|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jun 5, 2020 11:18:56 GMT -5
I’ve purchased all of the recent DC digital series: Batman, Batman Adventures, Superman and Wonder Woman. This is exactly what I’ve been looking for from the big two—fun one and done stories featuring iconic characters devoid of event interruptions. The 99 cent price is also perfect and exactly what I and many creators have been preaching about digital/print pricing. I’ll keep supporting as long as DC keeps publishing them. Those were the lead stories and original content in the DC Giants aimed at a mass audience. Not surprisingly, those Giants have done horribly in the direct market even though they sold well at Walmart. The contract with Walmart may be coming to an end, so no word whether they will continue these as digital only publications without having to honor the Walmart contract for content. Not sure if they sell enough as digital only to make it profitable or profitable enough when the margins are calculated. However it goes, they will stand as a testament of just how niche and inaccessible direct market super-hero comics have become to mass audiences when you contrast these stories with the standard fare Marvel and DC churn out on a monthly basis, and it becomes easier to understand why direct market comics are not connecting with mass audiences who love and purchase super-heroes in just about every other media format than monthly periodical comics. -M I wasn’t aware that these stories were originally from the DC giants. They’re an interesting look at what modern mainstream comics could be if the event/write for the trade paradigm didn’t exist. So far I think the Superman series is my favorite. To me it’s like the character has been emancipated from the last two decades of continuity—all the fat has been trimmed. I particularly like the focus on Lois and Clark as investigative journalist. At least DC is trying.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jun 4, 2020 18:44:43 GMT -5
I’ve purchased all of the recent DC digital series: Batman, Batman Adventures, Superman and Wonder Woman. This is exactly what I’ve been looking for from the big two—fun one and done stories featuring iconic characters devoid of event interruptions. The 99 cent price is also perfect and exactly what I and many creators have been preaching about digital/print pricing. I’ll keep supporting as long as DC keeps publishing them.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on May 17, 2020 20:51:03 GMT -5
I'm a Neal Adams fan. He's best work from the 70's I will always adore. That said, I've never been able to figure out his inability to draw the Thing's head. It's mystifying given that he's so technically skilled. This is not an age thing, since he clearly couldn't draw Ben's head back in the early 70's. I imagine if he had been anyone else, editors would have had it redrawn by Romita Sr. or John Buscema.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Apr 8, 2020 15:04:42 GMT -5
The fear of digital only makes sense to me if someone was building a digital library of things they really care about: classic runs, complete runs by favorite creators, etc. I don't think many people are doing that and instead work at either collecting the back issues or putting together nice trade or hardcover collections. I can only speak for myself, but I don't really care if I have access to a modern DC/Marvel book in ten years that I would have only read once anyway. That said, I want the physical collections of classics like Hal Foster's Prince Valiant, Bark's Duck comics and Jack Kirby's classic runs.
It's absurd to me that Marvel and DC still hold fast to the DRM model when Image doesn't. Digital readers aren't the same species as speculators and collectors and I've always been highly dubious that Marvel and DC allowing downloads of their comics would have much effect at all on retailers. It already irritates me that the direct market has been shielded from having to fairly compete with digital in terms of price point, but not releasing new comics digitally just because stores can't get physical books has taken my irritation one step further.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 26, 2020 19:35:33 GMT -5
I'm probably wrong, but I can't recall Deadman ever changing his look. Then again, would his "costume" even count, technically, since he's a ghost?
