|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 22, 2017 10:39:40 GMT -5
I'd argue that most of the art I've seen in 2001, Epic Magazine, Savage Sword of Conan, Creepy, etc., the old magazines in general, are still superior to most of the modern mainstream stuff. It wasn't until I saw Esad Ribic's work that I saw art on that level in a monthly book.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 22, 2017 8:48:34 GMT -5
I have little faith that Fox will get it right, but I've been saying for years that Doom needs his own movie to properly set up Latveria and his rather complex origin story. If they use the Lee/Kirby/Byrne stuff as a basis they'll be fine, as well as Triumph and Torment and what I've read of Books of Doom, but I fear they'll try to shoehorn in too much modern garbage...
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 21, 2017 7:15:53 GMT -5
I agree that this looks cheap and frankly bland without the Kirby designs. I would never expect them to attempt a literal translation, but there is nothing to the visuals of this show that scratches the surface of what made the Inhumans interesting to look at in the comics. I also have very little faith that a Marvel show outside of Netflix is going to be any good. I don't even watch network TV anymore, so that's also a factor.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 21, 2017 7:03:04 GMT -5
I agree that the overall quality of art at Marvel and DC is better now than ever, at least in terms of draftsmanship, but I also agree that storytelling has taken a backseat. I think a lot of modern superhero art has gotten much too "serious" and often lacks the personality and individuality of past greats like Kirby, John Buscema, Aparo, Byrne, etc. As I get older, I prefer art styles that have at least a bit of cartooniness to it. I like the nuance of balancing a style like that with action and drama. I think this is why I find Mike Allred and Chris Samnee to be much more interesting artists and storytellers than guys like Stuart Immonen or Francis Yu.
Another factor to consider is that the older artists were working under a different paradigm. They often had to crank out their work to meet demanding deadlines, often working on multiple books at once, and didn't have the luxury to "grow roses" so their art would look pretty in a trade collection. Just look at how much better Kirby's art got when he only had to focus on Thor and FF. Some of John Byrne's detailed commissions are as good or better than anything he's ever done in comics. I think many of the greats could more than hold their own if given more time and leeway to make their stuff look as good as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 20, 2017 12:52:54 GMT -5
How about introduce NEW diverse characters to stand along-side Black Panther, Storm and Luke Cage? You don't have to launch them out of the gate with a new series, but at least TRY to create something as new and as interesting as what Lee, Kirby, Claremont, Cockrum, among others, were able to do in days of yore. Who is going to create them? Why would anyone in their right mind create a character for Marvel/DC? I agree. Marvel and DC really need to come off the "work for hire" model and cut creators in on their creations. Then and only then would we see interesting new characters. That said, I look around the creator-owned world of comics and see very few characters that would break through, much less become iconic like Spider-Man or Batman. Granted, most independent minded creators aren't exactly thinking about creating characters that can be marketed as toy's and cereal.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 20, 2017 3:21:04 GMT -5
I think Marvel has more intrinsic problems that can't be solved by legacy numbering and retro cosmetic changes to character appearances. How about stop letting creators like Jason Aaron write a stoic character like Dr. Strange as a cross between MCU Tony Stark and 60's Spider-Man? If they can't get basic characterization down, what's the point?
How about introduce NEW diverse characters to stand along-side Black Panther, Storm and Luke Cage? You don't have to launch them out of the gate with a new series, but at least TRY to create something as new and as interesting as what Lee, Kirby, Claremont, Cockrum, among others, were able to do in days of yore.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 20, 2017 0:40:17 GMT -5
I'm still reading The Marvel Age of Comics (1961-1969) and I'm now about halfway through 1964.
I'm also reading some select Bronze Age DC that I've never read based around some favorite artists:
*Batman (1977-1986): I'm slowly working my way through late Bronze Age Batman to Crisis starting with Paul Levitz addition to the editorial staff. This includes Batman, Detective, Brave and the Bold, Batman Family, Batman and the Outsiders as well as a few DC Specials and Untold Tales of Batman (which I've read before but want to read again).
