|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 12, 2021 22:51:30 GMT -5
If your perception of Malibu is the Ultraverse, then you aren't missing a whole lot, other than average to decent superhero comics. Nothing too terribly original in the characters or concepts, but mostly handled in a pleasing way. For my money, Firearm had, by far, the best writing and Cully Hamner's art had a ort of 90s Image vibe, but with a better conception of anatomy and layout. Strangers was Englehart and a good concept, and professionally executed, but nothing groundbreaking. Prime had Norm Breyfogle on art and had interesting stories; but was a more serious Captain Marvel in a modern world. Those were the most memorable, for me, but Firearm was the only one that really stood out as something different.
The Bravura line had some interesting stuff, including Walt Simonson revisiting the world of his Starslammers project, which was his earliest comic work, while still in school (which he adapted into the graphic novel). Howard Chaykin's Power & Glory was an interesting, cynical twist on the superhero idea, though it shared some features with Dark Horse's The American. Chaykin was more satirical than Mark Verheiden.
If you look beyond the Ultraverse, Malibu had some good comics, that Marvel doesn't own, like The Trouble With Girls, though don't expect a publisher to jump at reprinting Gerard Jones' work, after his conviction. It is a fun twist on the James Bond superspy. They did some nice Sherlock Holmes stuff, like Scarlet in Gaslight, which mixes Holmes and Dracula. They reprinted a couple of old Skywald stories, like The Victims. Their Planet of the Apes comics were well written, though the art varied a bit. I pointed out a few other things, in my Other Guys thread.
Valiant had quite a few good books. Archer & Armstrong was a nice buddy comedy/adventure, Solar was an interesting sci-fi premise, Harbinger was a better take on the X-Men than the X-Men had ben, in years. Rai was also interesting sci-fi and action. XO was a bit more of a gonzo take on Iron Man, mostly with Bob Layton swiping from his previous work, with the addition of a Conan the Barbarian hero. The books had a sort of sameness, in the art, thanks to the house style that Shooter imposed upon it; bit there were a few variations.
I always felt the indies offered a lot more variety, depending on your tastes and what you looked for in your art. If you wanted something other than superheroes, Malibu ad a lot of offerings, though, they also employed a lot of rookies, on some of their books. If you wanted sci-fi/superhero stuff, Valiant's batting average was much better than most 90s superhero comics, certainly in the indies. I do think the indie world was richer, before the 90s; certainly before the mid-90s. Again, it depends on your tastes. Dark Horse was the company that I think maintained both a commitment to alternatives and a level of quality, even as they offered more mainstream fare.
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jan 13, 2021 10:54:49 GMT -5
Cody, unfortunately Malibu's other non-Ultraverse titles didn't interest me as much as say Aircel For the longest time, all I cared about when it came to Valiant (before I knew about their Superhero escapades) were their Nintendo comics They're not anything to write home about, just faux Archie or even Harvey type books
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 13, 2021 23:11:16 GMT -5
For Malibu, a few items of note:
Abraham Stone: Country Mouse, City Rat (part of the Platinum Editions co-production with Strip Art Features) Alien Nation Planet of the Apes Trouble With Girls Apache Dick (a spin-off of Trouble) the Sherlock Holmes comics (reprinting the Holmes comic strip and also Scarlet in Gaslight) The I Love Lucy reprints the manga stuff (Captain Harlock, Project A-Ko, Lensmen, ) Star Slammers Nocturnals Power & Glory The Victims (Skywald horror reprint) Cat Claw (a little heavy on the T & A, but a good one from Serbian artist Bane Kerac) Cosmic Heroes (classic Buck Rogers reprints) Dinosaurs for Hire (Turtles wannabe, but a mostly fun one) Dracula Edgar Allan Poe stuff Frankenstein Jeremiah Logan's Run and Logan's World (not so much for the Barry Blair art; but, it adapts the novels well) Men in Black (the movie is a different take on the idea) Metaphysique (Norm Breyfogle) Mighty Magnor (Sergio Aragones) Pirate Corp$ (Evan Dorkin) Southern Squadron (Aussie superheroes) Tarzan books Twilight Avenger (pulp fun from Terry Tidwell) The Uncensored Mouse (unauthorized Mickey Mouse comic strip reprint)
I mentioned Firearm as the best of the Ultraverse (to me) and Strangers and Prime
The Protectors line was a decent idea, but too much rookie art, when their preview stuff was all from Jerry Bigham and Clarke Hawbaker.
