|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 3, 2016 2:14:03 GMT -5
How do you dislike Gaiman? Actually it's probably because I had the misfortune to read some of his work-for-hire stuff before Sandman - first the 1612 (?) thing he did for Marvel, which I thought surprisingly weak for a writer of his reputation and didn't pursue beyond the first couple issues; and later - and much more seriously for me - his Eternals miniseries, which I thought was deplorably contemptuous of the source material, Kirby's original series. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Mar 3, 2016 2:42:01 GMT -5
How do you dislike Gaiman? Actually it's probably because I had the misfortune to read some of his work-for-hire stuff before Sandman - first the 1612 (?) thing he did for Marvel, which I thought surprisingly weak for a writer of his reputation and didn't pursue beyond the first couple issues; and later - and much more seriously for me - his Eternals miniseries, which I thought was deplorably contemptuous of the source material, Kirby's original series. Yeah, those are the absolute worst places to start. I think he's always a talented writer, but I think he misses storywise more than he hits. Those are both misses. Sandman is his best work. If you want to give him a chance without diving into a whole 75 issues, I would try Books of Magic, Stardust, or Signal to Noise. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Mar 3, 2016 2:43:36 GMT -5
How do you dislike Gaiman? Actually it's probably because I had the misfortune to read some of his work-for-hire stuff before Sandman - first the 1612 (?) thing he did for Marvel, which I thought surprisingly weak for a writer of his reputation and didn't pursue beyond the first couple issues; and later - and much more seriously for me - his Eternals miniseries, which I thought was deplorably contemptuous of the source material, Kirby's original series. Also, haven't you hated literally everybody's take on Eternals since Kirby? Hardly seems to fair to judge Gaiman by it if he couldn't win. |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Mar 3, 2016 3:57:03 GMT -5
His short stories are little bits of Heaven.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 3, 2016 4:51:17 GMT -5
Actually it's probably because I had the misfortune to read some of his work-for-hire stuff before Sandman - first the 1612 (?) thing he did for Marvel, which I thought surprisingly weak for a writer of his reputation and didn't pursue beyond the first couple issues; and later - and much more seriously for me - his Eternals miniseries, which I thought was deplorably contemptuous of the source material, Kirby's original series. Also, haven't you hated literally everybody's take on Eternals since Kirby? Hardly seems to fair to judge Gaiman by it if he couldn't win. yes, but for specific reasons. I don't feel it's an unthinking, automatic reaction. Gaiman could have won, in my eyes, by writing his own vision (not a typo for version) of the Eternals, if he had one. Or, more realistically since Marvel wouldn't be likely to give him that freedom, by refusing the assignment. Easy for me to say, I recognise: he's a working writer and needs to make money, as we all do. Maybe he couldn't afford to turn it dwn at the time, for whatever reason. But his willingness to write what his employers asked of him in this instance has soured his work in general for me, unfair as that may be. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Mar 3, 2016 8:33:25 GMT -5
How do you dislike Gaiman? Actually it's probably because I had the misfortune to read some of his work-for-hire stuff before Sandman - first the 1612 (?) thing he did for Marvel, which I thought surprisingly weak for a writer of his reputation and didn't pursue beyond the first couple issues; and later - and much more seriously for me - his Eternals miniseries, which I thought was deplorably contemptuous of the source material, Kirby's original series. Eternals really got lost in production, its a dreadfull read, probably his worst comic book work ever. But 1602, when you get past the cheesyness of the concept, it's actually pretty good, a clever elseworld of the whole marvel universe with a few things to say. I think though that for Berk's sake, it's time to run a "best of Gaiman comics poll", right?  |
|
|
|
Post by Calamas on Mar 3, 2016 9:14:23 GMT -5
Actually it's probably because I had the misfortune to read some of his work-for-hire stuff before Sandman - first the 1612 (?) thing he did for Marvel, which I thought surprisingly weak for a writer of his reputation and didn't pursue beyond the first couple issues; and later - and much more seriously for me - his Eternals miniseries, which I thought was deplorably contemptuous of the source material, Kirby's original series. Eternals really got lost in production, its a dreadfull read, probably his worst comic book work ever. But 1602, when you get past the cheesyness of the concept, it's actually pretty good, a clever elseworld of the whole marvel universe with a few things to say. I think though that for Berk's sake, it's time to run a "best of Gaiman comics poll", right? I think we’re mostly in agreement here. I found his Eternals extremely dull and, in disappointment, I never finished it. 1602 ranged from okay to good, getting better as it went along. I actually felt Peter David did a better job with the sequel, 1602: Fantastick Four. I loved Sandman as it came out, always on the top of the pile that week. There was only one issue I didn’t like but after so many years I couldn’t tell you which. For a title that was so experimental, I call that a success. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 10:26:06 GMT -5