*Aquaman by Jim Aparo: Specifically his second run starting in late 1975 in Adventure Comics. I've read his late 60's run already. I just read the first David Michelinie issue (Adventure Comics #450) and I have to say that the quality of writing was much improved. I've liked everything Michelinie has ever written (particularly his Iron Man run) and feel he's still vastly underrated as a late Bronze Age/early Modern Age writer. Of course the draw here is Aparo's gorgeous art which I seem to appreciate more and more as the years go by. Some of his layouts in #450 were stunning.
* Superman by Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez: Including his Superman issues (just read #309) as well as his three issues of World's Finest and his DC Comics Presents issues. It's a shame that Lopez wasn't faster as an artists, because he draws the best and most iconic looking Superman for my tastes. When he does his own inks...wow. For pure talent and storytelling ability, he's easily in my Top 5. I just wish he did MORE during his career.
There are several more like George Perez's run on Justice League and the Wein/Gibbons run on Green Lantern, but I haven't gotten to those as of yet.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 19, 2017 0:38:38 GMT -5
I've learned that with comics review threads, if I'm not invested in the creators, it's very hard to maintain interest. For a time I got overly fixated on reading chronologies, which, less face it, forces you to wade through a lot of mediocrity when you could be reading Kirby, Buscema, Simonson, Byrne, Perez, etc, at their peaks. There are some series that hold up to chronological readings even with creative team changes (I'd argue that Amazing Spider-Man holds up at least until the mid-80's, ranging from Lee/Ditko to Stern/JRJR) but I'm finding it much more enjoyable to just focus on the "good stuff" which is how I used to read comics when I was first getting into collecting trades and iconic creator runs.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 19, 2017 0:28:59 GMT -5
I think the gist is that some people feel like they are the "true fans" when they come to an entertainment property in its original, purest form, as opposed to an adaptation. Ultimately I think as long as the characters and concepts still resonate with an audience it doesn't really matter, but in most cases I think we can all agree that "the book was better" holds true.
I will say that one of the few instances I can think of where I'd rather introduce a character to a potential new fan in its adapted form, is in the case of Batman and BTAS. I love Batman comics (particularly 1977-1990 or so) but BTAS, for me, is the best version of the character mainly because the creators wisely took all the best stuff pre and post Crisis, ignored modernity so it will never be dated, and had the advantage of being able to avoid all the mistakes that crept into the published version over the many years.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 18, 2017 8:48:55 GMT -5
I was born in 1977 and can remember reading comics as early as 1982, but I didn't start regularly following and collecting them until 1987. The thing is, I'm not sure what my very first introduction to Marvel was, but my hunch was that it wasn't a comic. If I had to place my bets, I'd say it was either the Incredible Hulk live action series or Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends.
If we're talking the proper Marvel Universe (the only REAL one exists in the comics) my first introduction in terms of being a comprehending reader was the Incredible Hulk comic during the crossroads saga in the mid-80's. These belonged to an older cousin and I moved on from there to collecting Hulk and Iron Man, getting my hands on all the Official Handbook issues that I could and around the same time reading The Dark Phoenix Saga and Iron Man: Demon in the Bottle, which were my first trade collections.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jul 16, 2017 7:25:07 GMT -5
This is a reintroduction. I was an original CCF member back when it formed after the mass exodus of CBR. Not to go into too much detail, but personal issues lead to the deleting, not just my membership to this board, but a few others, as I'd reached a point where I wasn't enjoying talking about comics as much as I used to and was using it as an excuse to escape my problems without dealing with them. Fast forward a few months and my life has changed; I've meet a great woman, we've moved in together and I'm happy for the first time in a very long time. Suffice to say, I wanted to come back and ease my way back into the community. I actually want to be a part of it this time after learning some hard lessons. Mainly, never start a review thread with a scope beyond your ability to commit to.
|
|