Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:@EnglishAssassin: Are you thinking of Final Crisis? Batman didn't actually die in Batman RIP. Also, whether or not the events of a story are rendered "permanent" by subsequent writers doesn't seem to me to be the only criterion of success.

As you have inferred, I was thinking of the whole drawn-out saga of Bat-death (or rather Bat-non-death) which began in Batman RIP.

Manchu wrote:It's hard for me to understand this "loved outside of comic books" criterion of success, too. What does it matter if people who are ignorant of a genre can reference a couple of best sellers? Where is this hip intelligentsia who read the Watchmen but couldn't tell (or care less about) who Nightwing is? And why should I care what they think? It seems to me that "the wider audience" is the movie-going and TV-watching public. Their approval is registered in dollars. These are the same people who have handed over millions to Kim Kardashian. I guess by that standard Kim is far more culturally significant than Alan Moore.

Strictly what I meant here was literary success; the approval of those who (like me) have no idea who Kim Kardashian is. It is telling that Moore and Gaiman have both achieved the nigh-unique feat of winning literary awards (still genre awards, but it's a nonetheless a significant step) for their comic books (a Hugo for Watchmen, a Nebula for Sandman). Both contribute to the Guardian and to the TLS, and that's where you'll find the readership who know Watchmen, but not X-Men.

Manchu wrote:

English Assassin wrote:Whilst I see the logic, it's perhaps a little unfair to blame Alan Moore (though I might indeed point a finger at Frank Miller) for Rob Liefeld, Todd McFarlane, et al. having taken the superficial "darkness" of their work, and pasted it onto low-quality superhero hackwork.

Let's not push the argument too far. It's not like Rob Liefeld is Alan Moore's protege. But Moore and Miller did set the stage for guys like Liefeld and McFarlane to look down at their bristol board and see something serious rather than ridiculous. And, more importantly, Moore and Miller created an appetite for darkness among the fans.

Were we discussing Frank Miller, whose 1980s Daredevil and Batman runs are indeed prototypes of 1990s "grim and gritty", I'd say you had a point, but Alan Moore's lasting legacy in comic books (aside from leading the drift towards writers actually scripting, rather than just tacking dialogue on to pencilled panels) lies in 1990s series like Transmetropolitan and The Invisibles (or indeed most things published by Vertigo). I really don't see how, say, Spawn or Cable owe anything to Moore beyond a nebulous (and very superficial) "darkness". They certainly share none of Moore's literary influences (J.G. Ballard, William Burroughs, Thomas Pynchon), and it's unsurprising that they have enjoyed none of his literary recognition.

Manchu wrote:Also, would one of your kind Britishers do a Yank a good turn by flipping through this and tell me about it.

I'll be seeing my friend Jamie in the pub later, he'll doubtless have bought it.

English Assassin wrote:
The Death of Superman sold a colossal number of comics in a time in which sales volumes were many times their present level - indeed it, along with the multiple-cover, polybagged X-Men v2#1, is often blamed for the crash which ended that boom.

Looked at twenty years on, however, time has not done it any favours (even if one ignores Superman's mullet), and it compares, as a Superman story, very poorly with, say, Kingdom Come, Peace on Earth or the recent Infinite/Final Crisis stories. The dialogue is stilted (written by the Marvel method), the art is scratchy, and everybody knows (as they did at the time) that the ending will be a cop-out. It's no coincidence that collections of material published around the same time, but written with a measure of integrity, rather than as publicity gimmicks, have continued to sell over the intervening twenty years (Sandman, Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns, by way of example, all of which continue to appear in the lower reaches of the IGN charts, and have done so consistently since publication).

Manchu wrote:There's this thing called the Dark Age and it was pretty much ushered in by the Watchmen and the Dark Knight Returns. You say Alan Moore is "simply writing stories" but the fact is that those stories have been tremendously influential. Without Alan Moore, I doubt we'd have Rob Liefeld for example.

