|
Post by Chris on May 22, 2023 22:43:15 GMT -5
the way DC assigned inkers didn't help Curt Swan Oh, hell, you got that right! It's not that those inkers were bad artists, but they just did NOT mesh well with Swan's pencils.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 22, 2023 23:11:23 GMT -5
Post-Crisis Joker. Let's turn a cross between Salvador Dali, Tom Baker as Dr. Who, and Moriarty into Jeffrey Dahmer with a crow-bar. I think you owe Dali and Baker an apology, at least they had imagination. Post-Crisis Superman. Superman for people who didn't like Superman. That's the best description of it I've ever heard. Seriously, in the 90s, a majority of the people working on Superman had worked for Marvel through the 80's, several of them specifically from the Spider-Man books, and even using a similar format. I can't think of many things less like pre-crisis Superman than 80's Marvel. Venom. A villain motivated by a desire to eat Spider-Man's brain. Nuff said! More than enuff, by far.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on May 23, 2023 0:00:11 GMT -5
Post-Crisis Joker. Let's turn a cross between Salvador Dali, Tom Baker as Dr. Who, and Moriarty into Jeffrey Dahmer with a crow-bar. I think you owe Dali and Baker an apology, at least they had imagination. Post-Crisis Superman. Superman for people who didn't like Superman. That's the best description of it I've ever heard. Seriously, in the 90s, a majority of the people working on Superman had worked for Marvel through the 80's, several of them specifically from the Spider-Man books, and even using a similar format. I can't think of many things less like pre-crisis Superman than 80's Marvel. Venom. A villain motivated by a desire to eat Spider-Man's brain. Nuff said! More than enuff, by far. oh, I entirely meant my Dali and Tom Baker comment as a compliment - as Batman vs. The Incredible Hulk noted, The Joker's Dali-esque imagination should have no limits and like Tom Baker, the villain should always be looking for the most interesting way of doing anything. Post-Crisis this changed. I know there are people who enjoy both pre and post-Crisis Superman, of course, but it's clear that Byrne wasn't looking to go back to Superman's roots as I've heard he did with The Fantastic Four, but instead come up with something new, hence a Superman who was largely the opposite of what had come before. Although it's hardly scientific, based upon the number of times I've heard "I couldn't stand Superman before Byrne took over but then I loved him!" compared with the number of times I've heard "I loved him then and I loved him after" coupled with Byrne's reversal of so many of the tropes which made up Superman's core (the reversal of which identity was the mask and which the real face of Superman; the Kent's being alive; the jack of all trades Superman vs. "I'm just a farm boy from Kansas" guy; etc) suggests to me at least that if people liked both takes on the character it was in spite of what Byrne did and not because of it. tarkinto's James Cameron/Sci-Fi comment really makes sense to me though it never occurred to me that Venom was borne out of that indestructible, unstoppable Terminator like foe until he mentioned it. Now I can't unsee it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on May 23, 2023 0:58:10 GMT -5
oh, I entirely meant my Dali and Tom Baker comment as a compliment - as Batman vs. The Incredible Hulk noted, The Joker's Dali-esque imagination should have no limits and like Tom Baker, the villain should always be looking for the most interesting way of doing anything. Post-Crisis this changed. Sorry, I misread your original comment. It's late here, that's my story and I['m sticking to it. I know there are people who enjoy both pre and post-Crisis Superman, of course, but it's clear that Byrne wasn't looking to go back to Superman's roots as I've heard he did with The Fantastic Four, but instead come up with something new, hence a Superman who was largely the opposite of what had come before. Although it's hardly scientific, based upon the number of times I've heard "I couldn't stand Superman before Byrne took over but then I loved him!" compared with the number of times I've heard "I loved him then and I loved him after" coupled with Byrne's reversal of so many of the tropes which made up Superman's core (the reversal of which identity was the mask and which the real face of Superman; the Kent's being