|
Post by beccabear67 on Nov 9, 2018 14:17:44 GMT -5
I wanted to say I liked the digest format but never liked the small paperback format for comics, but I forgot where I'd wanted to say that. I found them hard to read without cracking the spine at some point, and even had pages fall out. Actually Peanuts strips worked in paperback pretty well, there's always an exception I guess.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Nov 9, 2018 15:04:51 GMT -5
Tribute covers are good especially when you've never seen the original and therefore can't beeyotch about it.
This is the #5 Game Variant of the current series.
There, I said it.
This is an okay tribute cover, but most sort of suck or are not doing much more than apeing every little detail of the original instead of putting a truly creative spin on the source. There, I said it.
|
|
|
Post by comicsandwho on Nov 9, 2018 16:59:32 GMT -5
I wanted to say I liked the digest format but never liked the small paperback format for comics, but I forgot where I'd wanted to say that. I found them hard to read without cracking the spine at some point, and even had pages fall out. Actually Peanuts strips worked in paperback pretty well, there's always an exception I guess. I remember reading just about the entire shelf full of Peanuts hardbacks at my hometown library when I was little(those were the '60s editions, where they usually had two strips to a page, or a Sunday strip in a double-page spread.). My elementary school library had some paperback collections of 'Peanuts' and other comics, but, for some weird reason, our teachers wouldn't let us check them out(they were labeled by subject as 'comic books'). Maybe the 5th and 6th graders were 'mature' enough for them. I had more than a few old-fart-fuddy duddy teachers, who probably never heard of Frederic Wertham by name, but must have remembered all the second-hand nonsense about comics and 'juvenile deliquency' and 'All comics must be horror comics, so they must be banned' from the '50s. Yeah, I was really going to be exposed to sorcery by reading 'The Wizard of Id', and learning how to incant 'Fribbin on the ding dang, Flammin at the krotz!' to change the school building into a mushroom...
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Nov 9, 2018 17:55:47 GMT -5
My elementary school library had some paperback collections of 'Peanuts' and other comics, but, for some weird reason, our teachers wouldn't let us check them out(they were labeled by subject as 'comic books'). Maybe the 5th and 6th graders were 'mature' enough for them. I don't remember comics ever in my elementary school library (though it did have subscriptions to 16 Magazine for the girls and Hockey News for the boys which some kids fought over/ripped pin-ups from) but I do remember poring over a paperback of 'All In Color For A Dime' in the junior high school library! ![](https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2032/2556338278_6baf40e13c_z.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Nov 10, 2018 8:22:47 GMT -5
The difference being that nowadays younger readers get shoddy concepts utilizing supporting characters that should remain supporting characters, or even in alternate reality Gwen's case, dead. I'm all for new characters not aimed at 40 year old me, but that doesn't mean that these concepts are above criticism either. At this point I honestly wouldn't be shocked if Uncle Ben comes back as an undead super-villain. I mean kids today won't even get things as "original" as Speedball, Nova or Cloak & Dagger, much less a Spider-Man, Hulk or Daredevil. At the end of the day they're all fictional characters and none of it really matters, but there are much better and more creative ways to create new characters that doesn't give a middle-finger to 50+ years of history and continuity. That Schwartz guy should have come up with new concepts instead of that lame re-tooling of Flash and Green Lantern, Hawkman and The Atom. They were perfected in the 40s. Poor young kids these days can't even get new concepts. And those hacks Lee and Kirby. Everyone knows that The Human Torch is an android. And the rest. A Plastic Man knock-off. Invisible Scarlet O'Neil. And a refugee from the monster of the month books. Where are the new concepts? To be fair, you listed four clever remakes and the FF (who were clearly inspired by Challengers of the Unknown) and, understandably, none of the "original" characters because that would be a much longer list. Of course we all known that nothing is created in a vacuum and even Superman was inspired by older characters, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything as original as the Silver Surfer and Black Panther coming out of Marvel and DC nowadays. I know that's a very high standard, but when I think "new superhero character," those usually spring to the forefront of my mind. My entire problem with Spider-Gwen is Marvel using Gwen Stacy, one of Spider-Man's most important supporting characters, in the legacy character role which I've never really liked--I've always grudgingly accepted legacy characters, even the classic ones. I completely understand that a 12 year old girl has zero connection those 60's/70's stories and would never be able to comprehend the problem (I've also made no judgement on the quality of the comic, just the concept). Still, Marvel once created Jessica Drew (say what you will about Spider-Woman, Drew was a new character) so it's possible. But, of course, here I get back to WHY creators won't give Marvel new things...
