|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 24, 2023 17:42:23 GMT -5
Amen to both of those, and I'll add 1963 to the list for levity. A purely fun read.
I dunno, I'm usually a pretty big Alan Moore fan -- and I love Silver Age Marvel too -- but I found 1963 quite lacklustre. I mean, sure, it was a charming enough homage to old 1960s comics and the Dr. Strange analogy guy particular was a real highlight (think he was a hip beatnik from Greenwich Village, if memory serves), but overall it just seemed to lack readability or much in the way of any overarching plot. I found it pretty dull and eventually sold my back issues. Of course, the fact that the series was never finished didn't help none. Agreed. It's the only Moore-scripted comic that ever left me underwhelmed.
Cei-U! It also didn't help that the art was butt-ugly! |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Oct 24, 2023 19:05:43 GMT -5
That’s interesting that you are talking about 1963 the Image mini, just this year the annual was released. It was done by Don Simpson in an unofficial finale to the tale.  |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 24, 2023 21:36:19 GMT -5
I dunno, I'm usually a pretty big Alan Moore fan -- and I love Silver Age Marvel too -- but I found 1963 quite lacklustre. I mean, sure, it was a charming enough homage to old 1960s comics and the Dr. Strange analogy guy particular was a real highlight (think he was a hip beatnik from Greenwich Village, if memory serves), but overall it just seemed to lack readability or much in the way of any overarching plot. I found it pretty dull and eventually sold my back issues. Of course, the fact that the series was never finished didn't help none. Agreed. It's the only Moore-scripted comic that ever left me underwhelmed.
Cei-U! It also didn't help that the art was butt-ugly!
I haven't read them and don't remember seeing or hearing about them when they came out. The artwork on the DC-based analogues like Supreme does indeed look pretty bad to me, so combined with my lack of enthusiasm for the characters they're based on I doubt I would read those even if I found them at cheap prices. I would like to give the Marvel-based ones a try, unless the artwork is equally atrocious, but have yet to find any of the back-issues yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Oct 24, 2023 23:16:26 GMT -5
Agreed. It's the only Moore-scripted comic that ever left me underwhelmed.
Cei-U! It also didn't help that the art was butt-ugly!
I haven't read them and don't remember seeing or hearing about them when they came out. The artwork on the DC-based analogues like Supreme does indeed look pretty bad to me, so combined with my lack of enthusiasm for the characters they're based on I doubt I would read those even if I found them at cheap prices. I would like to give the Marvel-based ones a try, unless the artwork is equally atrocious, but have yet to find any of the back-issues yet.
1963 *is* the Marvel-based series. I wouldn't call the art atrocious exactly--the storytelling is competent enough--but it A) doesn't much look like Kirby, Ditko, Heck, etc., and B) it's ugly (in my opinion, natch).
Cei-U! I summon the clarification!
|
|
|
|
Post by EdoBosnar on Oct 25, 2023 5:12:55 GMT -5
I haven't read them and don't remember seeing or hearing about them when they came out. The artwork on the DC-based analogues like Supreme does indeed look pretty bad to me, so combined with my lack of enthusiasm for the characters they're based on I doubt I would read those even if I found them at cheap prices. I would like to give the Marvel-based ones a try, unless the artwork is equally atrocious, but have yet to find any of the back-issues yet.
If you're interested in seeing what the art looks like, you can find quite a bit of it posted at this site called Forgotten Awesome (just scroll down a little bit and you'll see links to separate posts on each issue of 1963). If you don't feel like checking, here's a sample from the second issue, featuring the Fury (art by Steve Bissette and Dave Gibbons): Personally, I didn't mind the art at all, and I found the stories pretty solid as combined homages but also satires of early 1960s Marvel. What I found rather offputting when I last re-read the series, though, was the text pieces, basically spoofs of the Bullpen Bulletins, which I found more mean-spirited than funny. |
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Oct 25, 2023 11:08:51 GMT -5
You are free to love or hate 1963... it's all fair game... EXCEPT FOR THIS There is no debate... this is one of the funniest things ever written for comics.  |
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Oct 25, 2023 11:15:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Oct 25, 2023 11:21:37 GMT -5
Have to be logged in to see it but I googled a preview and holy crap that's horrible art.
Maybe I should apply for a job and finally realise my childhood dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Oct 25, 2023 11:26:21 GMT -5
Have to be logged in to see it but I googled a preview and holy crap that's horrible art.
Maybe I should apply for a job and finally realise my childhood dream.