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 25, 2020 20:14:10 GMT -5
It's my impression that the current approach to continuity is "Let's try not to ignore it too much blatantly. If too many inconsistencies pile up, we will reset everything with another crisis!". Even Marvel did something similar with the recent "Secret Wars". Maybe that's the best you can expect from the Big Two. We may all have reset fatigue by this point, but it at least makes maintaining continuity somewhat feasible. I've argued several times that I think, the next time we get a company-wide reset, it should be followed by two separate imprints: one is carefully adhering to continuity and overseen by editors who actually have power to delay a book and have the writer redo it if there is any inconsistency. The other is fun legacy-oriented tales that go for more iconic depictions and make no effort to adhere to any continuity whatsoever. You want classic, unchanged Batman in an easy to follow done-in-one storyline? You got it. You want a complex ongoing narrative with a character that the creators and editors are empowered to change and evolve? You got it. I think that's the way to please everyone and do justice to the characters and franchises at the same time. Couldn't agree more. You would think that this would be fairly easy to institute given that what you suggest mirrors what I've seen among the creator community--some want to do classic Batman tales while others (like Tom King) want to experiment a bit. We kinda had this during the era of Batman Adventures being published along with the then in continuity Batman titles, but for whatever reason it ended. I'm assuming sales. I can only speak for myself, but the BTAS universe appeals to me far more than the modern continuity (and dare I say much of the Pre and just Post-Crisis continuity for the most part). I'm at a point now that I think certain characters and character mythos are best served when they're allowed to synthesize all their best aspects regardless of the time period they're being created in. Batman, to me, just looks cooler and works better in a "neverwhere" early 1940's setting that incorporates modern tech and other sensibilities as it sees fit.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 24, 2020 19:14:40 GMT -5
it can't be denied that a whole generation of scientists became interested in science, in part, because their imaginations were sparked by 60's Marvel comics. Um... I am going to deny that I think. I've read or heard people cite Star Trek countless times, Dan Dare, Tom Swift... but I don't think I've ever heard '60s Marvel comics cited as an inspiration for an astronaut even. I'm not saying there are absolutely no such claims made by actual scientists or science writers or general spacefolk... but I can't recall running across any. The biggest gaffe is that Iron Man was "transistor powered" I think well into the '70s. Marvel was kind of the monster heroes company whereas the DC's scientist heroes were named things like Ray Palmer, an editor of a science-fiction magazine! Editor Julius Schwartz was an agent for various sf authors and DC had people like Edmond Hamilton, Virgil Finlay and Gardner Fox getting assignments. I haven't really read of people citing DC comics as inspirational that way either but I might believe it more if there was a claim Tommy Tomorrow or Adam Strange, or some device made by Batman in his cave, sparked some kind of interest. In all of comics the only certain example I can think of, and I actually had this comic, was a Donald Duck/Scrooge short circa 1949-50 (Walt Disney's Comics & Stories) where they raised a sunken ship by loading it with ping-pong balls. That story actually did inspire someone who later used the principle to raise an actual entire sunken wreck. About as scientific as The Fantastic Four got was the psuedo-sciencey anti-matter concept to have the negative zone, and I'm 99% sure this was a Jack Kirby contribution. Old hat in pulp sf like alternate realities and timelines, but something newish for superhero comics (and still around last I'd looked). What I was trying to say was that those early Marvel comics were one of many pop culture influences that some readers who eventually went into tech/science fields were influenced by. I have no doubt that the works of SF authors like Issac Asimov and Arthur C. Clark were more direct influences, since both not only wrote great science fiction, but were actual scientists.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 23, 2020 21:41:22 GMT -5
I find Stan's terrible grasp of science to be hilarious. I get that he was trying to make Kirby's contraptions and Reed Richards procedures sound impressive, so you can't fault him from trying. He probably should have tried to get some of the basics down, but it can't be denied that a whole generation of scientists became interested in science, in part, because their imaginations were sparked by 60's Marvel comics. It's interesting that most of the early Marvel heroes were men of science: Bruce Banner, Peter Parker, Reed Richards, Hank Pym, Tony Stark, etc. Regardless of the technical accuracy, I've always thought that worldview was impressive and "progressive" in the positive sense of the word.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 21, 2020 23:15:47 GMT -5
I'll second the positive opinions regarding The Mandalorian. I fully sympathize with those that have become apathetic to Star Wars since, well, the lackluster prequels...but The Mandalorian has kept the ever dimming flame of Star Wars love flickering in my aging heart. I also liked Rogue One but dislike the new trilogy. Honestly, after the cynical pandering of The Force Awakens, I haven't been able to bring myself to watch The Last Jedi or Rise of Skywalker. It's still hard for me to grapple with the existence of The Force Awakens. It's not that I loath it its more that I was dumbfounded by its mediocrity. It's a blatant retelling of A New Hope and the utter lameness of Kylo Ren as a main villain still amuses and irritates me. You're basically in direct relations to and competition with Darth Vader (arguably the greatest screen villain) and that's the best you can come up with?
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Feb 1, 2020 13:55:42 GMT -5
I voted for Sal Buscema. He was never the draftsman that his brother was, nor did ever rise to the heights of later Marvel artistic greats like Starlin, Simonson, Perez and Byrne, but there was always something intrinsic in his art that appealed to me. I think his classic Hulk run is a great example of this. Many artists came along later and made the Hulk bigger, "cooler", but nobody ever portrayed the Hulk with such emotional clarity and nuance. The Marvel Universe just always seemed to be in good hands when Sal was the penciler...even on some of his obvious rush jobs. I even love his very sparse artwork on the original Marvel Super Heroes RPG!
