|
Post by cyberstrike on Mar 20, 2011 18:16:09 GMT -5
I've been reading comics since 1978. What if I didn't like issue #1? What if I seen the cover of #2 and didn't want to read it? I can't give every comic I buy 6 issues to sway me. I don't have enough money for that. If the 1st 6 issues were so great, why was issue #1 so stupid??? WOW. No wonder most of our tastes are so radically different sometimes you've been reading comic since I was born! FTR I was on Jan 10th, 1978 I do agree that if a book fails to impress me by the end of first issue it's not a good indicator it's a series I want to collect, I might give the second issue a chance but if #2 fails to impress me I will and have dropped series (like All-Star Superman and all of the Dark Key books for examples) why waste my money on a series that doesn't impress me. Now there are times I'm glad that I didn't even bother with a series case-in-point Batman: Odyssey. I have the collected slip-cased hardcover edition of the legendary Green Lantern/Green Arrow run he did and the art is the only good thing about this run. Being a liberal I don't like how the Green Arrow is portrayed one fucking bit (he's a loudmouth know-it-all who jackass yells to much and doesn't listen and jumps to violence to soon) and Jordan is portrayed as he always is: he's an idiot. Now maybe Adams can pull Batman: Odyssey together and in the end it will make sense but frankly from all the reviews that I've read about it (even from big die-hard fans of Adams) I doubt it, chances are the only thing it will prove is that Adams should never write another comic for the rest of his life. The man is a great artist there is no denying that his writing so far makes Morrison's techno-psychobabble laden books look sane. Now too my points: Every and I do mean EVERY creator can create a dud. No matter how talented they are it doesn't matter if it's Stan Lee, Alan Moore, Peter David, Jim Starlin, Neal Adams, Mark Waid, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Jim Shooter, John Byrne, Warren Ellis, Marl Millar, and every other creator you can think of has done at least one bad comic in their career. It's a sad fact of life I know but even masters can create pieces of shit from time-to-time. Now I unless I'm buying a mini-series or a maxi-series if I don't like a book by the 3rd issue I drop it (in the case of a book like Nemesis I should have just bought the fucking hardcover and saved myself the trouble of worrying if it got over-looked at my LCS plus it reads better in one setting than a in serialized single issues) now in most cases I don't drop mini-series or maxi-series unless it's really awful and in my case I'm buying so many 4 or 5 issue mini-series ( The Transformers: Heart of Darkness, Mass Effect: Evolution, Captain America: Man Out of Time, Thunderstrike, and the recently finished Nemesis) that dropping them would be more trouble that it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by G on Mar 20, 2011 22:15:53 GMT -5
I've been reading comics since 1978. What if I didn't like issue #1? What if I seen the cover of #2 and didn't want to read it? I can't give every comic I buy 6 issues to sway me. I don't have enough money for that. If the 1st 6 issues were so great, why was issue #1 so stupid??? WOW. No wonder most of our tastes are so radically different sometimes you've been reading comic since I was born! FTR I was on Jan 10th, 1978 The 1st 2 comics I purchased was both on the same exact day. I still remember it like it was yesterday. Both of them had a cover date of April 1978. The 2 books were X-Men #110 and then later in the same day I went back and purchased Machine Man #1. The thing you need to realize is comics typically came out with a 4 month advanced dating system back then. So that would put the day the comics came out, around December 1977 or January of 1978. I distinctly remember the X-Men book was not visible on any of the rack slots when I bought it. It was actually behind other books that were on the top. I know this because I nearly left disappointed until I uncovered X-Men #110 and decided it was the comic I wanted to buy. I feel fairly confident that I purchased the book sometime in January 1978. I still clearly remember the entire experience of walking to the local 7-11 and buying that book and returning later after gleefully reading the X-Men and picking up Machine Man #1 and buying it because it was a #1 as well as I thought it looked cool. I'd say I probably bought my first comic within days of you being born and at worst weeks. It was a day that obviously changed my life forever. Now too my points: Every and I do mean EVER creator can create a dud. No matter how talented they are it doesn't matter if it's Stan Lee, Alan Moore, Peter David, Jim Starlin, Neal Adams, Mark Waid, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Jim Shooter, John Byrne, Warren Ellis, Marl Millar, and every other creator you can think of has done at least one bad comic in their career. It's a sad fact of life I know but even masters can create pieces of shit from time-to-time. I wholeheartedly agree with this. There are tons of works I have from all those creators you just listed there but there is also quite a few I love by them. The difference with the greats is when you were disappointed with them, it was normally because you had seen their greatness elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by bigw1966 on Mar 21, 2011 13:02:34 GMT -5
Sorry I have not been around to take part in this, I have been really busy lately.