Whilst I see the logic, it's perhaps a little unfair to blame Alan Moore (though I might indeed point a finger at Frank Miller) for Rob Liefeld, Todd McFarlane, et al. having taken the superficial "darkness" of their work, and pasted it onto low-quality superhero hackwork. That's like blaming Jane Austen for Bridget Jones' Diary, or Umberto Eco for The Da Vinci Code. 1963, Tom Strong and (perhaps most remarkably) Moore's well-regarded reinvention of Leifeld's otherwise execrable Supreme, demonstrate that his oeuvre is not limited to grit and gloom.

I don't think I'd pin the crash on The Death of Superman or even X-Men #1. X-Men #1 may have been the beginning of the end but we can only blame the actual end of the end: Image's never-ending variant cover extravaganza as the culprit.

Couldn't agree more about Liefeld. It's massively unfair to blame The Liefeld on Alan Moore!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
It's hard for me to understand this "loved outside of comic books" criterion of success, too. What does it matter if people who are ignorant of a genre can reference a couple of best sellers? Where is this hip intelligentsia who read the Watchmen but couldn't tell (or care less about) who Nightwing is? And why should I care what they think? It seems to me that "the wider audience" is the movie-going and TV-watching public. Their approval is registered in dollars. These are the same people who have handed over millions to Kim Kardashian. I guess by that standard Kim is far more culturally significant than Alan Moore.

I've see you throw up this geek wall before Manchu. It's not that being acceptable to those who don't read comics is some criterion of success but it's not some shame either. Like you've lost your nerd-cred. It just so happens that comics that are accessible and self contained can be good. I read a lot of comics every month and I'm now picking some Batman and even I find it a bit inaccessible.
It's not right to say "those people" are the ones that watch Kim Kardasian so feth 'em. Comic books can be insular and confusing and sometime the ones that aren't are better.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

English Assassin wrote:

Manchu wrote:

English Assassin wrote:Whilst I see the logic, it's perhaps a little unfair to blame Alan Moore (though I might indeed point a finger at Frank Miller) for Rob Liefeld, Todd McFarlane, et al. having taken the superficial "darkness" of their work, and pasted it onto low-quality superhero hackwork.

Let's not push the argument too far. It's not like Rob Liefeld is Alan Moore's protege. But Moore and Miller did set the stage for guys like Liefeld and McFarlane to look down at their bristol board and see something serious rather than ridiculous. And, more importantly, Moore and Miller created an appetite for darkness among the fans.

Were we discussing Frank Miller, whose 1980s Daredevil and Batman runs are indeed prototypes of 1990s "grim and gritty", I'd say you had a point, but Alan Moore's lasting legacy in comic books (aside from leading the drift towards writers actually scripting, rather than just tacking dialogue on to pencilled panels) lies in 1990s series like Transmetropolitan and The Invisibles (or indeed most things published by Vertigo). I really don't see how, say, Spawn or Cable owe anything to Moore beyond a nebulous (and very superficial) "darkness". They certainly share none of Moore's literary influences (J.G. Ballard, William Burroughs, Thomas Pynchon), and it's unsurprising that they have enjoyed none of his literary recognition.

I agree, and even if we are to blame Moore for all "darkness" then we must give him creit for all the good stuff that came out of it too.

I think we're actually selling short MacFarlane's influence on comics. Spawn was actually another watershed moment for the industry too. I actually think that's when comics became their darkest. It is however not stood the test of time as well as Watchmen which I think is another compliment to Moore.

I don't want to interrupt your discussion, but there is something I have to get of my chest:

The Ultimate Spider-Man Cartoon still sucks. A lot. First they ruined Coulson. Then they made Venom boring. And now I couldn't even enjoy an episode with Iron Man in it. Gork damnit, how can a creative team like this fail so hard?

Anung Un Rama wrote:I don't want to interrupt your discussion, but there is something I have to get of my chest:

The Ultimate Spider-Man Cartoon still sucks. A lot. First they ruined Coulson. Then they made Venom boring. And now I couldn't even enjoy an episode with Iron Man in it. Gork damnit, how can a creative team like this fail so hard?

How many episodes in is it?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:You're going to have to define what the "Dark Age" is then.