For Valiant:
The whole Valiant line, up through Unity, especially Archer & Armstrong, Solar, Harbinger and XO-Manowar. Magnus is good, but I wasn't into it as much, compared to the others, similarly for Shadowman, due to the supernatural hook. Bloodshot was fine, but not my cup of tea, really disappointed by Turok (I loved the original) blase about post-Shooter stuff, like Armorines and Secret Weapons, Quantum and Woody was about the only thing of interest, to me, from the Acclaim period. They did a reprint of Mike Grell's Starslayer, under the Windjammer inprint, and published his Hybrid comic, though the Starslayer stuff was taken from scans, with Clarke Hawbaker touching up some of the art. So-so reproduction (varied from chapter to chapter).
Never looked at the Nintendo stuff, picked up one issue of WWF Battlezone on a newsstand and laughed myself silly, before I put it back.
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Jan 14, 2021 10:24:18 GMT -5
Never looked at the Nintendo stuff, picked up one issue of WWF Battlezone on a newsstand and laughed myself silly, before I put it back. Yeah, like I said, they weren't much to right home about. They've unfortunately jumped up in value due to "Nintendo Hysteria" as I like to call it which also might have been mixed with Valiant's limited print run of titles back then
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 15, 2021 9:46:32 GMT -5
So I can't decide how I feel about this... My daughter (in English, not history... go figure) is studied that HBO series, the Watchmen, as part of a review of the Tulsa Bombing (and tying it into current events). While I LOVE that on one hand, they're not actually reading it (and she acted like I was crazy when I suggested it), but rather watching clips of the show and analyis of it.
The teacher sort of knows it's a comic.. I heard her tell the class the show was 'based off a Graphic Novel by Alan Moore in the late 70s or Early 80s'. Is this a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jan 15, 2021 10:25:22 GMT -5
So I can't decide how I feel about this... My daughter (in English, not history... go figure) is studied that HBO series, the Watchmen, as part of a review of the Tulsa Bombing (and tying it into current events). While I LOVE that on one hand, they're not actually reading it (and she acted like I was crazy when I suggested it), but rather watching clips of the show and analyis of it. The teacher sort of knows it's a comic.. I heard her tell the class the show was 'based off a Graphic Novel by Alan Moore in the late 70s or Early 80s'. Is this a good thing? I don't know why it would be a problem. My wife read V For Vendetta when she went back to college in a Revolutions in Literature class.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2021 10:44:14 GMT -5
I loved both Malibu & Valiant back in the early 90's. In fact I was buying more comics from the 2 publishers than DC, Marvel or Image. Valiant was definitely the better of the 2 but like anything there was a lot of mediocre product but the hidden gems really stood out.
I stuck with Valiant through the Acclaim years and even then they had some decent titles. I also stuck with Malibu after they became part of Marvel but realized Marvel wasn't interested at all in the characters. By the late 90's DC & Marvel were getting better and Image had moved beyond their original line up with new ideas.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jan 15, 2021 12:21:13 GMT -5
So I can't decide how I feel about this... My daughter (in English, not history... go figure) is studied that HBO series, the Watchmen, as part of a review of the Tulsa Bombing (and tying it into current events). While I LOVE that on one hand, they're not actually reading it (and she acted like I was crazy when I suggested it), but rather watching clips of the show and analyis of it. The teacher sort of knows it's a comic.. I heard her tell the class the show was 'based off a Graphic Novel by Alan Moore in the late 70s or Early 80s'. Is this a good thing? The fact that the instructor can't even pin a year on it is worrying.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 15, 2021 12:21:19 GMT -5
So I can't decide how I feel about this... My daughter (in English, not history... go figure) is studied that HBO series, the Watchmen, as part of a review of the Tulsa Bombing (and tying it into current events). While I LOVE that on one hand, they're not actually reading it (and she acted like I was crazy when I suggested it), but rather watching clips of the show and analyis of it. The teacher sort of knows it's a comic.. I heard her tell the class the show was 'based off a Graphic Novel by Alan Moore in the late 70s or Early 80s'. Is this a good thing? Agree with Slam_Bradley, though depending on age and maturity level, some parts of both versions may not be SFS. I often had students read Neil Gaiman's "Midsummer Night's Dream" ( Sandman 19) after we'd done the play. Most loved it, though some found it confusing, as they weren't familiar with how to "read" a comic.