Most of his Marvel projects were geared towards raising money for the legal battle against Todd McFarlane. Marvel gave him lots of money to use in the fight to get Miracle Man free from McFarlane's specious claims, and asked him to do stuff that would be high profile, but didn't really fit in this usual wheelhouse for storytelling. They wanted the pub and the F-U to big head Todd, so I think those were more spectacle and PR efforts than any real attempt to do great comics, and I often gloss over them when considering the oeuvre of Gaiman's works. I don't think Neil had stories to tell that he went to Marvel with, I think they decided to do something to fund the legal efforts and then Neil looked over the Marvel catalog and said maybe I can do something with x and y, where most of his better works are much more organic in their genesis and execution.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Mar 3, 2016 11:35:00 GMT -5
Most of his Marvel projects were geared towards raising money for the legal battle against Todd McFarlane. Marvel gave him lots of money to use in the fight to get Miracle Man free from McFarlane's specious claims, and asked him to do stuff that would be high profile, but didn't really fit in this usual wheelhouse for storytelling. They wanted the pub and the F-U to big head Todd, so I think those were more spectacle and PR efforts than any real attempt to do great comics, and I often gloss over them when considering the oeuvre of Gaiman's works. I don't think Neil had stories to tell that he went to Marvel with, I think they decided to do something to fund the legal efforts and then Neil looked over the Marvel catalog and said maybe I can do something with x and y, where most of his better works are much more organic in their genesis and execution. -M If the profits of 1602 indeed went to fund the legal case against McFarlane, I'm not sure this was the original intention behind the project, I've never found any statement confirming or infirming it. What I know is that the work is vastly different from Eternals, as it still is a well crafted story with a begining, a middle and an end. It was concieved in reaction to 9/11, Gaiman wanting to avoid using heroes as toold of might and power, it is a post-modern work of entertainment that still manages to merge the myths of the founding fathers with the modern role marvel heroes have taken upon in modern mythology, maybe even anticipating the current trend. bearing little ressemblance with Gaiman's traditional Sandman' techniques, it still reads at times as clever Gaiman with nice little vocabulary tricks and plot twists. I went into it suspicious and was pleasently surprised with this as it's basicaly a quite ambitious Elseworld/What If? in all its "meta" glory. But it's also nothing more than this. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2016 17:06:25 GMT -5
Most of his Marvel projects were geared towards raising money for the legal battle against Todd McFarlane. Marvel gave him lots of money to use in the fight to get Miracle Man free from McFarlane's specious claims, and asked him to do stuff that would be high profile, but didn't really fit in this usual wheelhouse for storytelling. They wanted the pub and the F-U to big head Todd, so I think those were more spectacle and PR efforts than any real attempt to do great comics, and I often gloss over them when considering the oeuvre of Gaiman's works. I don't think Neil had stories to tell that he went to Marvel with, I think they decided to do something to fund the legal efforts and then Neil looked over the Marvel catalog and said maybe I can do something with x and y, where most of his better works are much more organic in their genesis and execution. -M If the profits of 1602 indeed went to fund the legal case against McFarlane, I'm not sure this was the original intention behind the project, I've never found any statement confirming or infirming it. What I know is that the work is vastly different from Eternals, as it still is a well crafted story with a begining, a middle and an end. It was concieved in reaction to 9/11, Gaiman wanting to avoid using heroes as toold of might and power, it is a post-modern work of entertainment that still manages to merge the myths of the founding fathers with the modern role marvel heroes have taken upon in modern mythology, maybe even anticipating the current trend. bearing little ressemblance with Gaiman's traditional Sandman' techniques, it still reads at times as clever Gaiman with nice little vocabulary tricks and plot twists. I went into it suspicious and was pleasently surprised with this as it's basicaly a quite ambitious Elseworld/What If? in all its "meta" glory. But it's also nothing more than this. All his Marvel work was done to benefit the Marvels and Miracles LLC, the company Gaiman formed specifically to fund and administrate the legal challenge to McFarlane over the Angela work and the Miracleman rights, and named to reflect Marvel's role in it all. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 4, 2016 21:15:08 GMT -5
What are your favourite individual Sandman stories?
