|
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2014 8:26:43 GMT -5
In an effort to understand the mindset of a curmudgeon, I am wondering the following...
1. What makes you a curmudgeon where comics are concerned?
2. If discretionary capital was not a factor, what would be your maximum spending cap on a back-issue?
3. If you subscribe to the theory that comic books should not be treated as commodities, then why are they sold in the first place?
Submissions from congenital ignoramuses will not be considered. (Thank you block function).
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 10, 2014 13:13:16 GMT -5
In an effort to understand the mindset of a curmudgeon, I am wondering the following... 1. What makes you a curmudgeon where comics are concerned? 2. If discretionary capital was not a factor, what would be your maximum spending cap on a back-issue? 3. If you subscribe to the theory that comic books should not be treated as commodities, then why are they sold in the first place? Submissions from congenital ignoramuses will not be considered. (Thank you block function). 1. Not liking Venom, Carnage, Warren Ellis, Grant Morrison, Psychotic Joker? I don't know. I just honestly feel that comics were better, overall, when they remembered that they were meant as a cheap form of entertainment aimed at youngsters. Not always better written, better drawn and certainly not better coloured, but they were purer, in a way. Just as ice hockey was when it was a popular entertainment, back when everyone could afford a ticket to see the Montreal Canadiens play. 2. Oh, tough one. I'd say 25 bucks, but that would be for something I'd really, really, want. 3. They are sold as entertainment, as a way of telling stories. Just as dolls (old G.I. Joes, say) are meant as toys, and kids are meant to play with them. Their primary function should not be to be kept intact in their original package and sold between toy aficionados. But then again, people are free to do what they want with their money; if they want to buy and sell comics that are unlikely to ever come out of their plastic sarcophagus, more power to them. I'm just a little upset that certain companies set themselves up by claiming some form of expertise and that their way of doing things became a de facto standard and a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, perhaps I should thank such companies: by rejuvenating a market for very high grade comics, they helped lower the price for the low-grade copies that are the ones I'm usually interested in. |
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on May 10, 2014 13:40:19 GMT -5
I just honestly feel that comics were better, overall, when they remembered that they were meant as a cheap form of entertainment aimed at accessible to youngsters. FTFY  certainly not better coloured I agree that life is better now that we don't get accidental offsets, where the reds are printed half an inch off from the greens. But apart from that I find old colour printing is often better: it adds to the story. It allows you to imagine texture and detail, whereas the modern graduated colours makes everything look plastic to me. Worse, if the colourist is not highly skilled then it makes the art look muddy, dark, and hard to decipher. Even the flat recolouring of old comics was better IMO, as in this example: This example shows both effects, bad and good: the colours are not registered together, leaving white patches below the eyes (bad!) but the original colouring is both more interesting and more realistic IMO. The colourists did this day in, day out, and knew their craft. Note the hair colour (or lack of it) by Bing Crosby's hat, or the more natural, subdued uniform colours. Note how the big picture seems busier, as if they have walked into a crowd of colourful celebrities - which adds to the story. Note also that the natural roughness of the printing is part of the picture: the walls and floor have a natural graininess, facial lines look more natural, the coat creases naturally fade into the dark colour, etc. I love the skill of the old colourists: it's a skill we have mostly lost IMO. There is a realism in these early stories that cannot be captured when reading poorly coloured reprints in shiny paper, decades after the events that made the stories meaningful.  Just my opinion. Sorry to interrupt. I agree with everything else. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 10, 2014 14:08:08 GMT -5
I just honestly feel that comics were better, overall, when they remembered that they were meant as a cheap form of entertainment aimed at accessible to youngsters. FTFY certainly not better coloured I agree that life is better now that we don't get accidental offsets, where the reds are printed half an inch off from the greens. But apart from that I find old colour printing is often better: it adds to the story. It allows you to imagine texture and detail, whereas the modern graduated colours makes everything look plastic to me. Worse, if the colourist is not highly skilled then it makes the art look muddy, dark, and hard to decipher. Even the flat recolouring of old comics was better IMO, as in this example: This example shows both effects, bad and good: the colours are not registered together, leaving white patches below the eyes (bad!) but the original colouring is both more interesting and more realistic IMO. The colourists did this day in, day out, and knew their craft. Note the hair colour (or lack of it) by Bing Crosby's hat, or the more natural, subdued uniform colours. Note how the big picture seems busier, as if they have walked into a crowd of colourful celebrities - which adds to the story. Note also that the natural roughness of the printing