The Bronze Age is when comics began to get serious. The Dark Age began when this seriousness became deconstructive, in other words with TDKR and Watchmen. Those books unraveled the Bronze Age superhero without bothering to knit him back together. The result was the anti-hero: Cable, the Punisher, Venom, Magneto (now a good guy) and especially Wolverine took over Marvel, for example. But the zenith was promulgated by independent publishers, especially Image. Looking back at those inhumanly bulging biceps and triple Ds, it's easy to dismiss it all as silly. But in the Dark Age mode, being outrageous is the way to be serious. We can still get a taste of it: most people seem to think Nolan's Batman is a "realistic" depiction of a superhero.

Are we in the Dark Age now?

Some people say yes, others say no. I think it's yes and no. Kingdom Come was the first big blow but unlike the story-ending diatribes of Moore (Watchmen is about the end of superheroes) and Miller (TDKR is about the end of superheroes), Waid and Ross's work posed a question: what's next for the superheroes? And there has yet to be a clear, dominant answer to that question. In the meantime, American culture became both more ideological and sinister in the lead up to 9/11. Mark Millar and Warren Ellis gave us a new batch of anti-heroes and told us this is just how superheroes are now. Joe Kelley fought back with Superman in "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way?" The result? I think Lobdell's New 52 books are a good benchmark: young superheroes cannot appeal to any institutions and have to re-invent the wheel. Similarly, the Marvel universe goes to war with itself again and again and again.

Overall I get this sense from your points that you'd think that comics would be better if The Watchmen and Moore never existed.

Then you're not reading what I've posted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

English Assassin wrote:Both contribute to the Guardian and to the TLS, and that's where you'll find the readership who know Watchmen, but not X-Men.

Trouble is, I still don't care what someone who's read Watchmen but not X-men thinks because he couldn't have understood what Watchmen was actually about, i.e. comic books. Gaiman is little different but I don't see him as influential in the same way as Miller or Moore.

I really don't see how, say, Spawn or Cable owe anything to Moore beyond a nebulous (and very superficial) "darkness".

You're right that there is no direct line. But it's Moore who kills the superheroes; shows them to be fetishists, fascists, perverts, and psychos. The Batman of TDKR is, in Frank Miller's view, is the only character who is NOT morally compromised. Moore's heroes by contrast are all defunct. You can't even call them heroes. They're just super protagonists. So thinking about Wolverine, the issue isn't that Wolverine is the only guy who truly understands the difference between right and wrong in a world gone mad but rather is the personification of Moore's critique of superhero righteousness as delusional.

I'll be seeing my friend Jamie in the pub later, he'll doubtless have bought it.

Ah cheers. Judge Anderson is my absolute favorite character in comics and it's nigh impossible to reliably get either title without buying direct from Essex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:It's not right to say "those people" are the ones that watch Kim Kardasian so feth 'em. Comic books can be insular and confusing and sometime the ones that aren't are better.

Accessibility is not necessarily good. Consider the plight of the big two: (1) not many customers overall, (2) most customers have been reading for 10 - 20 years and want all of that to mean something, and (3) it's unclear as to whether "new readers" are anything but a overly optimistic hypothetical. And that's on top of the problems inherent to serial storytelling. (Who can legitimately complain that issue 2 was confusing if they haven't read issue 1?) Chasing the mythical new reader is something that has to be done -- but it seems to be at a cost. What are people like you, KC, going to make of a reboot? And yet Superman belongs to each new reader as much as to the oldest readers. The "Kardashian Fans" are people who go to see a Marvel blockbuster and read one or no comics as a result. And yet still they outspend people pulling 20+ titles a month. That's the only reason to care about them. It's just like Roger Ebert saying that videogames can never be art. But who the feth cares what Roger Ebert thinks about something he knows nothing about?

I think we're actually selling short MacFarlane's influence on comics. Spawn was actually another watershed moment for the industry too.

Speak for yourself. I just posted about how cool I thought and still think some of that stuff is.

Manchu wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote: Overall I get this sense from your points that you'd think that comics would be better if The Watchmen and Moore never existed.

Then you're not reading what I've posted.

I am. Perhaps it's responses like that that make it unclear.

Anyways, I agree that someone shouldn't just read The Watchmen as the first and only comic they read. Which in fact a lot of people do. To really appreciate you should have read many, many other comics beforehand but I think that that once again is a compliment to what Moore acheived with it.

