|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Nov 4, 2015 7:27:33 GMT -5
I've heard of a few comic writers leaving to write for television. Very recently fans of Stephanie Brown were begging Brian Miller to come back, but really why should he? He's making several times as much money and has to put up with less bs like being forced to make Barbara Gordon Knightwing in Smallville because Didio was in a mood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 4, 2015 7:51:33 GMT -5
It's not so funny when you read his work. I reread the first 325 issues of ASM, a couple of years ago, and his run was the worst of them all. BTW, his move to TV was a much later development and it took place at the end of the 80's, when TV series didn't have the recognition they have today. I don't find it very impressive that someone working in the comic industry for 20 years, finally was able to get his foot in that door. That is a good career, no matter how you want to paint it. His, then, contemporaries would kill to be writing /editing for a TV show. I wouldn't know about that. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Nov 4, 2015 8:49:42 GMT -5
Like Confessor, I enjoyed Conway's run on Amazing. I find it far superior to those of Wolfman, O'Neil or DeFalco. I also liked his Daredevil and Batman runs, and his work on Atari Force demonstrates how good he could be when not simply writing for a paycheck. Heck, JLA 200 is one of my all-time favorite issues of that title. But oh boy is there a lot of hackwork on his resume.
Cei-U!
Like I said: inconsistent!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2015 9:26:06 GMT -5
Are we talking about Conway still?
I am enjoying his Firestorm run. I know a lot here didn't like it, but I think it is fun. So far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 4, 2015 11:11:03 GMT -5
Like Confessor, I enjoyed Conway's run on Amazing. I find it far superior to those of Wolfman, O'Neil or DeFalco. I also liked his Daredevil and Batman runs, and his work on Atari Force demonstrates how good he could be when not simply writing for a paycheck. Heck, JLA 200 is one of my all-time favorite issues of that title. But oh boy is there a lot of hackwork on his resume. Cei-U! Like I said: inconsistent! (one Frenz issue): 6.59/10 27 issues total O'Neil - Romita Jr. (two Miller issues): 5.75/10 13 issues total Conway - Romita/Kane: 5.18/10 11 issues total Wolfman - Pollard (two Byrne and two Sal Buscema issues): 4.91/10 17 issues total Wein - Andru (two Sal Buscema issues): 4.9/10 30 issues total Lee - Romita (John Buscema/Gil Kane): 4.73/10 72 issues total DeFalco - Frenz (four Leonardi and one Sal Buscema issues): 4.58/10 26 issues total Lee - Ditko: 4.54/10 41 issues total Michelinie - McFarlane (one Larsen issue): 4.25/10 28 issues up to ASM #325 Conway - Andru: 3.92/10 25 issues total If we take all Conway issues, we get a 4.3/10, which isn't the absolute bottom for ASM, but close. Still, when you think of Conway, most people think of Conway - Andru, so there's that. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 4, 2015 11:41:43 GMT -5
Like Confessor, I enjoyed Conway's run on Amazing. I find it far superior to those of Wolfman, O'Neil or DeFalco. I also liked his Daredevil and Batman runs, and his work on Atari Force demonstrates how good he could be when not simply writing for a paycheck. Heck, JLA 200 is one of my all-time favorite issues of that title. But oh boy is there a lot of hackwork on his resume. Cei-U! Like I said: inconsistent! (one Frenz issue): 6.59/10 27 issues total O'Neil - Romita Jr. (two Miller issues): 5.75/10 13 issues total Conway - Romita/Kane: 5.18/10 11 issues total Wolfman - Pollard (two Byrne and two Sal Buscema issues): 4.91/10 17 issues total Wein - Andru (two Sal Buscema issues): 4.9/10 30 issues total Lee - Romita (John Buscema/Gil Kane): 4.73/10 72 issues total DeFalco - Frenz (four Leonardi and one Sal Buscema issues): 4.58/10 26 issues total Lee - Ditko: 4.54/10 41 issues total Michelinie - McFarlane (one Larsen issue): 4.25/10 28 issues up to ASM #325 Conway - Andru: 3.92/10 25 issues total If we take all Conway issues, we get a 4.3/10, which isn't the absolute bottom for ASM, but close. Still, when you think of Conway, most people think of Conway - Andru, so there's that. With all due respect, your personal ratings are simply your personal ratings. The fact that you have Lee/Ditko at the position and rating you have them puts you far outside the mainstream of criticism vis-a-vis critiques of Amazing Spider-Man. Which doesn't mean you're wrong for you. But means that your ratings are objectively suspect. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 4, 2015 11:45:52 GMT -5
What are those ratings and where do they come from?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 4, 2015 12:19:09 GMT -5
I thought I liked you once. It's cartoony and distorted, but its consequent in its own logic. I didn't say I like it though, but in a thead entitled "Worst drawn comicbook panel of all time", it's really out of place and reeks of fanboy hate  I'm sure 95% of early 90ies marvel titles are filled from start to finish with worse than this.  That's not only an ugly picture... It also shows a complete misunderstanding of how Guardian's design works. He's actually wrapped in the flag. That helmet and the new legs don't work at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 4, 2015 12:40:04 GMT -5
At least, we should rejoice in that he won't be able to reproduce himself, as the absence of crotch mercyfully tells us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 4, 2015 12:55:31 GMT -5
At least, we should rejoice in that he won't be able to reproduce himself, as the absence of crotch mercyfully tells us. Alas... Clones... |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 4, 2015 13:31:40 GMT -5
With all due respect, your personal ratings are simply your personal ratings. The fact that you have Lee/Ditko at the position and rating you have them puts you far outside the mainstream of criticism vis-a-vis critiques of Amazing Spider-Man. Which doesn't mean you're wrong for you. But means that your ratings are objectively suspect. Objectively? Who said nothing about that? Cei-U said he found Conway's run on Amazing to be far superior to those of Wolfman, O'Neil or DeFalco. I just chose a more accurate way, of stating my opinion on the subject. BTW, I don't usually come across anyone's evaluation of a particular run, other than the typical "it was great" or "it sucked", so if I were to stumble upon one as carefully laid as mine, the word "simply" would be out of any suitable reply. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 4, 2015 13:32:21 GMT -5
What are those ratings and where do they come from? Follow my signature. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 4, 2015 13:43:02 GMT -5
What are those ratings and where do they come from? Follow my signature. Sorry, my settings disable signatures, or so it seems, had to go look on your profile. Could you please synthesize a little? But in the end, is this only coming from your own critique? |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Nov 4, 2015 13:46:45 GMT -5
Yes, It comes down to that. As for synthesizing, I'd say that giving the average rating for each run, is as far as you can go with all the raw data I accumulated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 4, 2015 15:43:16 GMT -5
Hmmm.. The problem I tink people see in you method is you use the word data for opinion... Then again, that's what critique is, it just becomes relevant with consistency and audience following.
|
|
I'm sure 95% of early 90ies marvel titles are filled from start to finish with worse than this.