories? What technical aspects are being highlighted? These are things YOU need to provide. You don't get to say "compare" and leave it at that. You don't get to say one thing is objectively better, but not state what is objectively better ABOUT it.

[RDMacQ]

sorry, but i don't own the inidividual issues of Daredevil. But the fact remains that the DD run with bendis was volume 2 (which is apparently incorrectly marked as the work of bendis & not Brubaker). Not that it matters as it end long before the end of Dark Avengers & the end of Dark Reign, which is the take away point.

Wait, you DON'T own the issues of DD?

Did you at least READ them?

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

No. That's YOUR opinion of Bendis' writing that some people share.

I personally like Bendis' dialogue, as it feels a lot less clunky than the blocks of expositional text via thought balloons or text boxes we used to get, and what I felt to be a crutch by a lot of writers.

So, if every comic has NO word balloons, you'd also say that's "just your opinion" if you don't like it? Maybe my opinion is not so opinionated.

You're making an assumption on an entire group of people. Not only that, but you're setting yourself up as an authority as to what makes "good" storytelling.

Well, if you hold all opinions as equal in weight, then it's my opinion that lots of people don't have high standards as to what constitutes as quality storytelling anymore. My opinion...that's just as valid as your opinion.

Except there is no way for you to know what is going on in people's minds. You're simply trying to paint people who like something you dislike as being less informed than you. But you've done nothing to prove or show why YOUR position is more salient than those that you disagree with.

So, if everyone liked a blank comic with nothing in it, you'd still defend it as a matter of opinion? IMO, that's taking your opinion too far and infringing upon the opinions of all those who don't like blank comic books. LOL

Is a comic automatically bad because it takes less time to read than a comic with a bunch of text? I've read stories by Bendis that I cleared through in five minutes, and those that I sat and read for fifteen. But regardless of it taking five of fifteen minutes, if the story was good it stuck with me. I didn't dismiss it simply because it took "less time to read." Personally, I feel that criticism is a hollow talking point that people bring up to have something to complain about since- quite frankly- story quality IS subjective. Especially when the story being talked about is relatively commercially successful.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. LOL

So, the solution is more word balloons and artificially stretching out a comic just to make it "longer?"

Actually, Marvel is already artificially stretching out the storylines quite a bit (decompression).

You do realize that does nothing to affect the QUALITY of the story, correct? That someone using more word balloons and longer text boxes doesn't make the comic WORTH more.

And that's your opinion. IMO, exposition, along with characterization, is absolutely necessary for a storyline to be a good read.

I read criticisms of Chris Claremont's work being JUST that- far too many word balloons, far too much exposition, far too much wordy, unnecessary text. And I've read stories where the text boxes used to push the story along were- in my opinion- wordy, nonsensical garbage written by people trying to sound prophetic and smart. Not to mention I've read a lot of SILENT stories with NO word balloons and STRICTLY panels that were very entertaining (the silent G.I. Joe issues for example).

Sure, the GI Joe issue is an exception to the rule, but that can't be done all the time because the fans wouldn't like comics with no words in them (my opinion...and the obvious reality). The exception doesn't make the rule. Sure the Claremont issues were too wordy at times, but a good writer should know how much exposition is too much and how much is not enough (Bendis is not a good writer).

There is no absolute. There is no "magic button." You can't just say something is "bad" because it doesn't have enough word balloons or it's "too quick to read." That's a subjective take on the situation that doesn't address the actual QUALITY of the work.

A good read is a good read...and USUALLY a good read has a good amount of exposition in it, without it being overwhelming. I think if the attention span has decreased in the last decade or two, then that's a sad commentary on much of the readership of today, who like comics with less words in them then they used to have. Today's comics are more sophisticated? Again...i'm having trouble believing that.

[kelly_warrior_princess]

I repeat- story quality IS subjective. Your statement doesn't disprove that.

I wasn't trying to disagree with you. you are indeed 100% correct: Story is completely upto personal preference, where as writing is execution of story & is judged objectively.

And since 2009, all of print publishing has seen a decline. It's not just the Avengers books, but ALL books.

No its not: Image sales are up, as are novel sales. Even serialised fiction in the form of novels is up. So is the sales numbers on manga.

[RDMacQ]

I wasn't trying to disagree with you. you are indeed 100% correct: Story is completely upto personal preference, where as writing is execution of story & is judged objectively.

And you've still done nothing to show why the writing quality HERE is superior to THERE. Just that it is "objectively" better.

No its not: Image sales are up, as are novel sales. Even serialised fiction in the form of novels is up. So is the sales numbers on manga.