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 21, 2020 20:14:34 GMT -5
I voted for the 60's but it was a tough choice choosing that decade over the 70's.
I started officially collecting comics in 1987 but I never felt that the era I was reading was the best, or even my favorite, unlike most. The reason was that around that same time I read X-Men: The Dark Phoenix Saga and Iron Man: Demon in a Bottle and that era crystallized for me what mainstream superhero comics could achieve at their peak. Over the subsequent years, I think that era (up to say around 1984) arguably saw the superhero genre (non-deconstructed, non-pretentious and mostly free from superficial nostalgia) reach its zenith (Shooter's pre-Secret Wars Marvel, Teen Titans, etc.). I loved Peter David's Hulk, but I always had this slight irritation that I wasn't reading the tales of the classic "Hulk Smash!" Hulk that became so iconic in the 70's. I was thrilling to the then Silver Centurion Iron Man of Armor Wars, but felt that I missed out on directly reading the more iconic era featured in Demon in a Bottle. X-Men was "cool" to my limited pre-teen tastes*, but the then current stories paled in comparison to Claremont/Byrne at their creative peaks.
This all changed after I read the Lee/Kirby FF, Lee/Kirby Thor, Lee/Ditko Doctor Strange and the Lee/Ditko/Romita Spider-Man runs, in full, years later thanks to Marvel Masterworks and the short lived Marvel DVD ROMS. Beyond the fact that these were creative milestones and the dawn of the Marvel Age, they stood up as runs that were arguably never equaled or surpassed.
*I can laugh at it now, but it's still hard to grasp how someone who later fell in love with The Beatles, James Brown, Brian Eno, Talking Heads, Roxy Music, Led Zeppelin, Prince etc. could have been so obsessed, albeit briefly, with Vanilla Ice and Rob Liefeld's X-Force. I don't think some of you older ladies and gents fully appreciate how Nirvana saved my generations soul circa 1991...
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 18, 2020 18:12:27 GMT -5
At the wise old age of 42 I've come to the realization that it's futile to bemoan the creative directions taken by multi-billion dollar corporations who just happen to own and control the fate of once beloved properties like Conan. The only REAL Conan tales are the ones written by Robert E. Howard (NOT the pastiches) and anything other than that, that happens to come close to that level of quality, is simply icing on the cake. I expect most modern Conan stories to miss the original creators nuances and philosophical interests and consequently be mediocre Conan stories. Outside of the Howard tales (of which not all are classics) I've liked Roy Thomas' Conan stories and not much else. I like the first Arnold Conan film as a rough adaptation, but it was far from ideal. Modern Marvel is clearly convinced that Conan will only succeed in today's market if he's closely tied to the mainstream Marvel Universe given the extremely limited tastes of their core readership. I disagree with this and think Marvel simply has never put much effort or had much interest in fostering a comics lines outside of their superhero fair (DC has done a much better job over the years) but that is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 28, 2019 20:37:17 GMT -5
I think it comes down to the specialist rule: the Flash gets to be the fastest and the Hulk gets to be the strongest since they are all about speed and strength. Superman, Thor and the Silver Surfer can do virtually everything, and are overall more powerful primarily because of their versatility and scope.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 28, 2019 20:32:54 GMT -5
IMO Thor should be able to beat Hulk. Hulk may be stronger but Thor has more powers at his disposal. I don’t think that’s ever been up for debate, but I do agree. Thor fully utilizing Mjolnir should beat the Hulk every time, but the Hulk is physically stronger and tougher than Thor.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Oct 24, 2019 17:38:35 GMT -5
What's always baffled me about the dominance of superhero comics, particularly from the 60's till today, is the fact that fantasy and sci-fi never took off outside of a few select series and runs. It's much easier to understand why westerns, horror and crime lost popularity among enthusiasts of escapism.
It seems like a no-brainer that epic fantasy, sword and sorcery and space opera would appeal to superhero fans. There has always been a lot of crossover between readers of superhero comics, fantasy/sci-fi novels and RPG's. Not to mention that fantasy and space opera are deeply baked into many superhero series (FF, Thor, X-Men, Wonder Woman, Legion of Super-Heroes, Superman, etc.). For Marvel, their only two successful and long-running non-superhero series during this period was Conan and Star Wars, both tied to a popular licensed property.
|
|