It gets even worse the page after the preview. The art is so bad it's good, because it reminded me of scenes from Mel Brooks movies. Dani's incredible moving eye made me think of Prince John's moving mole from Men in Tights, and all the cross-eyed characters made me think of the cross-eyed family which makes up the entire crew of the ship from Spaceballs. |
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Oct 25, 2023 11:28:39 GMT -5
You are free to love or hate 1963... it's all fair game... EXCEPT FOR THIS There is no debate... this is one of the funniest things ever written for comics. Agreed. I remember the mock advertisements better than I remember the actual storyline!
The "Magic Art Appropriator" and "Banish Clear Skin Forever" parody ads were also quite a chuckle.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 25, 2023 18:28:04 GMT -5
I haven't read them and don't remember seeing or hearing about them when they came out. The artwork on the DC-based analogues like Supreme does indeed look pretty bad to me, so combined with my lack of enthusiasm for the characters they're based on I doubt I would read those even if I found them at cheap prices. I would like to give the Marvel-based ones a try, unless the artwork is equally atrocious, but have yet to find any of the back-issues yet.
If you're interested in seeing what the art looks like, you can find quite a bit of it posted at this site called Forgotten Awesome (just scroll down a little bit and you'll see links to separate posts on each issue of 1963). If you don't feel like checking, here's a sample from the second issue, featuring the Fury (art by Steve Bissette and Dave Gibbons):
Personally, I didn't mind the art at all, and I found the stories pretty solid as combined homages but also satires of early 1960s Marvel. What I found rather offputting when I last re-read the series, though, was the text pieces, basically spoofs of the Bullpen Bulletins, which I found more mean-spirited than funny.
Yeah, I think I could live with the artwork, going by that sample. Certainly it wouldn't turn me away from the comic the way - to take another Alan Moore comic as an example - the art in Tom Strong has kept me away from that series.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Oct 25, 2023 22:12:19 GMT -5
If you're interested in seeing what the art looks like, you can find quite a bit of it posted at this site called Forgotten Awesome (just scroll down a little bit and you'll see links to separate posts on each issue of 1963). If you don't feel like checking, here's a sample from the second issue, featuring the Fury (art by Steve Bissette and Dave Gibbons):
Personally, I didn't mind the art at all, and I found the stories pretty solid as combined homages but also satires of early 1960s Marvel. What I found rather offputting when I last re-read the series, though, was the text pieces, basically spoofs of the Bullpen Bulletins, which I found more mean-spirited than funny.
Yeah, I think I could live with the artwork, going by that sample. Certainly it wouldn't turn me away from the comic the way - to take another Alan Moore comic as an example - the art in Tom Strong has kept me away from that series.
Funny, Chris Sprouse was one of my favorite artists from that time. |
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Oct 25, 2023 22:52:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I think I could live with the artwork, going by that sample. Certainly it wouldn't turn me away from the comic the way - to take another Alan Moore comic as an example - the art in Tom Strong has kept me away from that series.
Funny, Chris Sprouse was one of my favorite artists from that time.
I concur.
I think the art in Tom Strong is part of its charm, kind of like Darwyn Cooke is part of the charm of the books that have his art. Is it aesthetically detailed and beautiful? Not necessarily, but it fits the feel of the series. The Sprouse art sometimes has an almost Jonny Quest cartoon style to it, but with a little more detail.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 25, 2023 22:55:44 GMT -5
Yeah, I think I could live with the artwork, going by that sample. Certainly it wouldn't turn me away from the comic the way - to take another Alan Moore comic as an example - the art in Tom Strong has kept me away from that series.
Funny, Chris Sprouse was one of my favorite artists from that time. On Tom Strong specifically, or something else?
I don't think he's a bad artist, I just dislike his style. Intensely. The character design of Tom Strong, for example, with the exaggerated upper body proportions has always struck me as both absurd and aesthetically ugly. But I have the same problem with those Bruce Timm DC cartoons that everyone seems to love so much. So I'm willing to put it down to personal taste. But so much of the charm of the pulp characters the series is meant to emulate is their visual image - the Shadow, Doc Savage - that my inability to stomach the artwork is a deal-breaker for me personally in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Oct 25, 2023 23:02:55 GMT -5
Funny, Chris Sprouse was one of my favorite artists from that time.
I concur.
I think the art in Tom Strong is part of its charm, kind of like Darwyn Cooke is part of the charm of the books that have his art. Is it aesthetically detailed and beautiful? Not necessarily, but it fits the feel of the series. The Sprouse art sometimes has an almost Jonny Quest cartoon style to it, but with a little more detail.
After looking at a few online samples of Jonny Quest - we didn't have that cartoon where I grew up - I don't see it. But if Tom Strong was proportioned in the relatively realistic manner of Jonny Quest I might be able to overlook whatever other problems I have with Sprouse's style. Like I said to Kirby101, I'm happy to concede it's a personal quirk of taste, since everyone else seems to like it so much.
|
|