|
|
|
Post by junkmonkey on Jan 15, 2021 12:52:26 GMT -5
So I can't decide how I feel about this... My daughter (in English, not history... go figure) is studied that HBO series, the Watchmen, as part of a review of the Tulsa Bombing (and tying it into current events). While I LOVE that on one hand, they're not actually reading it (and she acted like I was crazy when I suggested it), but rather watching clips of the show and analyis of it. The teacher sort of knows it's a comic.. I heard her tell the class the show was 'based off a Graphic Novel by Alan Moore in the late 70s or Early 80s'. Is this a good thing? I find it strange that people can study a subject without actually engaging with the source material. I once knew someone who gained a degree in English Literature writing her dissertation on Alistair Gray (at the time Scotland's greatest living writer - he since died) without, she claimed, having ever actually read any of his books. My daughter's high school English class 'studied' The Great Gatsby by watching the Baz Luhrman adaptation. Luckily for my daughter I threw her a copy of the book which she consumed, loved, and has read more than once (and I think she prefers the 1974 Jack Clayton version).
There seems to be a bizarre idea that kids don't have time and patience for literature any more - now it turns out schools think kids don't have time and the attention span for comic books?!
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 15, 2021 14:29:21 GMT -5
]The fact that the instructor can't even pin a year on it is worrying. Yeah, that's the part I was grappling with. On the one hand, I'm glad to see comics treated seriously. I don't find Watchmen to be a particular good gateway to the medium, but I'm sure at least one or two of her class will read it, or at least think about it. (She was not in the least interested sadly... but I wasn't surprised. I've only had success getting her to read modern Archie, and even that was massively limited) On the other, I a don't like that they're not using the source, but rather an adaptation. But, then again, as Prince Hal said, maybe some kids would find trying to read a comic as difficult as reading, say Shakespeare or Old English? My mind boggles at that, but I can see it.. especially with a deep story. Hopefully, I'll get to hear a few more of the classes and see how it goes
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 15, 2021 14:45:33 GMT -5
There seems to be a bizarre idea that kids don't have time and patience for literature any more - now it turns out schools think kids don't have time and the attention span for comic books?!
We as a society have yet to figure out just why we want kids to go to school. At the risk of getting political and triggering anyone who thinks that Betsy De Vos is the Plato of the 21st century, students have long been trapped between the Clashing Rocks of low expectations and the demand for "high achievement" (as measured by standardized testing). The culture, the nation, the business world and the society --- "We" --- want learning to be (buzzword alert) "rigorous" but "we" also want every kid to be a (buzzword alert) "high achiever," especially our own kids. "We" want them to be "successful," a word that can best be defined as "making lots of money." Thus "we want them all to go to college, emotional maturity and intellectual readiness be damned. In the last few months, we've seen that as far as most people are concerned, the main purpose of school is to provide a place to house kids so that their parents can work and the American economy can thrive, thank you very much. Oh, and because suddenly we realized that kids need "socialization." Over the last few decades, we’ve tried to prove to all the (buzzword alert) "stakeholders" that all subjects can be sliced, diced, parsed and compartmentalized to make "education" quick, neat and efficient. No thinking required. The learning that occurs on Day 1 of the school year is equal to that which occurs on Days 81, 107 and 145. That approach is a tempting one for teachers, students, and parents alike, because it asserts that education, teaching and learning involve no art, no craft, and no skill beyond the infusion of information in equal amounts at equal times and further, that teaching, learning, and success can be measured using only quantitative methods. And measurability, as far as Betsy DeVos and her ilk are concerned, equals accountability, a no-fuss, no-mess style simplifies and standardizes the whole process and most important of all, reduces the cost of providing an education. Creativity, hit the bricks. Imagination, don't walk in the door. Individuality, who needs you? Like any profession, teaching is filled with time-fillers and time-killers, the clock-watchers who "cover the material" while mainly covering their asses. I can only