Why new comics SUCK

[rob_react]

As a Marvel Zoombie I felt that series was a little too pro-DC for me.

 

Explain?

 

Meaning the Marvel characters didn't beat enough DC a s s.

 

I agree, by the way. The only way that series could have been enjoyable to me is if it had been four double-sized issues of Marvel characters beating the holy hell out of DC characters (as God intended). It still would have needed a lame, contrived story like the actual book had, but I wouldn't have cared as much.

 

And now we get to the heart of the matter

 

This is why I ask these things, so I can get answers straight from the gut.

[FFB]

As a Marvel Zoombie I felt that series was a little too pro-DC for me.

 

Explain?

 

Meaning the Marvel characters didn't beat enough DC a s s.

 

I agree, by the way. The only way that series could have been enjoyable to me is if it had been four double-sized issues of Marvel characters beating the holy hell out of DC characters (as God intended). It still would have needed a lame, contrived story like the actual book had, but I wouldn't have cared as much.

 

And now we get to the heart of the matter

 

This is why I ask these things, so I can get answers straight from the gut.

 

Ahem, well yes, I can be blunt when I need to be.

[blowout]

The only way that series could have been enjoyable to me is if it had been four double-sized issues of Marvel characters beating the holy hell out of DC characters

 

Yep, and injection of realism is what was needed.

[hobbes]

If ever a thread deserved a hijacking this was it. Nicely done.

[Foolkiller]

guys... I absolutely agree there are a bunch of new comics out there which are fantastic... and I totally disagree with the sentiment of this thread.... however, there are a number of new books out there which I would put in the "suck" category:

 

Captain America (as of late especially, and Cap's my favorite category)

Cap and the Falcon (Bart Sears' worst artistic effort... perhaps ever)

Iron Fist (awful art, directionless and pointless story)

Alpha Flight (whoever authorized this remake should be fired)

Amazing Spider Man (recently, the JMS storylines and the sub standard JR JR art has been God awful)

 

 

and I'm sure there are more and more... it's easy to point out books that "suck"... but the thing about new comics is that there's more diversity, quality material and beautiful art at this point than ever before in the comics industry. There are a ton of criticisms that could and I'm sure are leveled at the industry... but to me, it's a great time to look forward to wednesdays.

[rob_react]

but the thing about new comics is that there's more diversity, quality material and beautiful art at this point than ever before in the comics industry. There are a ton of criticisms that could and I'm sure are leveled at the industry... but to me, it's a great time to look forward to wednesdays.

 

[delekkerste]

but the thing about new comics is that there's more diversity, quality material and beautiful art at this point than ever before in the comics industry.

 

Hmmm...not sure I would agree with this. I think there's more quality material for the older, more mature reader than ever before (I'm not just talking about the Vertigo and MAX titles, but also referring to the fact that even most super-hero comics have much more "grown-up" themes than before), but I would not say that a lot of great stuff is being produced for the under-15 crowd. Even a book that would otherwise be good for all ages like Ultimate Spider-Man has a lot of crude slang, mild profanity (e.g., c*&p, hell, blows, sucks, etc.) and innuendo in it that probably doesn't need to be there...take that book away from the equation and there's not really much good all-ages stuff out there...maybe a couple of those DC titles based on the cartoon series (haven't read them myself) and CrossGen's Abadazad, but I can't think of too many other quality reads for the younger generation.

 

In addition, too many books take liberties with splash pages and other space filling techniques to stretch single storylines out into 6-issue arcs to fit into TPB format, which is frustrating for the pamphlet reader, as it takes 6 trips to the comic store and $18 just to read a storyline that used to be done in 2 issues. I also think that many of the freshest ideas peaked back in 2001 and 2002...for example, the early days of the Jones Hulk run, the Morrison X-Men run and the JMS Spidey run were pretty exciting, though the consensus is that all three have fallen off dramatically. The hugely hyped final Morrison storyline was perhaps the biggest yawner of the year so far and generated only a fraction of the buzz of the preceding storyline. Now, it seems that much of the "buzz" these days surrounds variant covers and other gimmicks instead of creativity. Furthermore, as good as books like the new Dark Horse Conan or the relaunched Teen Titans are, can anyone honestly say that they are really as good as they were in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively?

 

As for artwork, there I will have to strongly disagree - while much of the writing out there is reasonably good (though I think some people are really overstating how good it is - there has been a lot of good writing done in the past, you know, even if the very sad 1990s made us forget that), most of the artwork out there is really not very good compared to anything but the artwork produced from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s.

 

That said, I think it's wrong to dismiss all new books as being unworthy of reading. There's actually quite a lot out there that's good and, overall, the quality is a quantum leap better than most of the atrocious books published in the 1990s. 2001, in particular, was an outstanding recent year for comics...though I think it says something that I'm only picking up about half the titles nowadays that I did back then, as I feel the overall quality of books has slipped in the years since then.

[Foolkiller]

This is the first time I can remember actually disagreeing with you completely.