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 10, 2018 9:07:44 GMT -5
That Schwartz guy should have come up with new concepts instead of that lame re-tooling of Flash and Green Lantern, Hawkman and The Atom. They were perfected in the 40s. Poor young kids these days can't even get new concepts. And those hacks Lee and Kirby. Everyone knows that The Human Torch is an android. And the rest. A Plastic Man knock-off. Invisible Scarlet O'Neil. And a refugee from the monster of the month books. Where are the new concepts? To be fair, you listed four clever remakes and the FF (who were clearly inspired by Challengers of the Unknown) and, understandably, none of the "original" characters because that would be a much longer list. Of course we all known that nothing is created in a vacuum and even Superman was inspired by older characters, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything as original as the Silver Surfer and Black Panther coming out of Marvel and DC nowadays. I know that's a very high standard, but when I think "new superhero character," those usually spring to the forefront of my mind. My entire problem with Spider-Gwen is Marvel using Gwen Stacy, one of Spider-Man's most important supporting characters, in the legacy character role which I've never really liked--I've always grudgingly accepted legacy characters, even the classic ones. I completely understand that a 12 year old girl has zero connection those 60's/70's stories and would never be able to comprehend the problem (I've also made no judgement on the quality of the comic, just the concept). Still, Marvel once created Jessica Drew (say what you will about Spider-Woman, Drew was a new character) so it's possible. But, of course, here I get back to WHY creators won't give Marvel new things... The better question is...given how creators have been treated since the beginning of the industry, why would any creator give Marvel new things? Why on Earth would you give a company a new idea when there is a potential, however slight, that it could be worth millions later on? In the face of Siegel and Shusters struggles, the Kirby estate’s lawsuit, Wolfman’s lawsuit over Blade, Gary Fruedrich’s Ghost Rider lawsuit, etc., etc....why would any thinking person ever create another character at Marvel or DC?
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Nov 10, 2018 9:31:35 GMT -5
A character is only what the artists do with it, as Alan Moore or Brandon Graham have eloquantly demonstrated (Supreme anyone?). Yet even through the hands and minds of some talented people, I've yet to find a story about Wolverine keeping me occasionally interested in anything but its art. It almost feels that as the fans have decided he is cool, the writers don't even need to "try" anymore... I've always thought Wolverine was an overrated character--even in his earliest years. Just a "whatever" to all things about that character. When I think of the best of the Marvel Universe (historically) Wolverine is never a part of those memories. There, I said it.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Nov 10, 2018 9:54:02 GMT -5
A character is only what the artists do with it, as Alan Moore or Brandon Graham have eloquantly demonstrated (Supreme anyone?). Yet even through the hands and minds of some talented people, I've yet to find a story about Wolverine keeping me occasionally interested in anything but its art. It almost feels that as the fans have decided he is cool, the writers don't even need to "try" anymore... I've always thought Wolverine was an overrated character--even in his earliest years. Just a "whatever" to all things about that character. When I think of the best of the Marvel Universe (historically) Wolverine is never a part of those memories. There, I said it. Even Chris Claremont never thought of Wolverine as a sustainable solo act. He wanted him to just be a force of chaos and internal conflict within the X-Men, like Ben Grimm in Fantastic Four. When he tried to dial that back, editorial objected and forced him to script a scene where Wolvie assaulted Kurt over some harmless jest. He did come up with the first Wolvie mini series on his own, and its success put pressure on him for an ongoing series, which he resisted, using the Kitty Pryde & Wolverine mini as a stall tactic. But finally by the late 80s, a series was going to happen with or without him, so he wrote the first few issues to set up a bunch of plot elements and an ensemble cast which were mostly ignored by subsequent writers, who focused solely on Wolverine. My favorite X-Men were Kitty and Kurt. I enjoyed the New Mutants ensemble but did not have a breakout favorite character. No later X-character caught my interest until the Cuckoos and Armor and Doctor Nemesis more recently.