I see what you mean about the Dark Age now and that is a good definition but I don't accept the Image revolution and Bad Girls phenomenom as part of it other than the fact every age and generation of creators retains and is influenced by the last. Maybe the Image walkout is the actual end of that age (also could be called the we-don't-need-no-writers walkout). It's hard for me to pick a spot for what finally ended the Bad Girls mini-era from my own personal experience I seem to recall JMS writing Rising Stars as a point were story was more important than art again.

Influence can work in a couple of ways. You could say "wow, Alan Moore is great, I'll try to do stuff like him." But you could just as easily go about your work with no conscious appreciation of why you (can) do the things you do. That's how the dominance of the anti-hero/bad girl archetype (they are the same phenomenon) traces back to Watchmen. It's not that Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld were trying to copy Moore. Rather, they were working in the space that Moore had helped to create. That's why people talk about TDKR and the Watchmen as launching the Dark Age.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Anung Un Rama wrote:I don't want to interrupt your discussion, but there is something I have to get of my chest:

The Ultimate Spider-Man Cartoon still sucks. A lot. First they ruined Coulson. Then they made Venom boring. And now I couldn't even enjoy an episode with Iron Man in it. Gork damnit, how can a creative team like this fail so hard?

How many episodes in is it?

Five so far. The good news is I have no idea what'll happen next because they already used all the material I saw in the trailers.

Anyone read these comics?

The Boys or Crossed


And can anyone recommend something similar to these?

I read "The Boys".

I would suggest Preacher -- same author -- Transmetropolitan ... but something about you suggest you're aware of that yes ? -- maybe have a dig through Ennis memorable "Hitman" series -- spoilers ahoy : http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2009/02/04/comics-you-should-own-hitman/

There are some tpbks available, not sure how much of the series is out. But there's back issues eh ?

At the very least pick up #34 -- BIG spoilers !
http://shardsofblu.livejournal.com/61928.html

which is just a beautiful story, and an interesting view of America from an outsider.

From currently being published books .. hmm... maybe the Frankenstein series that DC are publishing ?

"I'm American. What can I do to help?"

That's an awesome line.

reds8n wrote: I read "The Boys".

I would suggest Preacher -- same author -- Transmetropolitan ... but something about you suggest you're aware of that yes ? -- maybe have a dig through Ennis memorable "Hitman" series -- spoilers ahoy : http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2009/02/04/comics-you-should-own-hitman/

There are some tpbks available, not sure how much of the series is out. But there's back issues eh ?

At the very least pick up #34 -- BIG spoilers !
http://shardsofblu.livejournal.com/61928.html

which is just a beautiful story, and an interesting view of America from an outsider.

From currently being published books .. hmm... maybe the Frankenstein series that DC are publishing ?

Yah, Hitman, think I need to have a go at that.

And can any comic book fan call himself such a thin if he hasn't read Preacher? Come on!!

Now that I've seen The Avengers movie, I really want to read something with...

There are.. or were anyway.. collections of that story and the ...2.... follow up stories as well.

Might be a OOP currently -- IIRC there was a hardback collection released a while back to tie into the fine cosmic work being done by Mr. Abnett and Co. ... should be about if you look.

I'm pretty sure it's in print.

http://www.amazon.de/Infinity-Gauntlet-Jim-Starlin/dp/0785156593/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335792002&sr=8-1

That's the shiny and new recent hardcover print methinks.

Bit of googling brought some various issues/covers.... oh the memories.

... certainly explains the worldwide shortage of shiny metallic foil we now have anyway eh ?

I can recall some of the crossover issues very well indeed.

In other (recurring) news, I really want this:



Young Anderson and the return of the Dark Judges? Come on Blighty, share your bounty!

Dunno if you saw this

http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2012/03/23/2000-a-d-s-judge-dredd-returns-to-america-with-new-idw-series/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+geeksofdoom+%28GEEKS+OF+DOOM%29

Yes and on the pull list even; will be my first IDW title. I'm very interested to see how this will play out, especially the "deluxe reprints" part of the IDW deal. I'd love to have a nice version of Necropolis considering how hard it is to find currently. OTOH, I was pretty disappointed with IDW's recent TMNT reprint volume.