Sure, the story arcs are impressive in their elegant complexity... but I always felt that many stand-alone stories were the best of the crop.
A dream of a thousand cats comes to mind as a story that anyone, even those who have no idea who the Sandman is, would enjoy. The same goes for the story where Augustus reminisces of the flu ding of the Roman empire... really powerful stuff!
I also very much enjoyed the later story in which a character finds himself in the dream of a city. That was eerie and very unusual. Great comic-book writing!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2016 23:28:06 GMT -5
What are your favourite individual Sandman stories? Sure, the story arcs are impressive in their elegant complexity... but I always felt that many stand-alone stories were the best of the crop. A dream of a thousand cats comes to mind as a story that anyone, even those who have no idea who the Sandman is, would enjoy. The same goes for the story where Augustus reminisces of the flu ding of the Roman empire... really powerful stuff! I also very much enjoyed the later story in which a character finds himself in the dream of a city. That was eerie and very unusual. Great comic-book writing! My top 3 standalone Sandman stories... A Midsummer Night's Dream (#19) with Charles Vess A Dream of A Thousand Cats (#18) with Kelly Jones & Malcom Jones III Ramadan (#50) with P.Craig Russell -M |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Mar 5, 2016 1:00:54 GMT -5
What are your favourite individual Sandman stories? Sure, the story arcs are impressive in their elegant complexity... but I always felt that many stand-alone stories were the best of the crop. A dream of a thousand cats comes to mind as a story that anyone, even those who have no idea who the Sandman is, would enjoy. The same goes for the story where Augustus reminisces of the flu ding of the Roman empire... really powerful stuff! I also very much enjoyed the later story in which a character finds himself in the dream of a city. That was eerie and very unusual. Great comic-book writing! A Midsummer Night's Dream Ramadan Three Septembers and a January Men of Good Fortune |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 5, 2016 4:01:32 GMT -5
Most of his Marvel projects were geared towards raising money for the legal battle against Todd McFarlane. Marvel gave him lots of money to use in the fight to get Miracle Man free from McFarlane's specious claims, and asked him to do stuff that would be high profile, but didn't really fit in this usual wheelhouse for storytelling. They wanted the pub and the F-U to big head Todd, so I think those were more spectacle and PR efforts than any real attempt to do great comics, and I often gloss over them when considering the oeuvre of Gaiman's works. I don't think Neil had stories to tell that he went to Marvel with, I think they decided to do something to fund the legal efforts and then Neil looked over the Marvel catalog and said maybe I can do something with x and y, where most of his better works are much more organic in their genesis and execution. -M If the profits of 1602 indeed went to fund the legal case against McFarlane, I'm not sure this was the original intention behind the project, I've never found any statement confirming or infirming it. What I know is that the work is vastly different from Eternals, as it still is a well crafted story with a begining, a middle and an end. It was concieved in reaction to 9/11, Gaiman wanting to avoid using heroes as toold of might and power, it is a post-modern work of entertainment that still manages to merge the myths of the founding fathers with the modern role marvel heroes have taken upon in modern mythology, maybe even anticipating the current trend. bearing little ressemblance with Gaiman's traditional Sandman' techniques, it still reads at times as clever Gaiman with nice little vocabulary tricks and plot twists. I went into it suspicious and was pleasently surprised with this as it's basicaly a quite ambitious Elseworld/What If? in all its "meta" glory. But it's also nothing more than this. This reminds me of some of the other problems I had with 1602: the uncritical acceptance - worse, propagation - of the myths of America's founding fathers, for example. And if Gaiman thinks he can engage with the role superheroes have taken on in modern mythology while avoiding their nature as symbols of might and power, then I think he's missed the point entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Mar 9, 2016 3:32:17 GMT -5
If you want to give him a chance without diving into a whole 75 issues, I would try Books of Magic, Stardust, or Signal to Noise. Or Miracleman, let's not forget that it returns in June, after a 23-years' hiatus. |
|
