|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 11, 2023 4:51:13 GMT -5
^^^^^ I think most--though not all--of the comic artists who came up through the 40s and 50s felt they needed to be ready to take jobs in any genre and had both serious and humorous styles that they could all on when needed. After that time, there seemed to be more specialization one way or the other. Both Severins are proficient in both styles, though Marie seems to have a more distinct humor style. On the other hand, when Wrightson did humor in PLOP!, it only deviated maybe 10% from what he usually did around that time. Every time I saw a Marie Severin job in a main stream comic, I had laughter in my head. I never took it seriously. Drucker was quite excellent.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 13, 2023 13:15:43 GMT -5
Just when I think Paste Pot Pete is the worst and ever, I hear that Moon Dragon was named Madame Mc’evil.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 13, 2023 17:36:12 GMT -5
Just when I think Paste Pot Pete is the worst and ever, I hear that Moon Dragon was named Madame Mc’evil. Got sumpin' against the Scots, bub? (And her first name is Lucretia.)
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 13, 2023 22:12:54 GMT -5
I don't think she really was Scottish. I mean, you never saw her headbutt anyone in the face and utter, "Stitch this, jammie!"
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 13, 2023 22:33:00 GMT -5
I don't think she really was Scottish. I mean, you never saw her headbutt anyone in the face and utter, "Stitch this, jammie!" You mean a Glasgow handshake, right?
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Feb 14, 2023 8:07:01 GMT -5
I don't think she really was Scottish. I mean, you never saw her headbutt anyone in the face and utter, "Stitch this, jammie!" You mean a Glasgow handshake, right?
aka Glasgow kiss.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 14, 2023 8:11:44 GMT -5
This is all a cultural education.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 14, 2023 10:34:53 GMT -5
This is all a cultural education. Buckle up.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Feb 14, 2023 10:44:56 GMT -5
Certainly not to be confused with--
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 14, 2023 11:13:57 GMT -5
Bert would be all over this.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 7:38:32 GMT -5
I read Kang Dynasty recently (Avengers (vol. 3) #41-55). Naturally, here are some spoilers:
Warbird has to kill Master of the World during a time when Kang has not only subdued the world, but caused huge loss of life - with threats of more deaths. Warbird requests a tribunal (possibly not the exact word used) and the Avengers agree that the world was at war, and that her act was akin to a soldier during wartime.
I AM SO FED UP WITH THIS TIRED MINDSET OF THE HERO ON A GUILT TRIP OVER AN UNAVOIDABLE KILLING.
It often seems like superheroes think of conflicts as being about NEVER killing. Thank God that the Avengers saw sense.
Rule of law is important. Bumping off anyone and everyone is to be avoided. And I’m not saying no hero should feel guilt.
But come on! The world was at war with Kang - and then subdued. If this world was invaded, I’d hope a non-combatant like myself might prove useful with a weapon. And I’d like to think that if the unthinkable happened, I would a) not lose too much sleep over it, and b) not be subjected to any judgement. This whole thing reminded me of when Mockingbird had to kill Phantom Rider, an act that was not only justified (in my opinion) but perhaps necessary.
Sorry, but in a world where Kang has enslaved the globe, and Master of the World presents a threat, no hero should get too hung up on killing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 8:16:31 GMT -5
I read Kang Dynasty recently ( Avengers (vol. 3) #41-55). Naturally, here are some spoilers: Warbird has to kill Master of the World during a time when Kang has not only subdued the world, but caused huge loss of life - with threats of more deaths. Warbird requests a tribunal (possibly not the exact word used) and the Avengers agree that the world was at war, and that her act was akin to a soldier during wartime. I AM SO FED UP WITH THIS TIRED MINDSET OF THE HERO ON A GUILT TRIP OVER AN UNAVOIDABLE KILLING. It often seems like superheroes think of conflicts as being about NEVER killing. Thank God that the Avengers saw sense. Rule of law is important. Bumping off anyone and everyone is to be avoided. And I’m not saying no hero should feel guilt. But come on! The world was at war with Kang - and then subdued. If this world was invaded, I’d hope a non-combatant like myself might prove useful with a weapon. And I’d like to think that if the unthinkable happened, I would a) not lose too much sleep over it, and b) not be subjected to any judgement. This whole thing reminded me of when Mockingbird had to kill Phantom Rider, an act that was not only justified (in my opinion) but perhaps necessary. Sorry, but in a world where Kang has enslaved the globe, and Master of the World presents a threat, no hero should get too hung up on killing. The world of comic book fantasy has two very different philosophical considerations for me on this topic. In simplified, "youth-oriented" tradition of earlier mainstream comic books (say classic Silver Age), there were very clear limits on how "real world" the limits were of what a bad guy would ever do, or even the level of peril in general a hero might have to face. Without much risk of terrible outcomes at the end of the day, a very idealistic moral code was an inspiring concept for a youngster developing their outlook