Cyberstrike made a good point in his last post. Some books read better in larger chunks than as an individual issue. so not liking the first issue of Walking dead, I can understand that. I didn't care much for it either. It was not until I sat down and read a borrowed TPB of the first 6 issues that I got it. Moreso that title, same with 100 bullets or Deus Ex Machina. are designed as serialized books so if you compare it to a book (novel) the first issue of WD would amount to about (5) pages of the first chapter. Its barely enough to get the setup.
Superhero books are not. Even though they give you the illusion of a six issue story, its really only a single issue story decompressed across six issues. also, with the larger universe they exist in, they cannot do much because they are constrained by what is happening in the rest of the supposedy shared universe.
This is part of why I say that superhero books will not bring things to the table that can have an effect across other comics like they did in the 80's when the last true changes in comics really happened.
In fact, let me just use that signpost of masterpiece comics as my point.
WATCHMEN, stands up today as the single greatest comic ever made in the eyes of many fans and critics worldwide (no need to disagree, I am just pointing out popular opinion) do you know why this view has been maintained for so long? Its because The characters you met at the beginning of the story were not the same characters at the end of the story. They went through monumental growth as characters due to the events of the story. Alan Moore, because of how he ended the story and added to the fact that the characters have been isolated to that story, has allowed what happened to them to have weight.
Now, many comics over the years have told stories of equal weight or even using some of the same tropes as WATCHMEN, but, those stories were followed up by more stories which washed away the change that happened to the characters and in essense, reset them to there default settings.
Take rorchach for example. He had a very rigid black and white view of Justice at the beginning of the story. Yet, by the end of it all, after it was revealed that it was in fact Ozymandius who Rorchach regarded as the best of them was revealed as the villain, Rorchachs entire worldview was shattered. And the destruction of all he believed in was so great that the only solution for allowing the peace that was brought on by Ozy's plan to succeed was for Rorchach to die, because he could not exist in that type of world. That is MASSIVE change for a character. Now imagine there was another story that someone wanted to do with Rorchach as he was at the beginning of the story. Well, it couldn't happen because of the level of change that he experienced. unless it was removed. Which would have destroyed all of the things that happened because of the type of story WATCHMEN was
This is precisely what happens in Superhero books every month or so. Characters may have their worlds rocked, but next month, it never happend. Or next creative team steamrolls over it to tell whatever story they have alwasy dreamed of telling.
Also, in mainstream Superhero books, Editorial Mandates will not allow any sort of permanent change to happen to their main characters. Its been this way since the mid eighties.
The whole point that I am trying to make, which is the reason that I keep going back to books like Walking Dead, is that quality comics that stick with you and make you want to see what happens next, generally happen in books where the characters are allowed to truly change and have those changes dictate what they do in future stories. (which is also why I say WD is not about the zombies, but the effect of living in a world overrun with zombies has on the survivors)
That is how novels are written. I read a lot of those.
also, I didn't stop buying comics, I stopped buying weekly books and because of limited funds, I decided which books I would follow. Many based on Authors like Moore, Ellis Morrison, Vaughan, Mignola and so on. I read Superhero books, mainly while I sit in Bobs store. so, I do know what is happening in them. I have been reading Brightest day since issue #1 along with JSA, Cap, New Avengers, FF, SHIELD and Secret Avengers. I also belong to a number of different forums where I take part in conversations regarding comics. Many with the people who create them. so I cannot say that I am oblivious, I just tend to forget what I read in the last issue of some of those titles by the time the next issue comes out.
All Star Superman rocks! But, I have to say my opinion rose after reading the collected edition of it. Morrison can be confusing when trying to follow somthing in small doses every 30 days while also reading other things. Same with Kirkman. He designs his stuff to be serialized. Invincible is a good read as a random issue in most cases, but reading a bulk of them at once is a far superior and fullilling experience.
"G" you mentioned CROSSED, I love that book, but for different reasons than WD. However, I have on at least 5 different occasions loaned a monthly of both titles out to people who read them and thought they were okay or garbage. Then I loaned the same people the first TPB of each, and they had an entirely different view of it when it ended.
