|
Post by Nowhere Man on Jan 23, 2016 4:06:32 GMT -5
I've always had a soft spot for Aquaman, but something about Aparo's version made the character click for me, both in B&B and his solo run with the character. For me, Aquaman is one of those characters (of which o have several) that I like, enjoy, appreciate and want around, but I don't necessarily "care about" or personally want to read their solo adventures. Guest appearances or as part of a team or just knowing he's out there is satisfying enough for me. This is pretty much how I feel about The Flash and Green Lantern. Great concepts...but I just don't care about them enough to really get into their solo series. The work best for me in the JLA.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 23, 2016 7:46:43 GMT -5
I'd agree that FF was a stronger book overall, although Justice League was better in quite a few respects. The plots were so much tighter. For every Galactus Trilogystory or Battle of the Baxter Bulding in FF you'd have a filler issue with the Sandman or something like the first Inhumans story where the plot just fizzled into nothing. But Avengers.. I will defend issues 1-10 and 16-24 to the death, but some of that stuff right before Buscema started on the book was just tired going-through-the-Marvel-style-motions. While JLA was having epic battles between the Spectre and the Anti-Matter Man while Earth One is gonna crash into Earth Two Goliath was whining about being stuck at ten feet for eight pages in every...freaking... issue. Honestly, I think Avengers probably peaked right after issue 50, terrible X-men crossover aside. Avengers 52, 57 and 58 are my absolute favorites. I agree with much of that you say, except the Pym storylines. Pym was one of my favorite silver age characters. Disagree about it peaking that soon. Good to great stories until issue #300. Nothing worth reading after that.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 23, 2016 7:49:32 GMT -5
And it allows for an insane density of cool plot ideas. You can tell there was SO much more thought put into the actual stories in the JLA books than their Marvel counterparts, and there's always five or six cool sci-fi concepts and two or three great visual hooks in every issue. Marvel had more characterization, but it tended to rely on the same relationships, the same villains, the same visuals (Ben holds up a Kirbymachine and complains while Reed tinkers with it, Sue comes in with a plate of sandwiches) over and over and over and over. And then they go fight the Sub-Mariner for the third time this year. And the reason that JLA could be so dense with cool ideas is that they didn't have Captain America crying "Bucky, Ohhhh Bucky" into his Cheerios for a couple pages every issue. The other thing with the above FF scenario: Because the coming of Namor/Galactus/the Skrulls/ Forbush Man causes the men to leave in a hurry, and makes Sue drop the uneaten sandwiches, she sobs 'We can never be a normal family!' and cries for the next two issues, when she abruptly wins a protracted battle with another villain. The cycle then reverts to 'plate of sandwich' mode. Going with that logic, Watchmen was only about some boring costumed people solving a murder.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2016 8:46:36 GMT -5
Going with that logic, Watchmen was only about some boring costumed people solving a murder. Tell that to the guy with the blue penis.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 23, 2016 9:05:25 GMT -5
Going with that logic, Watchmen was only about some boring costumed people solving a murder. Tell that to the guy with the blue penis. Yeah, but I'm feeling better... uh what ? wait
|
|
|
Post by JKCarrier on Jan 23, 2016 11:21:57 GMT -5
The JLA vs. FF debate is weird to me, because I love both, precisely because they're so different. Who wants to read the exact same style of story all the time? It's like arguing pizza vs. cheeseburgers -- I'll have both, thanks. I do think Sekowsky gets a bum rap on JLA, just because Bernard Sachs was not a good inker for him. Once other inkers like Joe Giella and Sid Greene took over, the book started looking 100 times better, and you can better appreciate how good Sekowsky was at staging action. Come to think of it, sloppy inking marred a lot of those early FF issues too, so that's one thing they have in common.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 23, 2016 11:23:25 GMT -5
The JLA vs. FF debate is weird to me, because I love both, precisely because they're so different. Who wants to read the exact same style of story all the time? It's like arguing pizza vs. cheeseburgers -- I'll have both, thanks. I do think Sekowsky gets a bum rap on JLA, just because Bernard Sachs was not a good inker for him. Once other inkers like Joe Giella and Sid Greene took over, the book started looking 100 times better, and you can better appreciate how good Sekowsky was at staging action. Come to think of it, sloppy inking marred a lot of those early FF issues too, so that's one thing they have in common. But I like BOTH cheeseburgers and Pizza. I'm not bored by the Cheeseburger.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jan 23, 2016 13:03:29 GMT -5
The JLA vs. FF debate is weird to me, because I love both, precisely because they're so different. Who wants to read the exact same style of story all the time? It's like arguing pizza vs. cheeseburgers -- I'll have both, thanks. I do think Sekowsky gets a bum rap on JLA, just because Bernard Sachs was not a good inker for him. Once other inkers like Joe Giella and Sid Greene took over, the book started looking 100 times better, and you can better appreciate how good Sekowsky was at staging action. Come to think of it, sloppy inking marred a lot of those early FF issues too, so that's one thing they have in common. But I like BOTH cheeseburgers and Pizza. I'm not bored by the Cheeseburger. What are your feelings on cheeseburger pizza?
