|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 16:57:17 GMT -5
I find the O'Neil/Adams GL/GA pretty tiresome, but have to acknowledge this articulate description of the context. Well done. Thanks. I get that the GL/GA series probably sounds preachy and self-conscious now, but since comics, movies, literature, etc. are imitative by nature, O'Neil's edgy approach became the standard approach, which cheapened its impact. And in a culture which idolizes celebrity rather than accomplishment and mistakes snark for political philosophy, qualities like idealism and honesty have little cachet, I'm afraid. I once heard Marshall McLuhan give a talk in which he posited that every innovation or breakthrough eventually evolves into its own opposite: dungarees were the cheap, disparaged uniform of the working class, but evolved into overpriced designer jeans for the upper class; credit cards, which were intended to serve as a safe way to have "cash" in an emergency have become not just cash, but cash you don't really have; and so forth. The same pattern holds for so many artistic movements or changes: witness the popularity and proliferation of "dark" comics, for example. You heard Marshall McLuhan? You were in a room with him and got to hear him speak? Tell us more! I love Marshall McLuhan! Understanding Media is one of my favorite books! I think of Marshall McLuhan all the time! Two days ago, I saw the 1996 Disney version of Hunchback of Notre Dame. The 1939 version is one of my favorite movies, and I'm currently reading the book. I was thinking of McLuhan most of the time while noting the differences between the versions. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 13, 2015 17:05:06 GMT -5
Don't want to make an overly big deal about this, but I just don't see this three-panel sequence...  as clumsily handled by either O'Neil or Adams. Carelessly colored, yes (Look at GL's gloves), but it's simple, direct, and devastating. Melodramatic? Of course. We're neither expecting nor looking for Samuel Beckett here, though.  Now, it's been a while since I reread the story, so I can't swear to the skill, or lack thereof, with which those panels were woven into the story, but standing alone, they don't strike me as clumsy in execution. And I know that especially in the light of history, O'Neil's writing, which was written in the heat of the moment was often as subtle as a pile-driver, but still, those three simple panels clumsy? I just don't see it. And it ain't my way to be snarky, at least to dem as I likes, D.E. I appreciate it, and never thought you to be anything but totally sincere, certainly not snarky. In all honesty, I wasn't really happy with my phrasing as "clumsy", but couldn't think of a better way to put it, until you did. "Subtle as a pile-driver" sums it up well.
The other thing that bothered me about that is that he is suggesting that GL should be making socio-economic change happen for the "black skins" because he did so much for aliens, and based on the fact that he hadn't, he was being racist. But GL never, to my recollection, restructured the social, economic, or political culture for anyone else, alien or terrestrial, just saved their lives, planet, etc., just as he had everyone on Earth multiple times. So why should he be shaming GL, insinuating that he made life cushy for aliens but not for one group on Earth based on skin color? He did the same for earthlings as he did for aliens, saved their lives multiple times.
Points well made. All I'd say is that I never when reading (or re-reading) the story ever got the feeling that the old man was even implying that Hal/GL was a racist, just that he had always taken the god's-eye view of things and never seen this man's reality as a result. Then when he does appear in the rundown neighborhood, whose side does he take? Whatever help he may have wanted was not slum clearance and urban renewal courtesy the power ring, but the reassurance that GL understood the justice of the man's cause in a society rigged against him and his people. Ironically, the man's point is one made against "do-gooder" liberals who are accused of being overly concerned with global issues and ignoring the problems in their own neighborhoods. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 13, 2015 17:12:37 GMT -5
You heard Marshall McLuhan? You were in a room with him and got to hear him speak? Tell us more! I love Marshall McLuhan! Understanding Media is one of my favorite books! I think of Marshall McLuhan all the time! Two days ago, I saw the 1996 Disney version of Hunchback of Notre Dame. The 1939 version is one of my favorite movies, and I'm currently reading the book. I was thinking of McLuhan most of the time while noting the differences between the versions. Just a coincidence. Long story short, I was in Dallas in 1978 attending a Radio and Records (magazine) convention helping a friend who was hawking a syndicated radio program. One of the offerings that virtually nobody attended was a talk by McLuhan. I have to confess that what I wrote about earlier is all that has stuck with me, but those thoughts have resonated over the years and I have applied them to so many other aspects of culture. Don't know if those remarks had sprung from something he'd written then or if they were later put into one of his books. I should look into that. Of course, I've always gotten a huge kick out of his appearance in Annie Hall, too! I LOVE the 1939 Hunchback (that sounds odd): O'Hara is fiery; Laughton, heart-wrenching. The set, the acting, love it all! Come to thnk of it, Edmond O'Brien's character sounds like Green Arrow in the GL series! |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Nov 13, 2015 17:16:52 GMT -5
None of us will love long enough to see a film adaptation of Hunchback with enough guts to preserve the novel's relentlessly grim ending.