|
|
|
Post by comicsandwho on Nov 10, 2018 18:11:44 GMT -5
My elementary school library had some paperback collections of 'Peanuts' and other comics, but, for some weird reason, our teachers wouldn't let us check them out(they were labeled by subject as 'comic books'). Maybe the 5th and 6th graders were 'mature' enough for them. I don't remember comics ever in my elementary school library (though it did have subscriptions to 16 Magazine for the girls and Hockey News for the boys which some kids fought over/ripped pin-ups from) but I do remember poring over a paperback of 'All In Color For A Dime' in the junior high school library! ![](https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2032/2556338278_6baf40e13c_z.jpg) i've heard about that book for years, but never actually seen it. By contrast, the only thing comic-related in my junior-high library was some of those old 'Popeye Explores Careers' comics, that were shunted off to some part of the library that was only for kids in a certain class that I didn't take.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Nov 10, 2018 21:53:40 GMT -5
Yep. And the web-slinger agrees with you. There's a great denouement in ASM #192 after Jonah and Spidey are handcuffed to a bomb by a bitter, vengeful and dying Smythe (spoiler: the weird, radioactive elements he used to produce his "spider-slayers" gave him cancer). They survive thanks to Spider-Man's ingenuity and refusal to give up. And then we see an uncharacteristically raw, introspective Jameson. . . ![](https://i.postimg.cc/PrK1sNzh/spider-bomb-ending.png)
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 10, 2018 22:58:29 GMT -5
I don't remember comics ever in my elementary school library (though it did have subscriptions to 16 Magazine for the girls and Hockey News for the boys which some kids fought over/ripped pin-ups from) but I do remember poring over a paperback of 'All In Color For A Dime' in the junior high school library! ![](https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2032/2556338278_6baf40e13c_z.jpg) i've heard about that book for years, but never actually seen it. By contrast, the only thing comic-related in my junior-high library was some of those old 'Popeye Explores Careers' comics, that were shunted off to some part of the library that was only for kids in a certain class that I didn't take. Excellent book, which was a collection of articles from a fanzine (can't remember which one). There was a follow-up, The Comic Book Book, which is pretty good, though that one is better. I discovered it in my college library and ended up using it and the sequel to write a history paper on how comic books mirrored societal changes in the US, over the decades. I already had Jules Feiffer's The Great Comic Book Heroes (which I found at a used book store, just off campus) and one of Ron Goulart's histories; and found these two in the library, plus Wertham's in the stacks (couldn't check out; but, could look through, for research). They also had Schodt's Manga, Manga, which was the first US overview of manga. I also had Wiil Jacobs & Gerard Jones' The Comic Book Heroes, which I bought at the university bookstore, plus Jeff Rovin's Encyclopedia of Super Heroes, which I got at a Waldenbooks, at the mall, while in college. Gave me great sources and I aced the paper. ![](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51cRestgGGL.jpg) ![](http://goldenagecomics.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/gcbhfc.jpg) ![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3CGQz0jwipY/TuKoWNLUYvI/AAAAAAAAAJI/ptfuV8w87sk/s320/084feb6709a0d86bccd44110.L.jpg) ![](https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780517554401-us-300.jpg) ![](https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.eeNfdai2d1e1-lEJZvneRgHaKd&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 10, 2018 23:17:19 GMT -5
Try harder Maybe his Dracula work, which was all about mood and shadows is what you don't like. Have you read his Daredevil and Captain America work?