Its the serialized nature that draws me to them. Just like it does to those shows you mentioned, like X-Files and LOST and Battlestar Galactica (which BTW are considered by fans and critics alike as being among the greatest shows ever put on TV)
Mainstream Superheroes (marvel and DC) will never be able to step outside of the limitations imposed on them, because the companies have to much money invested in them to allow it. Those characters stopped having major change around the mid 70's
You mentioned Hulk. He has been dumb, smart, savage, mobster, enforcer,and a number of other things because the Hulk is an ID, an emotional idea made flesh. As an extension of Bruces personality, he regularly goes through changes in how he acts based on Bruce. At least that is how Peter David described it before.
While a title may not be your cup of tea, it doesn't mean that it doesn't contain the things you are asking for.
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Mar 21, 2011 16:29:00 GMT -5
WOW. No wonder most of our tastes are so radically different sometimes you've been reading comic since I was born! FTR I was on Jan 10th, 1978 I started reading comics about 6 years before you were born. 1st Punisher, Death of Gwen Stacy, Hulk #181, X-men #94, Iron Man #55.... were all comics I bought or cover price. Most were 20¢ from that list. I had most of the X-Men books from #78 up when they came out. I liked the reprints, but I was still learning what a reprint was. Around the time you were born I started filling in X-Men #1-77. I had that completed by the time you were about 4 years old. There is no real way to look at 90's or even 80's comics and understand how cohesive and tight knit the Marvel universe was. When I saw Hulk battle Thor in Defenders #10 or so, they'd only battled like once before. Heroes made crossover appearances, but it wasn't 6 crossovers in a month. The books were character focused, not writer focused. Writers stayed on books for years, not 6 issue arcs. The growth and maturing of comics in the late 70's was great, but it also brought with it a watering down of many characters. df1
|
|
|
Post by bigw1966 on Mar 22, 2011 11:00:54 GMT -5
I started reading comics in 1973, at the age of 7. It was mainly Spider-Man and Fantastic Four because of the cartoons. there was also some Batman in there, but at the time I was more familiar with the Adam West TV show so Batman was way to different in the comics.
also, like defiant just said, comics in the 70's were great because there was character growth. however, that all stopped around the end of the 70's and since then the Characters for the most part have stayed in a perpetual holding pattern as far as personalities and events that shape their lives. The last big change for spidey to me, was the Clone Saga. This current stuff is pretty weak, and even though the Clone Saga is considered a crappy production, it did have a major affect on the spidey titles for over 10 years all the way up to removing Parker as the protagonist.
I personally thing that Superhero comics need to do a bit more of changing the lead protagonist. Just look at Captain America played by Bucky. Or Batman played by dick Grayson. Both of these titles are fresh, and because of the different character personalities, have opened the door to some really good stories. this should happen with many more characters I think.
|
|
|
Post by cyberstrike on Mar 23, 2011 11:45:51 GMT -5
I stated reading comics in 1984 (or 85) with The Transformers #6 from Marvel. Yet, by the end of it all, after it was revealed that it was in fact Ozymandius who Rorchach regarded as the best of them was revealed as the villain, Rorchachs entire worldview was shattered. That is the brilliant thing about Watchmen is that it's open to different interpations depending on the reader's own worldview. You what is real interesting things about Watchmen is that you can make the case that Ozymandias is the only real hero in the book because he's the one that saved the world from a Nuclear World War and the others are the villains because they're the ones that are trying to stop him. Also I how I interpret Rorschach/Ozymandias conflict and Rorschah's death a little differently than you do doesn't mean that I'm right and your wrong or vice versa it's just my take on them. I don't think Rorschach ever really liked Ozymandias as a man and vice versa, they at best they might have respected the other's skills and abilities (and even that is questionable) but they certinaly never said good things about the other and so it's quite clear to me that they didn't like for each other. Now I see Rorscharch's death in a different light. The way I read it the reason why Dr. Manhattan killed Rorschach at the end because his worldview was so inflexible that he refused to compromise even in the face of Armageddon. He essentially never changed and refused to change through the story. He stayed true to who he was right to the end, because he refused to change with a changing world.
|
|
|
Post by bigw1966 on Mar 24, 2011 10:13:41 GMT -5
And your view is also correct Cyber. No different from mine, I think I just worded it differently. He could not lie or keep silent about it, and in the end he still manages to get the word out...maybe. there are so many grey areas deftly presented in that story that it really allows you to think of the motivations and in a sense, transfer yourself into the shoes of the protagonist. THat is one of the things that I always felt elevated the book to another level.
|
|