Cei-U!
I summon the reeeeeeeal downer!
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 13, 2015 17:25:18 GMT -5
I find the O'Neil/Adams GL/GA pretty tiresome, but have to acknowledge this articulate description of the context. Well done. I thought so too, even if I'm 180 degrees from Hal on this topic. Perhaps it was time for the old genre paradigms to be challenged (I'm ambivalent on that score) but GL was the wrong hero to do it with. Flash, Wonder Woman, even Superman would've been a better choice. Instead, O'Neil vitiated ten years' worth of characterization and world-building for a moment of cheap drama. Sadly, the title was on its last legs anyway so a radical reinterpretation was perhaps inevitable. It might have worked if the issues raised had been addressed in something more than the facile, grossly oversimplified and occasionally smug manner seen during this run. The only truly effective issues were the "Snowbirds Don't Fly" two-parter, which rooted its story in identifiable, human motivations and behaviors. And while GL/GA enjoyed *critical* success, there was very little impact on sales aside from a small spike for #76 and it was cancelled barely a year later. Clearly, this approach was NOT what the general readership wanted. Cei-U! I summon the on-the-fly counterpoint! I think you're right on so many points, Kurt. With the (unfair) ouster of the old guard of writers at DC like Fox and Drake, the younger group (I guess they'd have to be called fanboys) brought with them an appreciation of the Marvel style that was apparently having its way with DC, and a more up-to-date sensibility, so there was that. As I said in another response, however unwittingly, the Hal Jordan character had been going through changes, perhaps with an eye toward doing something to revive interest in what was evidently a failing title, so maybe there was at least some foreshadowing that Hal was going through dem changes. And, as a stand-in for America, the ramrod-straight Boy Scout was a perfect symbol for the confusion and disillusion that reigned then. (I wish I had a nickel for every straight-arrow who came back to school after the summer of '68 with long hair and a penchant for politics.) And those others you mentioned eventually all went through the relevance wringer with varying results. Of course, none of this would have happened had the title not been doing poorly. But that is often the agent of change in comics. I give you " A Moon, A Girl, Romance."  And you're right, the title tanked, though Julie Schwartz gave it a good shot. (I wonder if Adams's notorious deadline issues also hurt there toward the end.) Still, the trend toward relevance continued for a while, and I'd argue was an important step toward comics' "growing up." |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 17:34:03 GMT -5
That's Doc Samson from the Hulk cast, and he is the only super hero psychiatrist in comics to my best knowledge.  I was afraid Marvel had done something stupid to Rick Jones in the 45 years of Hulk comics I skipped. Full disclosure: I like Rick, though not nearly as much as I like Snapper Carr. Rick Jones is pretty awesome. I especially love Avengers #8, where Kang uses his super-science from the future to take out Thor, Iron Man, Cap and Giant-Man and he just ignores the Wasp. So she rallies Rick and the Teen Brigade and they sneak on to his timeship and save the day! I haven't really read that much early JLA so I'm fairly indifferent to Snapper Carr, but he was in the story with the first appearance of the Royal Flush Gang - which I read recently - and that is some king-size Silver Age silliness. He saves the day in a costume that would make Robby Reed wince. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 17:41:07 GMT -5
None of us will love long enough to see a film adaptation of Hunchback with enough guts to preserve the novel's relentlessly grim ending. Cei-U! I summon the reeeeeeeal downer! Shush! I'm still reading it. Very slowly. I read about 35 pages since Sunday and it's probably the most I've read in a five-day period since I started. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 17:49:13 GMT -5
I can't stand Arcade.
In his first appearance - late 1970s? - when I was still a teen, I remember thinking how annoying he was, and he was being treated like a big deal, like he was some kind of great idea for a villain when he was really very very meh. At best.
And then it just got worst. He kept appearing. He kept failing on his biggest hits. He would have to charge ten million dollars? a hundred million dollars? per hit just to pay for MurderWorld.
It made no sense. Plus he was boring and stupid and supposed to be brash and charming.
And his appearance in that X-Men story with Dr. Doom made no sense. Was it the real Doom? Was it a Doom robot? Which explanation is less stupid? I wouldn't be able to choose.
There. I said it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 18:15:06 GMT -5
Has anybody mentioned Terry Long yet? If not, I'll do it.
Terry Long. No. Just, no.