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 23, 2016 13:48:04 GMT -5
But I like BOTH cheeseburgers and Pizza. I'm not bored by the Cheeseburger. What are your feelings on cheeseburger pizza? Cheeseburger are better than steak for me. The Cheeseburger metaphor in this instance( JLA) was boring as can be.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2016 17:58:19 GMT -5
I prefer a married Peter Parker.
And it's way past time for Dan Slott to move on.
There. I said it.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 23, 2016 18:10:47 GMT -5
I prefer a married Peter Parker. And it's way past time for Dan Slott to move on. There. I said it. Married Peter Parker's not going to happen. It's just easier to write soap opera with single protagonists. That doesn't mean I don't agree with you; It's fun to see the writers have to sweat to come up with something rather than falling back on the same old Romita-Era tropes. And some of 'em make it work. J. M. Dematties did a hell of a job with married Spider-man in his Spectacular run, but he had to completely change the thematic underpinnings of the book - It became about family structures, both biological and extended, and that's not something Spider-man had ever really dealt with before in all but the most minor way. I, at least, loved it. It didn't really feel like Spider-man, but since it was better than anything from the last 25-or-so years, I didn't mind. And most of the rest of the married Spidey era... well, just wasn't all that good. With you on Dan Slott. I never felt his Spider-man run, but I really, really like most of his other stuff. His current(ish?) Silver Surfer run is one of my favorite things ever.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2016 18:24:15 GMT -5
I prefer a married Peter Parker. And it's way past time for Dan Slott to move on. There. I said it. Married Peter Parker's not going to happen. It's just easier to write soap opera with single protagonists. That doesn't mean I don't agree with you; It's fun to see the writers have to sweat to come up with something rather than falling back on the same old Romita-Era tropes. And some of 'em make it work. J. M. Dematties did a hell of a job with married Spider-man in his Spectacular run, but he had to completely change the thematic underpinnings of the book - It became about family structures, both biological and extended, and that's not something Spider-man had ever really dealt with before in all but the most minor way. I, at least, loved it. It didn't really feel like Spider-man, but since it was better than anything from the last 25-or-so years, I didn't mind. And most of the rest of the married Spidey era... well, just wasn't all that good. With you on Dan Slott. I never felt his Spider-man run, but I really, really like most of his other stuff. His current(ish?) Silver Surfer run is one of my favorite things ever. JMD on Spectacular Spider-Man is my favorite married take on the character. And wrote one of the best Spidey issues ever with Amazing #400. I pretty much agree on most of what you said...though I disagree that the rest of married Spidey wasn't all that good. There could still be stories to tell with a married Peter Parker and Renew Your Vows proves it. IMHO the best story Dan Slott wrote during his Spidey run. I like Slott's Silver Surfer too but I have never cared the Allred art.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Jan 23, 2016 18:34:28 GMT -5
Being really into your favorite characters (and ignoring characters you don't like) is silly.
Especially with characters who have 40 years of adventures.
They've been changed and reinterpreted so much and some of it is going to be really good! And a lot of it will be bad.
And SOME of it will be really different from the stuff you don't like. Even when they're not doing CRISIS style reboots, comic characters get soft-rebooted into completely different characters all the time.
Whevever you guys say "I don't like Character X" I translate that into "I have not read much of character X or I have not bothered to take the mental energy to understand how the character works in concept and theme."
Except Deadpool, obviously. Deadpool is just stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2016 19:03:22 GMT -5
Being really into your favorite characters (and ignoring characters you don't like) is silly. Especially with characters who have 40 years of adventures. They've been changed and reinterpreted so much and some of it is going to be really good! And a lot of it will be bad. And SOME of it will be really different from the stuff you don't like. Even when they're not doing CRISIS style reboots, comic characters get soft-rebooted into completely different characters all the time. Whevever you guys say "I don't like Character X" I translate that into "I have not read much of character X or I have not bothered to take the mental energy to understand how the character works in concept and theme." Except Deadpool, obviously. Deadpool is just stupid. I didn't mind Deadpool when he was first introduced as a mercenary...but now I can't stand the character and his stupid humor that only a Nosferatu fetus would find funny. Having said that I don't think the movie looks half bad from what I've seen. Looks much better than the Suicide Squad travesty.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2016 19:53:55 GMT -5
I prefer a married Peter Parker. And it's way past time for Dan Slott to move on. There. I said it. You need to marvel at his awesome might.
|
|