|
Post by tartanphantom on Oct 10, 2023 13:24:57 GMT -5
There's plenty of great art and great story in modern comics. If you're not finding what you want at the Big Two, look farther afield.
Oh, no doubt... that's why I've been an indy fan for many years. I just don't buy current books regularly. But I've enjoyed plenty of stuff from Image, Dark Horse and others.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Oct 10, 2023 13:51:38 GMT -5
There's plenty of great art and great story in modern comics. If you're not finding what you want at the Big Two, look farther afield. I agree with you that there is a lot of good art out there... but MAN, there is a LOT of crap out there, too, particularly at the big two... art that would not have passed muster as a xeroxed zine back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Oct 10, 2023 16:57:36 GMT -5
I don't necessarily mean indie comics. Some of the Marvel f I've been reading under Joe Quesada and Axel Alonso's stewardship has been some of the most creative and innovative stuff the company has ever done. Watching Mike Allred go bananas with in Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby's toybox is breathtaking. There's no way I can look at an issue of Allred's Silver Surfer, for example, and think modern Big Two comics are crap. Now there may be a lot of crap that goes along with the good stuff, but there were a lot of crap comics in the 90s too, and the 80s, the 70s, 60s, and 50s too.
You never know what's good unless you try it. That's my take on it. I was extremely hesitant to pick up any book past the book where I stopped reading comics, but I've cut a little path for myself and it's been rewarding. In this day and age, it's easier than ever to whittle out the things you don't like and find the things that do interest you. Now, I can understand if modern, wordy comics don't appeal to folks, but it doesn't necessarily mean said comic is crap. It just means you'd rather read a Gardner Fox story over the latest trendy thing, which is OK, but if you don't have your finger on the pulse of what's going on today then how can you be so sure that nobody at the Big Two cares about the work they're producing?
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 13, 2023 18:45:39 GMT -5
In your opinion, if Moore had used Charlton's characters in Watchmen, would his work have had the same impact and be remembered in the same way (I mean, it is studied in universities)? Or would we be here arguing whether or not Moore had respected the true essence of Thunderbolt and that it's a shame what he did to Nightshade? This came to mind while reading the thread on Spider-Man Chapter One, where most of the comments focused more on how Byrne re-interpreted events in Spidey's past rather than the actual quality of the story.
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Oct 13, 2023 19:29:31 GMT -5
This came to mind while reading the thread on Spider-Man Chapter One, where most of the comments focused more on how Byrne re-interpreted events in Spidey's past rather than the actual quality of the story. I can’t answer your question about Moore (good question, though), but as for the sentence about Chapter One, I don’t think one can separate how Byrne re-interpreted events and the actual quality of the story. The two things are intertwined. The series and story was Byrne re-interpreting events, so I don’t feel one could separate the two. I don’t feel I could discuss how Byrne re-interpreted events in Spidey’s past without commenting in the quality of the story. And I can’t comment on the quality of the story without referencing how Byrne re-interpreted the events of the past.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2023 19:34:00 GMT -5
In your opinion, if Moore had used Charlton's characters in Watchmen, would his work have had the same impact and be remembered in the same way (I mean, it is studied in universities)? Or would we be here arguing whether or not Moore had respected the true essence of Thunderbolt and that it's a shame what he did to Nightshade? This came to mind while reading the thread on Spider-Man Chapter One, where most of the comments focused more on how Byrne re-interpreted events in Spidey's past rather than the actual quality of the story. I don't know that many comic book readers knew who the Charlton characters were in 1986, I know I didn't. My guess is it would have played out pretty similarly. I still really don't know who Thunderbolt and Nightshade are honestly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2023 19:54:17 GMT -5
I don't necessarily mean indie comics. Some of the Marvel f I've been reading under Joe Quesada and Axel Alonso's stewardship has been some of the most creative and innovative stuff the company has ever done. Watching Mike Allred go bananas with in Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby's toybox is breathtaking. There's no way I can look at an issue of Allred's Silver Surfer, for example, and think modern Big Two comics are crap. Now there may be a lot of crap that goes along with the good stuff, but there were a lot of crap comics in the 90s too, and the 80s, the 70s, 60s, and 50s too. You never know what's good unless you try it. That's my take on it. I was extremely hesitant to pick up any book past the book where I stopped reading comics, but I've cut a little path for myself and it's been rewarding. In this day and age, it's easier than ever to whittle out the things you don't like and find the things that do interest you. Now, I can understand if modern, wordy comics don't appeal to folks, but it doesn't necessarily mean said comic is crap. It just means you'd rather read a Gardner Fox story over the latest trendy thing, which is OK, but if you don't have your finger on the pulse of what's going on today then how can you be so sure that nobody at the Big Two cares about the work they're producing? Those are good points. In my case, my general dislike is not from lack of trying. I have always periodically checked stuff out over the years (even through present), but somewhere around 2010ish on, the ratio of stuff I like versus stuff I truly despise has really grown towards the latter to the point where I just know a lot of comics (Big 2 as well as indie) are not my bag so much anymore. On the other hand, I've discovered a lot of modern manga that gives me that old feeling of having fun with really well made comics again. The Way of the Househusband as an example blows away anything I've seen from DC and Marvel in countless years.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 13, 2023 21:29:40 GMT -5
The Charlton characters weren't especially developed. The stories weren't really that deep. Blue Beetle was probably more developed than any other, but part of that was due to longevity. Charlton published the Dan Garrett version for a bit, before Ditko revamped it as Ted Kord. He tied him to Garret, which immediately added a back history to him. Even so, the stories were relatively straight forward adventures.