And his Dr. Strange re-invented the comic page.
I've read many issues of his Dracula and while I own pretty much every other 70's Marvel monster book, Colan art makes the series unreadable to me. Sorry. And I actually prefer Bob Browns DD. I know, it's weird. I am a huge Dr Strange fan, don't like his stuff. I guess Howard The Duck is an exception (I have copies of all the 70's Howard), but I still prefer Brunners issues, or as art is concerned even the weird Michael Golden magazine stories. So it goes. To each their own; but, "eyesore?" Man, that's harsh! I wasn't fond of Kirby when I was young, due to the abstraction and the giant, unrealistic machinery. I was weaned on Neal Adams and the Adams variants, which DC published (Dick Dillin, Irv Novick, early Mike Grell, etc...). However, once I started to see reprints of his 60s stuff, I began to appreciate his work more. As I grew older, I came to really be drawn to his later stuff and recognize the power within the stories. rereading the stuff for my review thread did a lot to really build my appreciation for his later work, as I could see where he was coming from and understood some of his more abstract elements or his more subtle themes. Ditko was another whose 70s work left me cold and I hated it when he turned up for an issue of things like Micronauts or some other book, as it looked inferior. Again, when I saw reprints of his earlier stuff, I appreciated it more. Dr Strange was mind-boggling, Spider-Man depended on the story; but, things like the Sinister 6 fight (reprinted in one of the treasury editions) were awesome. Loved his Charlton stuff when I saw it. His DC stuff and later Marvel? Not so much, even today. It depends on the story, though. Sometimes he seemed inspired, others it seemed like it was knocked out quickly, to pay the bills. Probably was. His later themes were a bit off-putting, when he had control. Mr A often looks great; but, I can't read more than a couple of panels without putting the comic aside. Colan, though, I one I loved from day one. the first book I remember seeing was the reprint of the Daredevil King Size Special, with Electro's Emissaries of Evil. His swashbuckling styled made me a DD fan. The action is dynamic and his figures are beautiful and suitably grotesque. his heroes leap and twist and swing across the page. It was like the paper equivalent of an Errol Flynn or Douglas Fairbanks movie. The man could buckle a swash. His Captain America run is still one of my favorites in the history of the character, far more than the Stern & Byrne issues, despite their better stories. Dracula is just a text book in setting mood through light and shadow. When you see his original pencils (which Eclipse actually shot for one of their titles, for final publication) , they are just amazing. he was a real draftsman and a heck of a cinematic storyteller. His influences on guys like Clarke Hawbaker, Don Newton and Brent Anderson helped draw me to their work. To me, eyesore is reserved for stuff like Liefeld and the other Image clones, where everything is just wrong (storytelling, anatomy, design, perspective.....you name it!). Even then, Rob had a few images here and there I thought weren't bad (like the stuff Karl Kesel cleaned up). Some of it, though made me want to gouge my eyes out. Even then, it was better than some of the guys in his studio and some of the wannabes out there, imitating him and McFarlane. Now, I will say I thought Bob brown did a heck of a job on Daredevil, especially during Len Wein and Marv Wolfman's run on the book. Still, the earlier Colan issues are just on another level, to me.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 10, 2018 23:36:32 GMT -5
Bob Brown never disappointed. From his Batman to his Avengers run, it was solid stuff.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Nov 11, 2018 3:58:19 GMT -5
Mr A often looks great; but, I can't read more than a couple of panels without putting the comic aside. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the - by far - best Mr. A story is the one without any dialog.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Nov 11, 2018 11:11:57 GMT -5
Foolkiller was a "Man-Thing" creation and worked well in the strange Gerber world of the Man-Thing comic. ![](http://www.gothamcalling.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/man-thing-03.jpg) I do not think he fit in the mainstream Marvel U.
|
|