go by my experience, which goes back to the mid-70s and includes teaching every grade from fifth through college, but the number of teachers and administrators whose approach to the art of teaching stops at perfunctory has only increased. Because of the prevailing winds of homogenization, it has become more and more difficult to be that teacher who does more than dispense the lesson for today, who does not "teach to the test," who doesn't succumb to the temptation to do no more than is called for in the handbook, the teacher's guide or the curriculum. "Are you on the same section of Chapter 15 as the rest of your department?" is the kind of question that now determines your effectiveness as a teacher. This may all sound cynical, I'm sure, especially from a former teacher, and I was privileged to work and serve with dozens of exemplary teachers whose passion was directed toward unlocking the potential within each of the individuals who sat in their classrooms every day, whose goal was to inspire, not to exhaust, to fill their students' minds with treasure and to help them to discover their hidden talents, their own passions, and that ineffable satisfaction that Jimmy Dugan in the film "A League of Their Own" described as "What lights you up inside." Your daughter's teacher, who substituted a viewing of a film for the reading of the novel, is betraying the trust and the responsibility all teachers should feel and is at the least, intellectually dishonest and lazy. I wish your daughter could experience what life is like as a student of our guiding light here, shaxper, who I can tell you, would not let that kind of approach stand in his classroom. I apologize for the rambling, angry self-righteousness; I was far, far from being half the teacher many of my colleagues were, and I made far too many mistakes. all of which haunt me every day. But I learned many a lesson from my peers and especially from my students, and they helped me become a better person and teacher.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,391
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 15, 2021 14:59:58 GMT -5
I think teachers often feel pressure to be relevant to their students, and that pressure can often lead them to compromise their educational ideals. You can do a meaningful lesson with twitter, and you can create a total time-waster that makes the kids chirp with excitement using twitter. Neither are really necessary to good education. In this case, it could be that some students had been discussing Watchmen or even drawing analogies with the teacher, and he/she decided to capitalize upon that.
Is watching the television series a poor substitute for reading the original work? Not necessarily. The teacher certainly should have made the effort to be more knowledgeable about the original text, but beyond that, the television series may have been more relevant to the lesson.
I generally agree with your points, Hal, and I so appreciate your praise, but I'm also always wary of judging what goes on in a classroom without having actually been there.
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Jan 15, 2021 15:01:51 GMT -5
To be fair to the teacher wildfire2099 mentioned, if the emphasis of what they're studying at the moment is the Tulsa riot/massacre, then it makes sense to just use the Watchmen HBO series or parts thereof. To be (far) less charitable though, said teacher should have a greater awareness of the source material (and read it herself) and be able to point curious students to it. In that regard, I fully endorse the points Prince Hal stresses above.
Edited to add: looks like shaxper and I were typing at pretty much the same time, and he kind of made my point better.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jan 15, 2021 15:11:15 GMT -5
I think teachers often feel pressure to be relevant to their students, and that pressure can often lead them to compromise their educational ideals. You can do a meaningful lesson with twitter, and you can create a total time-waster that makes the kids chirp with excitement using twitter. Neither are really necessary to good education. In this case, it could be that some students had been discussing Watchmen or even drawing analogies with the teacher, and he/she decided to capitalize upon that. Is watching the television series a poor substitute for reading the original work? Not necessarily. The teacher certainly should have made the effort to be more knowledgeable about the original text, but beyond that, the television series may have been more relevant to the lesson. I generally agree with your points, Hal, and I so appreciate your praise, but I'm also always wary of judging what goes on in a classroom without having actually been there. Granted. But you're being humble, good sir. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
|
|