The Question had a bit more going on, as his Randian trappings meant there was a certain style to what he did and his moral outlook. Beetle was more of a swashbuckler, in the style of Spider-Man, while The Question was more serious, more deadly. More of a crime fiction character. Beyond that, most were little more than names and costumes. Captain Atom wasn't especially deep, nor Nightshade, who was more of a sidekick to Captain Atom, in many of her adventures. Thunderbolt was really just a modern revamp of the old Centaur Comics Amazing Man, which was an early Bil Everett feature. Same basic origin: trained in a hidden monastery, in Tibet and then put through a series of tests, before returning to the outside world. No super powers to speak of (Amazing Man could turn into a Green Myst and was stronger and faster than average); but, his training made him a formidable fighter and he had a keen intellect. Judomaster was pretty much martial arts-meets-war comics adventures, with Frank McLaughlin, a judo black belt, adding authentic martial arts to it. Peacemaker was short-lived and just plain weird, a guy who commits violent acts in the name of peace. Pat Boyette's art did more than the writing did.
So, with that in mind, I doubt anyone would have complained, as Moore would have given them more personality than Joe Gill, Dave Glanzman, Steve Skeates or anyone else, except maybe Sergius O'Shaunnessy (Denny O'Neil). Night Owl isn't that different than Blue Beetle and I don't see his character arc upsetting anyone. Thunderbolt was kind of a cold character, which fit in well with Ozymandias. The revelation might bring an objection; but, as Moore wrote it, I think the bulk of the audience would have been fine with it. Turning Peacemaker into someone like the Comedian, with the rape attempt and the nihilistic attitude would have probably elicited some criticism, given the hook of the original, that he "loves peace so much he fights for it." The Comedian is definitely a significant deviation from that character; though, if Moore had written it as the Peacemaker, he might have handled the backstory differently. The Question and Rorschach aren't that different, thematically; but, Vic Sage and Walter Kovacs are very different characters. Ditko wrote Sage as a crusading journalist, willing to take on the corrupt, while Walter Kovacs is a sad, abused little man, who only knew a Right Wing worldview and a misogynistic attitude, evolving from his abusive mother, a prostitute.
The fact that Moore was unable to use the Charlton characters freed him to go further with the Watchmen analogs than he likely would have, with the Action Heroes. His original proposal suggested using the MLJ/Archie heroes, if they were in the public domain, with Lancelot Strong basically being the Comedian character, the government agent whose murder sets off the story and the mystery. I suspect that idea factored a little into the backstory characters, like Hooded Justice, who could be an evolved Hangman. The Comet could have easily provided a Dr Manhattan type and the Black Hood would be a perfect Night Owl, since it was established as a generational character, in the 60s. A Rorschach-like vigilante is a little harder, though maybe Black Hood for that and The Fly for Night Owl. The Web could be an Ozymandias type. Silk Spectre is a bit harder, as Fly Girl was pretty much it, for MLJ/Archie. Again, Moore spoke in broad terms, in the proposal; so the characters were not really fleshed out; just that one, a government agent, would be murdered and the catalyst for the mystery, a superhuman would have changed he power dynamic of the world, and a hero would be at the heart of the conspiracy. As he developed it with the Charlton characters in mind, they took on more definite form and the decision not to use them probably freed him to go further than he originally envisioned.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Oct 14, 2023 5:15:34 GMT -5
I don't necessarily mean indie comics. Some of the Marvel f I've been reading under Joe Quesada and Axel Alonso's stewardship has been some of the most creative and innovative stuff the company has ever done. Watching Mike Allred go bananas with in Steve Ditko and Jack Kirby's toybox is breathtaking. There's no way I can look at an issue of Allred's Silver Surfer, for example, and think modern Big Two comics are crap. Now there may be a lot of crap that goes along with the good stuff, but there were a lot of crap comics in the 90s too, and the 80s, the 70s, 60s, and 50s too. You never know what's good unless you try it. That's my take on it. I was extremely hesitant to pick up any book past the book where I stopped reading comics, but I've cut a little path for myself and it's been rewarding. In this day and age, it's easier than ever to whittle out the things you don't like and find the things that do interest you. Now, I can understand if modern, wordy comics don't appeal to folks, but it doesn't necessarily mean said comic is crap. It just means you'd rather read a Gardner Fox story over the latest trendy thing, which is OK, but if you don't have your finger on the pulse of what's going on today then how can you be so sure that nobody at the Big Two cares about the work they're producing? Those are good points. In my case, my general dislike is not from lack of trying. I have always periodically checked stuff out over the years (even through present), but somewhere around 