alive; the jack of all trades Superman vs. "I'm just a farm boy from Kansas" guy; etc) suggests to me at least that if people liked both takes on the character it was in spite of what Byrne did and not because of it. Scientific or not, I've seen and heard identical comments more times than I can count. Most people I've seen or talked to (or online comments) all seem to like one or the other, not both. Ok, story time. Back around early 1997, I was talking to the owner of a local comic shop. For some reason I don't recall, the subject of Byrne on Wonder Woman came up, which Byrne had been doing since 1995, so about 2 years at that point. I'm quoting all this from memory here, but this should be pretty close. The shop owner said something to the effect of, when William Messner-Loebs (Byrne's immediate predecessor) was writing WW, there was a certain level of sales. When Loebs left and Byrne took over, sales went up, but not long after, sales leveled off. But the thing was, by and large readers who liked Byrne's version had not been buying Loebs' version, and readers who liked Loebs' version were not buying Byrne's version. Now consider Shaxper's thread " Superman in the Post-crisis Era." If I recall right, Shaxper asserted that when Byrne took over Superman, sales went up (along with Marv Wolfman and Jerry Ordway. Wolfman was gone pretty soon, so his impact on subsequent sales is nil, and as good as an artist as Ordway is, I don't think he was a name draw the way Byrne and Wolfman were). However, per Shaxper, after a while sales started going down again. Sales were good, I believe, but not like they were for the first several months to a year. The takeaway here is that while Byrne's Superman sold books, and possibly as many or more books than were selling before 1986, this all suggests that Byrne fans did not like pre-crisis Superman, and readers who liked pre-Crisis Superman weren't big fans of Byrne. I even remember seeing some letters printed in Superman comics both before and after the revamp, specifically a few that heavily criticized the comics until Byrne took over, then began writing letters praising the comics. Regardless of whether one likes or dislikes Byrne's work, it appears that when he takes over a book that is not geared toward a hardcore, direct-market-shopping fan base, he doesn't increase the audience, he merely swaps one audience out for another. A sizeable audience, no doubt (the "faithful fifty thousand"), but not always a significantly bigger one. tarkinto's James Cameron/Sci-Fi comment really makes sense to me though it never occurred to me that Venom was borne out of that indestructible, unstoppable Terminator like foe until he mentioned it. Now I can't unsee it. I've barely read any stories with Venom, I bought Amazing Spider-Man #300 when it came out, which I think was Venom's first proper appearance but can't really say for sure. I also saw Venom in the 90s All-Access series, the issue with Superman and Spider-Man. I'd say it supports tarkantino's "Terminator" observation. But I would also say it supports your comments on Superman - I'm sorry, but no matter how "back to basics," 1938 levels of power Superman is, he should have had ZERO trouble wiping the floor with Venom. Not to mention catching a falling piece of construction equipment without difficulty.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2023 5:11:32 GMT -5
To answer your question, Chris, yes, I’m referring to Clark referring to his American upbringing and Midwestern heritage, I could have worded that better.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2023 5:19:16 GMT -5
The pre-Crisis and post-Crisis Superman debate isn’t a binary choice for me, necessarily.
I mean, the first dozen or so issues of post-Crisis Superman are very entertaining, whether it be Metallo, Luthor looking for a connection between Superman and Clark, the Mummy storyline, Bloodsport, Silver Banshee, etc. I’d prefer to read them again over, say, a dozen or so 1979 Action Comics stories, as one example.
But 1990-91 Superman, which is post-Byrne, of course, cannot hold a candle to the likes of DC Comics Presents. If a guy offered me free copies of the first ten issues of DC Comics Presents, or free copies of ten Superman comics from 1990-93, I’d choose DC Comics Presents. So pre-Crisis and post-Crisis Superman are both enjoyable to me, it’s all in which particular issues were available or offered to me.