 

a) diversity

 

Let's get rid of the time periods from the 30s through the 60s, because I think it's clear that comics were not geared towards the older audiences and were geared towards children. I think the 70s and 80s are the prime period through which I would have to defend my position. Although certain books like Batman (with Neal Adams), DC Horror books, Tomb of Dracula, Starlin's Captain Marvel and Warlock runs and the like started in the 70s to have a slightly edgier more adult feel, the general target of the medium was still more geared towards children. The comics code authority was still fairly powerful in policing comic books and thus there was less of what you refer to (slang, sexual references, profanity etc.) and although horror and kung fu books were around in the 70s, super hero comics were still clearly dominant. Even through the 80s, although some indys like Cerebus and Usagi Yogimbo (sp?) started surfacing, and groundbreaking works like Watchmen were written, the bulk of monthly comics were still written for a largely juvenile audience, slowly becoming more sophisticated. Alan Moore's Swamp Thing, and the run on Miracleman was the start of evidence of comics starting to branch out... but what it laid the foundation for was the different kinds of product offered today.

 

Today, it's not just Vertigo, or Marvel MAX that I'm referring to either, it's offering all that plus, reboots on traditional super hero takes, fantasy from a number of different publishers including (the now defunct) CrossGen and Top Cow, different super hero concepts from Image, access to a wider range of indys like Frank Cho's Liberty Meadows (and more publicity and play for them as well)... at no other time period in comics' history could you find so much diversity in a comic store at once. And this is now what's available to comic readers constantly. In the 70s and even into the 80s, newstands didn't carry many indys, and comic speciality shops didn't rely on the variety to carry sales. There are a number of indys that started things off in the 80s that paved the way for today's more varied product. Strangers in Paradise, Wanted would any of these books been hits years ago?

 

I know, you're saying that comics are geared solely for the adult audience. I think the comics are, in fact, geared towards a slightly older audience... cause primarily that's who's buying them. But I disagree that there aren't enough comics out there for young people. The kids from 10-15 are more sophisticated with internet access and more accelerated associations with greater access to adult social situations and greater recognition of them. So, I think in part, one of the reasons USM seems like it's for older readers is because even the younger readers are more sophisticated. Although most Superman books are more adult oriented, I still think that same age group can appreciate most of the core Supes and Bats series (maybe not Azz's latest Bat effort though) and I still think it's under enough control that it's not that offensive to the younger audience.

 

Additionally, there are books geared towards children of an even younger age: The animated series books, as you mentioned, Archies are still around, and even some of the cartoon network comic books (based on Samurai Jack and other cartoons).

 

By diversity, I mean that all ages can have access to comics of a variety of storylines and subject matters, and while age is part of the equation on diversity, is not the sole factor. Now, more than ever, a wide ranging sort of taste is addressed beyond spandex clad musclemen.

 

b) artwork

 

Okay, there's no Kaluta, Wrightson, Windsor-Smith or Adams working today -- but there's no one quite as terrible as Herb Trimpe (sorry guys), Frank Robbins or some of the other garbage that passed for art out there. I'm referring to the overall quality in most books. I think that the quality has been raised on most books across the board in terms of art. The coloring is better, the inking crisper... the production itself of the art is better. Is the storytelling better -- maybe not... but I think overall, the art has improved to the point that most of those drawing in the field are at a high level of talent, instead of what was true in the 70s and 80s where a lot of subpar artists were still floating around, and even on key books like some of the dreck in Superman and Batman in the 70s and even into the 80s.

 

c) stories

 

you're right about things being drawn out for the trade paperback... but again, the writing is more sophisticated, less stilted, and more like how people might speak in everyday conversation. The storylines themselves are again, on the whole, better. Classics don't come along all that often, in any decade. I'm looking at day to day, week to week, month to month. If you remember only the best of what the 70s offered vs. what may not be remembered a year from now, that's not fair. Stacking Watchmen or the Dark Knight up against Morrison's X-Men run, may not be fair either. I'm looking at quality on the overall sense, and I believe that like the art, the stories, while longer, are still better written today. On this point, more than any of the others, I understand the criticism that the stories aren't told tightly anymore and things are more drawn out.

 

curious to see what you think gene... but may not have a chance to read it until sunday or monday... off to go out for the evening.

[delekkerste]

I really think that the '70s & '80s creators did a much better job of creating a product that could simultaneously appeal to both younger and older audiences alike. Artistically, I think the '60s-'80s artists far surpassed what today's artists are putting out. Not only are there very few superstars nowadays, but some of the art being produced, is just downright horrible compared to even the 2nd string talent of years past. And yes, a lot of what's out there is worse than even the 3rd string 1970s talent like Trimpe, IMO. Now, I'll admit that the artwork quality has largely improved from the 1990s when Marvel was producing so many titles that even 3rd and 4th-rate talent could get a gig on a major title, but that's not saying a whole lot in my book.

 

I like the fact that creators are able to take more chances nowadays (like Millar on Wanted or all the horror stuff Steve Niles is doing, for example), but it seems like a lot of the better stuff is done away from the mainstream titles which I think are, despite being much better than in the 1990s, are not as good as they were in their hey-day of the 1960s-early 1980s. I disagree strongly with those who say that new comics suck - I continue to be an active reader - but nor do I think that "new books are the best they have ever been". I think history will bear me out - though people will recall many of today's books and storylines fondly in the future, I doubt that many of them will be remembered like the classics of years past.