Manchu wrote:I'm pretty sure it's in print.

http://www.amazon.de/Infinity-Gauntlet-Jim-Starlin/dp/0785156593/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335792002&sr=8-1

Looks good, but can I read that one on its own? One of the Amazon reviews said I'd have to buy 6 other books to understand it all.

Manchu wrote:In other (recurring) news, I really want this:

Spoiler:

I hvae a Judge Fear Heroclix figure. There was a printing error with his name on the base and I get all dizzy from looking at it for too long.

Manchu wrote:OTOH, I was pretty disappointed with IDW's recent TMNT reprint volume.

Which one do you mean? I read the first TPB from the new series and really liked it.

Anung Un Rama wrote:Looks good, but can I read that one on its own? One of the Amazon reviews said I'd have to buy 6 other books to understand it all.

That's how every major event is, Marvel or DC.

Which one do you mean? I read the first TPB from the new series and really liked it.

No, I mean the reprint of the original books, which I know you also bought. As I mentioned before, the production values were way low for the price.

I don't know if I missed something in another comic but somehow J'onn J'onzz joined, fought and left the the JLA all in one panel. Literally years are passing in between issues. I'm really dissappointed in this reboot and dropping this title. They should have taken some ques from Ultimate Spider-Man on how to do a reboot. There's no rush, you know your fans like these characters already. Uncle Ben didn't even die until issue #5 in USM.
There basically saying "remember all those crazy adventures we had?" No I don't. Show me, don't tell me about how you had them. I feel like they tricked me with a fake restart.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I don't know if I missed something in another comic but somehow J'onn J'onzz joined, fought and left the the JLA all in one panel. Literally years are passing in between issues. I'm really dissappointed in this reboot and dropping this title. They should have taken some ques from Ultimate Spider-Man on how to do a reboot. There's no rush, you know your fans like these characters already. Uncle Ben didn't even die until issue #5 in USM.
There basically saying "remember all those crazy adventures we had?" No I don't. Show me, don't tell me about how you had them. I feel like they tricked me with a fake restart.

Considering that Stormwatch and the JLA will butt heads sooner or later I think that little snippet adds a bit of tension and hopefully we'll get more info on what happened. MM seems to be taking a bigger role in this reboot and I like that.

I get my weekly dose of DC from Young Justice, which is still effin' awesome.

MadEdric wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I don't know if I missed something in another comic but somehow J'onn J'onzz joined, fought and left the the JLA all in one panel. Literally years are passing in between issues. I'm really dissappointed in this reboot and dropping this title. They should have taken some ques from Ultimate Spider-Man on how to do a reboot. There's no rush, you know your fans like these characters already. Uncle Ben didn't even die until issue #5 in USM.
There basically saying "remember all those crazy adventures we had?" No I don't. Show me, don't tell me about how you had them. I feel like they tricked me with a fake restart.

Considering that Stormwatch and the JLA will butt heads sooner or later I think that little snippet adds a bit of tension and hopefully we'll get more info on what happened. MM seems to be taking a bigger role in this reboot and I like that.

Yeah, I miss JJ's presence in the JLA, but clearly they're setting something up.

I think it might well be something to do with the first big company wide crossover which is due.."soon" ... summer maybe ? ... We're also getting those issue #0s soon as well which are to be used to fill in the blanks a bit more too.

Started reading vol. 2 of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen that i bought ages ago and was shocked to see it open with John Carter and 4 armed aliens. Wouldn't have recognized them without the movie.

Manchu wrote:No, I mean the reprint of the original books, which I know you also bought. As I mentioned before, the production values were way low for the price.

I don't have my book here at the moment, but I didn't have nay problem with the quality.

Avengers vs. X-Men has been good. I think they learned some lessons from Fear Itself and out the main story in the main title. Was pulling for the Avengers because Cyclops has been a putz lately but it looks like the X-Men have the edge right now.

I've actually kinda enjoyed A vs X just because Marvel seems to have embraced the inherent stupidity of both crossover events and "vs"-type series. I feel like it's keeping things simple and not taking itself too seriously, which is good because I don't take it seriously either.

The latest Action Comics is another head-scratcher in terms of what relevance it has to the main story, but I have faith in Grant.