2010ish on, the ratio of stuff I like versus stuff I truly despise has really grown towards the latter to the point where I just know a lot of comics (Big 2 as well as indie) are not my bag so much anymore. On the other hand, I've discovered a lot of modern manga that gives me that old feeling of having fun with really well made comics again. The Way of the Househusband as an example blows away anything I've seen from DC and Marvel in countless years. The Way of the Househusband is a lot of fun, though I've only watched the anime and haven't read the manga yet. I'm trying harder these days to not have a disconnect with modern film, music and television and that extends to comics too even if I only actively read a handful of newly released books. Having a 13 year old daughter helps. I enjoy watching the things that she's into. Yesterday, we watched the newest episode of Spy Family together and I was delighted by how excited she was. That's why I don't go in for the doom and gloom about modern comics.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Oct 14, 2023 5:25:44 GMT -5
In your opinion, if Moore had used Charlton's characters in Watchmen, would his work have had the same impact and be remembered in the same way (I mean, it is studied in universities)? Or would we be here arguing whether or not Moore had respected the true essence of Thunderbolt and that it's a shame what he did to Nightshade? This came to mind while reading the thread on Spider-Man Chapter One, where most of the comments focused more on how Byrne re-interpreted events in Spidey's past rather than the actual quality of the story. If there were a rabid base of Charlton fans, sure. The thing is that Byrne didn't use some random characters from the past. We're not talking about the Howard Chaykin and Jose Luis Garcia-Lopez' Twilight series that some people hate and others enjoy. We're talking about arguably one of the most recognizable super-heroes of all-time. You can't compare the impact of Moore working with Charlton characters to Byrne's take on Spider-Man just as you can't compare Moore and Byrne as writers. I'm fairly certain people would have thought it was brilliant with the Charlton characters. The exception would be if Charlton had been continuously published up until the series was released and there was some sort of big three.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 14, 2023 6:45:32 GMT -5
Related question: so why did DC buy Charlton's characters? They just needed another Earth to be destroyed or they thought there was some kind of potential in them?
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 14, 2023 7:10:28 GMT -5
Related question: so why did DC buy Charlton's characters? They just needed another Earth to be destroyed or they thought there was some kind of potential in them? I don't remember the exact details but I seem to recall DC bought the characters as a sort of non-monetary signing bonus when Dick Giordano, who had edited Charlton's super-hero comics, was promoted to editor-in-chief.
Cei-U! I summon the extravagance!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2023 7:22:01 GMT -5
Having a 13 year old daughter helps. I enjoy watching the things that she's into. Yesterday, we watched the newest episode of Spy Family together and I was delighted by how excited she was. That's why I don't go in for the doom and gloom about modern comics. My teenage daughter is how I discovered Way of the Househusband and so many more, and we likewise watch and share stuff together She and many of her friends read comics, watch animation, buy action figures/toys, etc. The stuff they're into doesn't look all the same as what I grew up with, but why should it? Yes, it's not all doom and gloom, it's just not as recognizable to some of the older crowd just like any other generation. I have this discussion all the time on music forums, it's always "poor kids today don't have any good new music". It's like, at what point did you turn into your parents, do you hear the words you are saying!
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Oct 14, 2023 7:52:55 GMT -5
Related question: so why did DC buy Charlton's characters? They just needed another Earth to be destroyed or they thought there was some kind of potential in them? I don't remember the exact details but I seem to recall DC bought the characters as a sort of non-monetary signing bonus when Dick Giordano, who had edited Charlton's super-hero comics, was promoted to editor-in-chief.
Cei-U! I summon the extravagance!
Thank you, it makes sense. I mean, there was no shortage of superheroes from other publishers no longer in business, so I was wondering how they chose these ones
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 14, 2023 8:01:31 GMT -5
Related question: so why did DC buy Charlton's characters? They just needed another Earth to be destroyed or they thought there was some kind of potential in them? I don't remember the exact details but I seem to recall DC bought the characters as a sort of non-monetary signing bonus when Dick Giordano, who had edited Charlton's super-hero comics, was promoted to editor-in-chief.
Cei-U! I summon the extravagance!
Maybe you could clarify. Why would Giordano care? I don't think they were planning to revive the Charlton line and make Giordano the boss. I do believe that maybe Giordano told them that there was untapped potential in the characters and DC got it for a song.
|
|