Also, none of us can have read every Superman comic ever. I love the Perry White/Jerry White stuff post-Crisis, very character-driven. But for all I know, there may be a pre-Crisis Perry White story which is very character-driven, but perhaps I just haven’t come across it yet.
I think any era has its good and bad stuff. I say this about wrestling. Some fans might cherry-pick the best stuff from the Rock ‘n’ Wrestling Era while ignoring stuff that was poor. Others may say that the WWF’s Attitude Era is the best ever while ignoring 80s stuff that could be said to be superior. So there are definitely pre-Crisis Superman stories I’d read over Byrne’s stuff, and there are Byrne stories which I would choose over any number of pre-Crisis tales.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on May 23, 2023 8:14:22 GMT -5
I found the pre-Crisis Superman too boring to read. I liked what Byrne did with him. And then the Carlin edited triangle books where the best period of Superman for me. I loved what Jurgens did with him and I liked all the artist on those books. If you liked the books, that's great, glad you enjoyed them, but it doesn't tell me anything about why you found the post-crisis version of Superman interesting, or the pre-crisis version so boring. Very true, just don't know if I have the energy to write more about it.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 23, 2023 10:57:05 GMT -5
oh, I entirely meant my Dali and Tom Baker comment as a compliment - as Batman vs. The Incredible Hulk noted, The Joker's Dali-esque imagination should have no limits and like Tom Baker, the villain should always be looking for the most interesting way of doing anything. Post-Crisis this changed. Sorry, I misread your original comment. It's late here, that's my story and I['m sticking to it. I know there are people who enjoy both pre and post-Crisis Superman, of course, but it's clear that Byrne wasn't looking to go back to Superman's roots as I've heard he did with The Fantastic Four, but instead come up with something new, hence a Superman who was largely the opposite of what had come before. Although it's hardly scientific, based upon the number of times I've heard "I couldn't stand Superman before Byrne took over but then I loved him!" compared with the number of times I've heard "I loved him then and I loved him after" coupled with Byrne's reversal of so many of the tropes which made up Superman's core (the reversal of which identity was the mask and which the real face of Superman; the Kent's being alive; the jack of all trades Superman vs. "I'm just a farm boy from Kansas" guy; etc) suggests to me at least that if people liked both takes on the character it was in spite of what Byrne did and not because of it. Scientific or not, I've seen and heard identical comments more times than I can count. Most people I've seen or talked to (or online comments) all seem to like one or the other, not both. Ok, story time. Back around early 1997, I was talking to the owner of a local comic shop. For some reason I don't recall, the subject of Byrne on Wonder Woman came up, which Byrne had been doing since 1995, so about 2 years at that point. I'm quoting all this from memory here, but this should be pretty close. The shop owner said something to the effect of, when William Messner-Loebs (Byrne's immediate predecessor) was writing WW, there was a certain level of sales. When Loebs left and Byrne took over, sales went up, but not long after, sales leveled off. But the thing was, by and large readers who liked Byrne's version had not been buying Loebs' version, and readers who liked Loebs' version were not buying Byrne's version. Now consider Shaxper's thread " Superman in the Post-crisis Era." If I recall right, Shaxper asserted that when Byrne took over Superman, sales went up (along with Marv Wolfman and Jerry Ordway. Wolfman was gone pretty soon, so his impact on subsequent sales is nil, and as good as an artist as Ordway is, I don't think he was a name draw the way Byrne and Wolfman were). However, per Shaxper, after a while sales started going down again. Sales were good, I believe, but not like they were for the first several months to a year. The takeaway here is that while Byrne's Superman sold books, and possibly as many or more books than were selling before 1986, this all suggests that Byrne fans did not like pre-crisis Superman, and readers who liked pre-Crisis Superman weren't big fans of Byrne. I even remember seeing some letters printed in Superman comics both before and after the revamp, specifically