is part of the picture: the walls and floor have a natural graininess, facial lines look more natural, the coat creases naturally fade into the dark colour, etc. I love the skill of the old colourists: it's a skill we have mostly lost IMO. There is a realism in these early stories that cannot be captured when reading poorly coloured reprints in shiny paper, decades after the events that made the stories meaningful. Just my opinion. Sorry to interrupt. I agree with everything else. The originals here look much better, I agree; and I once defended the original colouring of many Conan tales over the new versions (filled with photoshop effects and gradients) that Dark Horse favours. But overall, I find that comics from the 70s and 80s had a lot of pinks and yellows. I much preferred the subtle and subdued palette that someone like Pamela Rambo used on Preacher, for example. Naturally, a lot depends on the individual colorist's skill! |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on May 10, 2014 14:55:57 GMT -5
In an effort to understand the mindset of a curmudgeon, I am wondering the following... 1. What makes you a curmudgeon where comics are concerned? 2. If discretionary capital was not a factor, what would be your maximum spending cap on a back-issue? 3. If you subscribe to the theory that comic books should not be treated as commodities, then why are they sold in the first place? Submissions from congenital ignoramuses will not be considered. (Thank you block function). I can only speak for myself and I'm sure I'm not typical 1-Curmudgeoness comes with age and experience.Seen it thousands of times before.Even if a modern version updates something,lets say,with more violence,profanity,sex,bigger panels-whatever,its just window dressing.Adding something new in superhero comics or being ingenious in the genre is very rare.I can't fault younger people for praising things that are derivited.They only know what they've seen in their shorter lifetimes.Here's an example.I get very impressed seeing some older movies and the stunt work done by experts or some great special effects like Moses parting the Red Sea in The Ten Commandments.Nowadays people ooh and ahh over some actors in front of a green screen and computer game program.It looks good but I know the previous was done demanding more talent 2-All my back issue buying occurred between 1976-1982.I was young,no expenses and making a ton of money.And determined to amass a huge comic collection.So,from what I remember,I spent $600 for a hi-grade Superboy #1 from 1949,maybe $1,000 for a sharp FF#1.I bought the entire Marvel Age collection and DCs from the mid 50s and up.Had a lot of golden age as well.If you had the money and obsession like I did,the maximum was whatever was a good deal vs the then current market price was 3-Comics as commododities? Well I sold my collection after almost 40 years.Might as well cash in while your young enough to enjoy it.My advice for those who want to invest in comics long term is to concentrate on early 70s and older books with recognizable characters.Don't skimp on condition.The varient covers currently are,to me,nothing more than manufactured collector's items and a bit of a pyramid scheme only good for immediate and very short term gain.I don't think more than a few percent of them will be in any demand 10 years from know and will be hard to sell quickly at any profit.I don't want to see you holding the bag at the end.Sell them quick |
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on May 11, 2014 2:08:37 GMT -5
Sorry for interrupting the thread. Don't know why I posted that now, I'm not usually that argumentative. I find that comics from the 70s and 80s had a lot of pinks and yellows. I never noticed that before. Now I'm going to start looking. Naturally, a lot depends on the individual colorist's skill! You're right. Better tools should make a difference. I'm a bit myopically focused on the FF, where the colouring seldom shines, so I miss the clarity of the olden days. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 11, 2014 5:54:40 GMT -5
3. If you subscribe to the theory that comic books should not be treated as commodities, then why are they sold in the first place? 3. They are sold as entertainment, as a way of telling stories. Just as dolls (old G.I. Joes, say) are meant as toys, and kids are meant to play with them. Their primary function should not be to be kept intact in their original package and sold between toy aficionados. But then again, people are free to do what they want with their money; if they want to buy and sell comics that are unlikely to ever come out of their plastic sarcophagus, more power to them. I'm just a little upset that certain companies set themselves up by claiming some form of expertise and that their way of doing things became a de facto standard and a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, perhaps I should thank such companies: by rejuvenating a market for very high grade comics, they helped lower the price for the low-grade copies that are the ones I'm usually interested in. I agree. I told my wife I want my entire comic collection burned when I pass away. It was only entertainment not plasma. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on May 11, 2014 7:30:16 GMT -5