And comic sales? Overall, not just the Avengers titles.

[kelly_warrior_princess]

And you've still done nothing to show why the writing quality HERE is superior to THERE. Just that it is "objectively" better.

Actually i have. But you keep on ignoring it in the hopes that it will go away.

And comic sales? Overall, not just the Avengers titles.

Declining quality will do that.

[theflyingfrogunderdog]

And all that showed was that YOU didn't like them.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Oh...so, when Cap said "time is a thing" in Avengers #1, you thought that was perfectly fine? And wasn't lame at all?

I find that hard to believe.

[Lascoden]

Oh...so, when Cap said "time is a thing" in Avengers #1, you thought that was perfectly fine? And wasn't lame at all?

I find that hard to believe.

I guess I'm missing the context, but what's so bad about that?

[RDMacQ]

So, if every comic has NO word balloons, you'd also say that's "just your opinion" if you don't like it? Maybe my opinion is not so opinionated.

No. I just wouldn't judge the issue on the number of word balloons alone. That'd be silly.

Well, if you hold all opinions as equal in weight, then it's my opinion that lots of people don't have high standards as to what constitutes as quality storytelling anymore. My opinion...that's just as valid as your opinion.

I do, unless someone says something that compromises their credibility. And while I may disagree with an opinion, if someone argues their point well, I can understand their position.

That hasn't happened yet.

So, if everyone liked a blank comic with nothing in it, you'd still defend it as a matter of opinion?

If a lot of people liked it? Yeah. I don't dismiss others simply for not sharing the same values as I do. That'd be silly.

IMO, that's taking your opinion too far and infringing upon the opinions of all those who don't like blank comic books. LOL

So, if a lot of people liked Superman, I'm allowed to think they are foolish and stupid and they know nothing about storytelling because I personally don't like Superman? And that I feel that it's hard to tell a good story WITH Superman?

Actually, Marvel is already artificially stretching out the storylines quite a bit (decompression).

Your opinion.

And that's your opinion. IMO, exposition, along with characterization, is absolutely necessary for a storyline to be a good read.

Yes. It does.

However, HOW that exposition is conveyed is not an absolute. More can be said in a single sentence than an entire paragraph.

Sure, the GI Joe issue is an exception to the rule,

Actually, I think it's a example that shows that something doesn't HAVE to be bogged down by word balloons or text boxes to be enjoyable.

but that can't be done all the time because the fans wouldn't like comics with no words in them

Do you REALLY think this is a major problem?

The exception doesn't make the rule. Sure the Claremont issues were too wordy at times, but a good writer should know how much exposition is too much and how much is not enough (Bendis is not a good writer).

Uh, your opinion. And a writer can go OVERBOARD in their exposition.

Again, you seem to be arguing that stories HAVE to be told a certain way. Except you've done NOTHING to show WHY one style of storytelling IS better than another. You state exposition is "important," but you've done nothing to show which method IS superior.

A good read is a good read...and USUALLY a good read has a good amount of exposition in it, without it being overwhelming.

And- once again- there is no standard as to how exposition is to be conveyed.

I think if the attention span has decreased in the last decade or two, then that's a sad commentary on much of the readership of today, who like comics with less words in them then they used to have.

People have been saying that for a long, long, long while.

You're assuming that just because a comic isn't wordy or have a lot of balloons or text boxes it automatically reflects poorly on the intelligence of the readers who enjoy it. And that's just a sad, strawman argument.

Comics are more sophisticated? Again...i'm having trouble believing that.

Then it's a good thing you're not the absolute authority on what constitutes "sophistication" isn't it?

[RDMacQ]

Oh...so, when Cap said "time is a thing" in Avengers #1, you thought that was perfectly fine? And wasn't lame at all?

I find that hard to believe.

So, just because I didn't object to a SINGLE LINE, that no longer makes my opinion worthwhile? That you can't comprehend that someone can simply NOT have the same hangups YOU do about a comic.

It just sounds like you're judging people simply for not already agreeing with you, rather than the content of their arguments.

[RDMacQ]

Actually i have. But you keep on ignoring it in the hopes that it will go away.

Where? Where have you proven it.

You can provide links. It's OK.

Declining quality will do that.

As will closing comic books shops, the rise in digital media, and decline in people picking things up in stores, the move to digital purchases, people purchasing comics through subscriptions. A lot of factors will affect that more than the "quality" of the comics.

[RDMacQ]

I guess I'm missing the context, but what's so bad about that?

I'm trying to figure that out myself.