a few that heavily criticized the comics until Byrne took over, then began writing letters praising the comics. Regardless of whether one likes or dislikes Byrne's work, it appears that when he takes over a book that is not geared toward a hardcore, direct-market-shopping fan base, he doesn't increase the audience, he merely swaps one audience out for another. A sizeable audience, no doubt (the "faithful fifty thousand"), but not always a significantly bigger one. tarkinto's James Cameron/Sci-Fi comment really makes sense to me though it never occurred to me that Venom was borne out of that indestructible, unstoppable Terminator like foe until he mentioned it. Now I can't unsee it. I've barely read any stories with Venom, I bought Amazing Spider-Man #300 when it came out, which I think was Venom's first proper appearance but can't really say for sure. I also saw Venom in the 90s All-Access series, the issue with Superman and Spider-Man. I'd say it supports tarkantino's "Terminator" observation. But I would also say it supports your comments on Superman - I'm sorry, but no matter how "back to basics," 1938 levels of power Superman is, he should have had ZERO trouble wiping the floor with Venom. Not to mention catching a falling piece of construction equipment without difficulty. I don't think it is as cut and dry that it was Byrne fans who came to the book. It was something new, which will draw, at the beginning. It was change in a character that hadn't seen change in over a decade (and that change was rolled back, in the 70s). It was the first new major artist in years, as Curt Swan had been doing the bulk of Superman's adventures, for a couple of decades. All of that is a major factor in the early attention on the book. Plain old curiosity to see what they would do. Byrne's popularity, at that time, definitely adds another level to it; but not necessarily the majority of it. It is a common phenomena for a new team on a book, or a new direction to have big sales, at the start, then plateau and even drop. Some of that is just the market shaking out, from the initially curios to regular readers who want to see where the book is going. There is often a drop-off after big storylines are finished, as people who are not invested in the book use markers like that as jumping off points. I do think a lot of the first year you can put down to a name artist, Byrne, doing the book, coupled with the new approach to things and curiosity to see where it was going. Then, I think you start getting the verdict, between the camps who like what is being done and those who don't. At the time, I was happy to see what was happening, but I lamented certain changes. However, the main Superman title was the only one I was getting monthly. Action depended on the guest star and Adv of Superman I didn't pick up, at the start. The crossover during Legends, with all of the books carrying the story about Superman on Apokolips, got me reading Adventures more. Still, after the initial changes, I was kind of cooling off to things. Once we start getting into the numbered chapters of storylines, which led to the Triangle Era, I start getting more interested in the entire line.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on May 25, 2023 8:54:24 GMT -5
My Mount Rushmore...
Joker Harley Quinn Lobo Female Thing from post-Secret Wars
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on May 25, 2023 16:32:56 GMT -5
Superman Green Lantern Aquaman Hulk For some that might be a Mt. Rushmore of excellence but for me, it is littered with characters who have never ever appealed to me. And for those seeking to suggest I am anti-green....Spectre and The Scorpion are two of my favourite characters every within all of comics, for different reasons. Interesting... I only liked Aquaman on Superfriends... otherwise, I have no use for him. As a kid, I loved TV Hulk, but comics Hulk was Meh.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 25, 2023 20:35:49 GMT -5
I thought Aquaman was fine, in the hands of Steve Skeates and Jim Aparo. He works better in his own environment, taking care of his kingdom.
No problem with BTAS Harley Quinn. Anything else is a pale imitation.
Lobo was fine, at the start, before he was in everything and had 12 mini-series, with the same plot. You have to know when you have a lead character and when you have a supporting character/occasional guest star.
Joker was fine, too, when he'd pop up occasionally, unleash a bit of insanity and then was gone. Over use and turning him into Hannibal Lector made him a mess.