In an effort to understand the mindset of a curmudgeon, I am wondering the following... 1. What makes you a curmudgeon where comics are concerned? 2. If discretionary capital was not a factor, what would be your maximum spending cap on a back-issue? 3. If you subscribe to the theory that comic books should not be treated as commodities, then why are they sold in the first place? Submissions from congenital ignoramuses will not be considered. (Thank you block function). 1. I think the most general way to define it, for me, would be the dividing line between the Stan Lee style of bombastic fun and the post-modernism (or is that post-post?) of most British writers starting with Alan Moore. I take a more refined view of this personally; I love Alan Moore, but think he should only write "serious" stuff like From Hell, LoEG, etc, while mainstream comics would be better if Chris Claremont, Roger Stern, Kurt Busiek (and many others that really want to be there and actually love the characters and conceits) were writing Avengers, Batman, Spider-Men, etc. I think the gist is that mainstream superhero comics are best when they retain most of their basic puerility, and by way of that, most of their inherent conceits while at the same time being subtly intelligent and clever. (I of course hate stupid/base superhero comics. I'm of course thinking of the GOOD stuff like the Lee/Kirby FF, Claremont/Byrne X-Men, Simonson Thor, and so on) 2. I no longer collect "floppies" (I hate that term...yet I use it?) and only read digital and collect TPB's now, so I'm not really fit to give you a decent answer, but I can say that the most I've ever spent on a single comic was around $20. I can't even remember what issue it was. As it stands now, I don't value original issues as collectors items and care only about having the stories and art represented in my collection. In fact, I much prefer a good reprint collection -- particularly when it's as exquisite as something like the Jack Kirby's Fourth World Omnibus'. 3. I don't think there is anything wrong with comics being commodities and collectors items; I get that that sort of thing can be as fun to some people as reading the stories. What I dislike is when the love of the stories and the characters is obviously much lower on the totem pole in contrast to the collector mentality. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 12, 2014 6:05:10 GMT -5
The originals here look much better, I agree; and I once defended the original colouring of many Conan tales over the new versions (filled with photoshop effects and gradients) that Dark Horse favours. But overall, I find that comics from the 70s and 80s had a lot of pinks and yellows. I much preferred the subtle and subdued palette that someone like Pamela Rambo used on Preacher, for example. Naturally, a lot depends on the individual colorist's skill! I pre-ordered the four TPBs containing Smith's run, and when I compared them with the originals I thought, "here's $64 I'm not getting back". I honestly don't know why they couldn't do something more resemblant to the 70's coloring. For example, an amateur attempt at restoration:  Original from ASM #239.  Original from Marvel Tale's reprint.  Some quick restoration. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 12, 2014 8:30:13 GMT -5
The recolouring of the Conan TBP (especially the one including issues 11, as I recall) was often downright ugly. Adding insult to injury, it was even replacing Smith's own colouring with some ill-advised "realistic" and a complete change of palette. I agree: whenever recolouring is mandated, the original work should serve as a colour guide whenever possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 12, 2014 8:34:04 GMT -5
The recolouring of the Conan TBP (especially the one including issues 11, as I recall) was often downright ugly. Adding insult to injury, it was even replacing Smith's own colouring with some ill-advised "realistic" and a complete change of palette. I agree: whenever recolouring is mandated, the original work should serve as a colour guide whenever possible. What I wanted to show with my own quick, amateurish attempt, is that the original can and should always be preserved. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 12, 2014 10:52:49 GMT -5
And if you can do it so well on the fly like that, I can't imagine that people who actually get paid for that stuff can't as well!
Another ill-advised case of recolouring, although the end result didn't look bad, was on Russ Manning's Tarzan comic-books reprinted by Dark Horse. The new colours look nice, the colourist did a good job... but the brightly-coloured dinosaurs of yore were turned a dull brown/gray, and the Waz-Don (all blue-black and shiny) were turned brown. Let's leave the original vision intact, please!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on May 12, 2014 11:06:20 GMT -5
You know, the only time I saw a re-coloring that made me doubt, was in Walter Simonson's Thor Omnibus. There may be other exceptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulie on May 12, 2014 11:32:49 GMT -5
Not having read through the thread completely, I think there are plenty of excellent comics out there today. You'll never get anywhere in this club with an attitude like that, young man! Cei-U! Say fifteen "grumblegripes" as penance! I bit the inside of my cheek doing this and now I have a blister.
Surely this was not your intent? 
|
|
|
|
Post by paulie on May 12, 2014 11:43:28 GMT -5
The recolouring of the Conan TBP (especially the one including issues 11, as I recall) was often downright ugly. Adding insult to injury, it was even replacing Smith's own colouring with some ill-advised "realistic" and a complete change of palette. I agree: whenever recolouring is mandated, the original work should serve as a colour guide whenever possible. I liked the coloring on the Dark Horse reprints for whatever reason.
What did you think of the colors on the Treasury reprints?
If I recall the colors on Marvel Super Special 9 looked a little weird but I can't recall if that was reprinting a previously colored comic or an issue of SSOC.
|
|