on the world. Taking someone's life is a very, VERY heavy concept, much as we get desensitized through all the fictious presentations of it in various forms of entertainment. At that stage of life for a young reader, I view it more as setting a default standard that taking a life is wrong, and as they get older and start to ponder more real life implications, start to expand on potential exceptions that certain situations present (it's not to lie to them earlier, it's more just their readiness to fully absorb the full implications). There's a reason why philosophy classes that deal with these exact topics on ethics and morality are generally presented at the collegiate level. Which then speaks to the other consideration, the examples you gave of the greater good, situations where not only may it not be "wrong" per se, but also raising the question of inaction possibly being the greater crime if you had the opportunity to save innocent lives but refused. I think the inherent challenge with comics books is they can often straddle the space of both situations above (or did moreso earlier on at least), again this is all a fantasy backdrop. And can then get into those situations you describe at times where it feels like a story is raising an ethical issue that's more real-world versus light-hearted fantasy, but still falling back on the more simplifed moral code of the latter. If I want light-hearted escapism, I still love dreaming of a world where heroes somehow avoid ever needing to resort to killing, and those types of stories appeal to me greatly. But if I'm contemplating the real world, I know there are situations that are tragic and the ethical options aren't nearly as neat and tidy. As a side note, I still hate what they did with Mockingbird! I could never read the title again after that. Kang I think is one of the hands down most interesting villains, he reminds me of many business people I encounter...they just want a game to win, they are never happy with their successes and eventually need more, and are absolutely ruthless in their pursuit.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 15, 2023 9:12:55 GMT -5
I read Kang Dynasty recently ( Avengers (vol. 3) #41-55). Naturally, here are some spoilers: Warbird has to kill Master of the World during a time when Kang has not only subdued the world, but caused huge loss of life - with threats of more deaths. Warbird requests a tribunal (possibly not the exact word used) and the Avengers agree that the world was at war, and that her act was akin to a soldier during wartime. I AM SO FED UP WITH THIS TIRED MINDSET OF THE HERO ON A GUILT TRIP OVER AN UNAVOIDABLE KILLING. It often seems like superheroes think of conflicts as being about NEVER killing. Thank God that the Avengers saw sense. Rule of law is important. Bumping off anyone and everyone is to be avoided. And I’m not saying no hero should feel guilt. But come on! The world was at war with Kang - and then subdued. If this world was invaded, I’d hope a non-combatant like myself might prove useful with a weapon. And I’d like to think that if the unthinkable happened, I would a) not lose too much sleep over it, and b) not be subjected to any judgement. This whole thing reminded me of when Mockingbird had to kill Phantom Rider, an act that was not only justified (in my opinion) but perhaps necessary. Sorry, but in a world where Kang has enslaved the globe, and Master of the World presents a threat, no hero should get too hung up on killing. It's been a long time since I read this storyline (which I loved) but since the Master was in opposition to Kang, do you think he could have been considered a temporary ally in the war? I can't remember exactly how the conflict with the Master arose.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 15, 2023 9:13:20 GMT -5
This is all a cultural education. I only recently found out what an Irish goodbye was.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2023 9:31:56 GMT -5
I read Kang Dynasty recently ( Avengers (vol. 3) #41-55). Naturally, here are some spoilers: Warbird has to kill Master of the World during a time when Kang has not only subdued the world, but caused huge loss of life - with threats of more deaths. Warbird requests a tribunal (possibly not the exact word used) and the Avengers agree that the world was at war, and that her act was akin to a soldier during wartime. I AM SO FED UP WITH THIS TIRED MINDSET OF THE HERO ON A GUILT TRIP OVER AN UNAVOIDABLE KILLING. It often seems like superheroes think of conflicts as being about NEVER killing. Thank God that the Avengers saw sense. Rule of law is important. Bumping off anyone and everyone is to be avoided. And I’m not saying no hero should feel guilt. But come on! The world was at war with Kang - and then subdued. If this world was invaded, I’d hope a non-combatant like myself might prove useful with a weapon. And I’d like to think that if the unthinkable happened, I would a) not lose too much sleep over it, and b) not be subjected to any judgement. This whole thing reminded me of when Mockingbird had to kill Phantom Rider, an act that was not only justified (in my opinion) but perhaps necessary. Sorry, but in a world where Kang has enslaved the globe, and Master of the World presents a threat, no hero should get too hung up on killing. It's been a long time since I read this storyline (which I loved) but since the Master was in opposition to Kang, do you think he could have been considered a temporary ally in the war? I can't remember exactly how the conflict with the Master arose. Not so much, given his own agenda and resources, perhaps a case of the “potential cure being worse than the disease”.
|
|