I have no use for 90% of the "national heroes" that have been created, over time. Alpha Flight is an exception, as more thought was given to them than a stereotypical name and a costume based on their flag. Same with Captain Canuck. Global Guardians? Fie and Ice were the only ones ever developed, when they were pulled out of there, renamed, given better costumes and a personality. Marvel's various 4th stringers? Most never got past "national stereotype" and a bunch were only created for Contest of Champions or were used once and thrown into that. A few of them appeared in the Hulk, when he was globetrotting; but, little thought went beyond the name and the costume. Arabian Knight-Arab guy with a sword and a flying carpet. How receptive do you think most Arab peoples would be to that? Shamrock-she is lucky. That's it, just "luck o' the Irish." Surprised they didn't make her an alcoholic. Soviet Super Soldiers? Vanguard and Darkstar got a little development, since they had been around longer; but, that group fared better than most. Sabra?-nice idea for a name; but, not much else. Peregrine?-looks like a member of the Science Ninja team; but, he's no Gatchaman. I don't recall peregrine falcons being much of a symbol of France.
Now, John Ostrander did it right, in Suicide Squad, with various national agents and/or terrorist he created (with Kim Yale). The Jihad pulled in a bunch of influences and various people, much like the terror networks of the 1970s (Red Army Faction, PFLP, PLO, Baader-Menhoff, Japanese red Army, etc). The Red Shadows-started out using people from The People's Heroes and The Blue Trinity (from The Flash); but, replaced them with more interesting characters, like Stalnoivolk, Mrs Gradenko, Lamia, etc. The MOSSAD had their own team, The Hayoth: Judith, Ramban, Golem, Dybbuk. Their names were taken from Jewish history and lore, with Judith named after the assassin who murders an Assyrian general, in the Book of Judith. Golem from the legends of the Golem of Prague and the Golem of Chelm, Ramban is named for a kabbalistic magician, Nahmanides, whose name is an acronym for Rabbi Moshe ben Nahman. The Dybbuk was an artificial intelligence, named after a demonic possessive spirit.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 25, 2023 20:44:40 GMT -5
ps I still say Guardian/Vindicator should have been called major Mapleleaf, if for no other reason than to outrank all of the captains. Mark Gruenwald did some nonsense like this, too, in Captain America, introducing a Hauptman Deutschland (Captain Germany), with the colors of the German flag. Not exactly as intimidating as their previous national "hero." Granted, that was Master Man and you wouldn't want to go there. Could have chosen something from Teutonic mythology, like Siegfried (of course, everyone would ask where Roy was), or Parsifal, or the Teutonic Knights or Der Rosenkavalier. Something with a little flair and no connection to the Nazis.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 26, 2023 11:05:55 GMT -5
I'd agree with cody's comparison of Joker to Hannibal Lecter ruining the character. Harley getting turned into some amalgam of a emo hussy/sex symbol from her very "quaint" origins is nothing short of sin. Lobo is just DC's attempt at Wolverine as far as what I have read of him. He was quite popular in the 90's and I have a few of his mini series only one 3 or 4 issues story line in his ongoing that I remember liking. I think I have a few random FF issues with She-Thing. Not enough to actually form an opinion one way or another of the character.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 26, 2023 20:09:42 GMT -5
I'd agree with cody's comparison of Joker to Hannibal Lecter ruining the character. Harley getting turned into some amalgam of a emo hussy/sex symbol from her very "quaint" origins is nothing short of sin. Lobo is just DC's attempt at Wolverine as far as what I have read of him. He was quite popular in the 90's and I have a few of his mini series only one 3 or 4 issues story line in his ongoing that I remember liking. I think I have a few random FF issues with She-Thing. Not enough to actually form an opinion one way or another of the character. Lobo didn't start out that way, in Omega Men and was just a biker stereotype, in JLI; but, then the mini did well, in large part due to Simon Bisley's art (my opinion; but, suddenly everyone wanted him to produce work for them) and DC went nuts. Rather like SNL, where if a character or catch phrase gets a response, you will have it shoved down your throat for the next three years, on every show.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2023 7:56:23 GMT -5
No problem with BTAS Harley Quinn. Anything else is a pale imitation. Absolutely!
|
|