I read Teen Titans for a short time - around issues #20 to #30 - and I remember how the story would come to a crashing halt whenever Terry Long wandered in. Great art, and the stories were very exciting, and I could see what the fuss was about. (And I loved the Brotherhood of Evil! The Brain! Monsieur Mallah! Plasmus! Madame Rouge! Warp!) But Terry Long made me cringe. And then they started playing up Deathstroke, who is also horrible. And then along came Terra. Puke. It was a perfect storm of terrible characters.
It was so easy to just stop at that point.
There. I said it.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 13, 2015 18:28:37 GMT -5
Too many to mention them all but here are a few I particularly dislike:
I don't like Harley Quinn because I don't like the Joker and she's connected to that character.
Never have liked Wolverine. I don't think Claremont is good at writing the kind of tough guy I imagine he was going for - he tries so hard to sell the character to the reader that it ends up coming of as annoying, or worse, embarrassing. He should have taken a few pointers from Frank Miller who, for all his faults as a writer, does know how to write that kind of character.
Batman I was never a huge fan of but didn't mind back in the 60s and 70s and I enjoyed Miller's Dark Knight and Year One in the 80s but I've come to detest him the last several years as this can-do-no-wrong guy. Superman, the same, except I never liked him at all, even in my early years as a comics reader.
Iron man I never was interested in much as a kid and like him even less now that he's more important within the Marvel superhero-verse than he ever was.
And of course as I've said many times here I don't like female knock-offs of male heroes, so the presence of Batwoman, She-Hulk, Supergirl, Spiderwoman, Ms Marvel, the various female Thors, etc, etc can be sufficient just by itself to make me avoid a comic. Actually that would be true of pretty much every character I've listed in this post. And there are lots more where they came from!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2015 18:34:19 GMT -5
And of course as I've said many times here I don't like female knock-offs of male heroes, so the presence of Batwoman, She-Hulk, Supergirl, Spiderwoman, Ms Marvel, the various female Thors, etc, etc can be sufficient just by itself to make me avoid a comic. Actually that would be true of pretty much every character I've listed in this post. And there are lots more where they came from! I give a pass to silver age female knock-off characters. And I do think I am going to love Power Girl. However, the stuff they are doing now? No. Females deserve their own characters. Females do not need to be in the shadow, defined by a pre-existing male character. But so many people think it's so awesome to just grab up those scraps and love them instead of requesting new female characters. And don't get me started on what DC did to Wally West. I could rant for FOREVER. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 13, 2015 21:06:08 GMT -5
And of course as I've said many times here I don't like female knock-offs of male heroes, so the presence of Batwoman, She-Hulk, Supergirl, Spiderwoman, Ms Marvel, the various female Thors, etc, etc can be sufficient just by itself to make me avoid a comic. Actually that would be true of pretty much every character I've listed in this post. And there are lots more where they came from! I give a pass to silver age female knock-off characters. And I do think I am going to love Power Girl. However, the stuff they are doing now? No. Females deserve their own characters. Females do not need to be in the shadow, defined by a pre-existing male character. But so many people think it's so awesome to just grab up those scraps and love them instead of requesting new female characters. And don't get me started on what DC did to Wally West. I could rant for FOREVER. At least Power Girl has her own name and costume, so she doesn't come across to me as a derivative character to the same extent as some of the others I listed. The Superman connection is still a serious point against her for me but putting that to one side I don't mind the character. It helps if they don't make reference to all that kind of thing in the story. I thought the Palmiotti/Connor series from a few years ago was one of the more enjoyable comics from around at that time. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 13, 2015 21:46:27 GMT -5
I thought the Palmiotti/Connor series from a few years ago was one of the more enjoyable comics from around at that time. This is the Power Girl series with art by Amanda Connor that ran roughly 2009 to 2011? If so, it's great! A lot of fun, especially the first 12 issues or so. Then it kinda stumbled a bit with some cross-over issues, but I thought it ended strong. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 13, 2015 23:43:42 GMT -5
I thought the Palmiotti/Connor series from a few years ago was one of the more enjoyable comics from around at that time. This is the Power Girl series with art by Amanda Connor that ran roughly 2009 to 2011? If so, it's great! A lot of fun, especially the first 12 issues or so. Then it kinda stumbled a bit with some cross-over issues, but I thought it ended strong. Yeah, that's the one. Did the Amanda Connor run go more than 12 issues? I stopped at what I thought was their last issue, somewhere around there. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 14, 2015 6:59:19 GMT -5
The Vision hasn't been the same since Byrne took him apart.
|
|
