The same thing is with me and The Sandman.
Planetary was a good comic and an interesting experiment in compression, but not an as good a comic as it could have been in my opinion. I think the effort to compress the arcs to such an extent as to make it an 'episodic' comic book ultimately hindered the book, as much as holding another book to a rigidly decompressed writing paradigm can be a hindrance. In any fiction there are elements of a story more deserving of energy and focus than others and certain ideas that require more panels of exploration to be adequately translated into written word. The best way to write a book is to identify these disparate parts, prioritise them, and convey them to the reader in such a manner as is reasonable given their relative importance and complexity. Sometimes that'll mean several issues, and sometimes less than one, but the important thing is that one makes sacrifices with regards to his or her style instead of at the cost of the story. Simply put, compression introduced challenges to Planetary's pacing, plot, and (primarily as it pertains to the antagonists) character development. Not severe enough to make these anything short of an interesting, enjoyable book, but enough limit it from being the book it had the potential to be.
And I don't see the point in comparing Planetary to Watchmen any more than I see the value in comparing Blood Meridian to Pale Fire. There's nothing impossible in doing so, they're both books, share some fundamental elements, and belong to a literary tradition, but they're nevertheless wholly distinct works, by completely different creators, and intended to do different things in different ways. That they are both intelligent books does not in itself necessitate or rationalise their comparison. For the record, I prefer Watchmen for various subjective reasons of my own, but that's all most of these comparisons will ever really come down to. Planetary still hangs out somewhere in my top five, I'm just not entirely sure where.
Marvel: AV, NAV, SAV, UAV, FF, DD, HA, IH, TGoT, ANXM, UXM, UXF, XML, WatXM, CaXF, XF, XM
Image: PR, SA, TWD, MW, RE, FA, TMP
DC: BW, WW, BWM, FA
Oni Press: TSG
"Since the 50s" refers to your point that Planetary explains 'why it is necessary to keep those ongoings ongoing', which is of course something every individual understood for quite some time. Was this critique, this explanation, some bit of revelation to anyone?But, then, I don't agree with any of the points you made in your response ("since the 50s"? really? Have you read a mainstream comic published since then? I know you have...) we're probably at an impasse.
You're more than welcome to actually discuss what you might disagree with, rather than making sweeping statements followed by off hand passive aggressive comments, of course, but I'm quite content to leave it as you don't seem to have much to add.
My last comment on this thread is this:
Planetary was a clever, beautiful book, at times heart wrenching, with something to say about comics, and about pop culture in general. All comics should strive to be this good.
But I can read through Planetary in an afternoon. I'm not CHALLENGED by Planetary. It doesn't give me insight - real insight - into the human condition, it doesn't force me to consider or reconsider my understanding of violence, or sex, or morality, or existence. It doesn't surprise me each and every time I read it with new elements, new layers. It doesn't tickle my creative drive, it doesn't instill in me a hunger to learn more about any of the elements therein.
It's an easy book. That doesn't make it better, or worse, necessarily, but for me it makes it less engaging than something like Watchmen, or Engima, or Morrison's Doom Patrol or Invisibles or Flex.
It was broader satire than DKR, but it was still sharp...the Dick Grayson sub-plot exception.
The book gets a lot of undeserved hate, mainly because I think readers were expecting DKR rehashed...and Miller has grown far, far away from that sort of story.
Similar to the backlash of ASBAR, which is a broad satire of super-heroes.
It was using the current climate of popular super-hero comics to parody just how silly 'serious' stories about these characters end up being.
The dialog, the cynicism, the outrageous events, and the decompression (several issues of Batman and Robin in the car, and then the cave...a matter of an hour).
It was a pisstake, but it was a brilliant one.
Current Miller is a hit or miss.
300, Holy Terror and second half of Sin are boring beyond words. Though his Batman output at the time is a blast to read. Bad Boy and Big Guy & Rusty Boy had great art but rather uniteresting stories no characters.
Saludos desde el exilio a una generación de destructores.
I just couldn't get into it at the time; left me cold.
When I have more free time, I'll re-read the series again and see if my opinion stills stands or changes.
Saludos desde el exilio a una generación de destructores.
I'll never understand the acclaim of Sin City. It's incredibly shallow and misogynistic.
It's like Dr. Strangelove or Blazing Saddles compared to Epic Movie. The former two have structure and form; they are smartly constructed in order to say something, and exist as good stories independently of the things they are satirizing. The latter is just showing a bunch of random stuff and saying "Look! This is all the stuff you see in big blockbuster movies! Am I right?!"
If ASBAR is truly meant as a parody or satire as fans claim, that's fine; I just don't feel it has any inherent value beyond the Epic Movie style of storytelling by saying "Hey, look at how decompressed the story is! Naughty language! Ridiculous violence! Totally over the top cynical/dark/gritty characterization! This is totally what the current climate of superhero comics is like, am I right?!"
It would have put an interesting twist on all of Bruce's asides in DKR where he laments "what happened to Jason"...