|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 22, 2011 9:58:17 GMT -5
I'm just saying that everytime I post something about what Bendis is doing it's always negative feedback I get. Just don't buy the books he writes, Marvel ain't gonna get rid of him just because alot of fans don't like him. Well, people aren't buying his books like they used to. That doesn't seem to matter. His New Avengers and Avengers are two high profile titles, both recently relaunched and the April sales of both are barely in the low to mid 60,000 range. www.icv2.com/articles/news/20090.htmlAnd it's just annoying because at first it was all about what a great writer he was and while he may have done well on a title or two, it's not a consistent level that he can keep up, it appears. Then it was all about "look how he sells..." and now that's not really a factor as of this moment either. Marvel properties have never, ever had a higher profile than right now- three major films Thor, Cap and X-Men all come out within weeks of each other, Spider-Man has been in the news for good or ill, for a solid year thanks to the trainwreck play, and a great Avengers cartoon has been on for the last eight months. So what's the excuse for the droop in sales? These are anemic at best. Economy? Perhaps, but the best books (Twilight, Potter, Hunger Games, True Blood) are still sell extremely well. If people loved the comic books, they'd scrape together a few bucks. So maybe it's time for different talent on the books and to not have BMB overseeing so much of the Marvel Universe. Being frustrated because one guy has put so much of an imprint on Marvel is an expression of love for these titles and these characters so don't take it personally.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 21, 2011 18:03:50 GMT -5
He's talking about Ultimate Spider-Man. Bendis has a good relationship with Marvel, He's gonna be there unless he decides to leave or do something really dumb(and I don't mean writing about a certain character). This is why I don't post anything with Bendis in it because everyone get's so mad about what he does which is the reason why I don't post alot of topics on this board. I don't get to buy many Marvel comics because Bendis is writing a lot of them, so it's kind of a trade off... As for USM dying- a) he won't stay dead. Bucky didn't stay dead, (yeah I know about Fear Itself, big deal. Doubt it'll stick) nobody stays dead. b) even if it somehow did stick, it's like killing the Batman of Earth 2. Peter Parker is still alive, the Spider Man that the marvel universe was built on, still stands, so how big a deal is it? If Marvel needs another Peter Parker, they'll just start another universe. The megaverse is up next...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 15, 2011 14:09:56 GMT -5
^^^^^ Yep I see the Jack Davis thing- it's a perspective issue and the way Neal elongates his figures, from sort of a low angle here looks like Davis' regular pencil and ink style. But Davis had that style forever- he did the old EC Comics in that style too and much of that is from the fifties and sixties... here's a link to a story he did for old EC, a Civil War tale (the REAL Civil War, not Marvel's terrible mini...) ethunter1.blogspot.com/2009/10/sunday-funnies-frontline-combat-14.html
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 14, 2011 22:51:49 GMT -5
Not my favorite Neal Adams work. Does Iron Fist fly now? And the Thing looks like he's made of peanut brittle. No depth and shadow in the linework at all. And the figures just don't make sense- Wolverine jumping in air to slash at the Goblin Ghost and Spidey looks ripped- that back belongs on a juicehead who does 300 lb lat pulls with a side of steroids...Maybe you can't go home again.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 13, 2011 21:35:23 GMT -5
it's getting to the point where it's easier to say who isn't an avenger in the current MU. personally I always found a squad of a-listers and then some b and c- list characters more interesting because it gives you more to work with, personality-wise (you can hate quicksilver and moondragon, but they make a book interesting...) as well as not conflicting with other appearances. guess marvel isn't as concerned with that these days.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 3, 2011 16:25:29 GMT -5
As long as he doesn't speak jive, I'm cool with it. And as long as he doesn't listen to Gangster Rap. What, you don't want Snoop Dogg guarding Bifrost? "You wanna cross the Raindizzle Brizzle, yo?" I also took it with a grain of salt because heck Thor was once replaced by earthman Red Norvell, and then had his essence inside another mortal- Eric Masterson. Who's to say that Odin didn't need a new Heimdall and had to pluck some very worthy mortal after some trickery by the Enchantress or some such thing? Or is Thor the only one who gets to have upheavals in his life? I'm also assuming that Karnilla used the Norn stones to make everyone forget brave Balder and he's planning an escape even as we speak...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 3, 2011 11:04:05 GMT -5
Just one thing about Heimdall being black... He's the guardian of the Rainbow Bridge and never leaves it. So no one on earth would ever see him in the first place. They'd have to guess at his looks based on the other Norse gods, wouldn't they?
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 3, 2011 9:57:33 GMT -5
Which Ben Grimm revival are you referring to? I have to say I liked the Mark Waid one where they had to go to Heaven. It really fit the FF (they'll go ANYWHERE...) and he did the storyline right after Ben was killed so it wasn't dragged out and it was hardly the event they made of Johnny Storm's recent 'death' (cough cough...) Ha! Yep, that's exactly the one I was thinking of. I think it was referred to around here again recently, in fact--- with Jack Kirby being the "Creator" and all. But, nope, I didn't care for the idea of it at all-- although it certainly wasn't badly executed. And I did appreciate that they didn't turn it into a big Mega-Event, etc. But it really pushed the outer boundaries of acceptable continuity for me, and sets an absolutely ridiculous precedent for how far Reed's abilities can take him. Granted, I'd have to read it again, but-- what now prevents Reed from going and fetching Johnny? Or anyone, for that matter? Does Reed (or Ben) even remember that this event took place? And, honestly, it was simply too easy for Reed to track Ben's "soul" to the great hereafter via scientific methods. Some barriers are better off never crossed, because once they are. . . then what? AND YET, as I said, I still prefer it to having somebody kill Ben off on a whim, and being stuck with his loss. I do feel it would be better to take any deaths right off of the editorial table unless a solid, SOLID case can be made for it from a long-term character/storyline/MU perspective. (Like Egghead's, f'rinstance-- I believe he's still gone, yes? And we're well rid of him after the damage he did to Hank Pym and, earlier, to Hawkeye.). Welp, there's the ol' Morning Opinion-! HB Well in fairness the story actually used long established FF canon. Reed just didn't invent a machine- he was actually using the one that Doom created to look for his mother in Hell (and as Reed pointed out- "is that the first place you'd look for your mother?"). So the machine that can take you to Heaven has been around since Doom's origin. Ben wasn't completely "dead"- he was on an extreme version of life support, fanning a very small spark that was still inside him. So it wasn't a full resurrection- it was bringing a soul back to a living body. And the details of heaven were a bit too overwhelming for them to keep as I recall so they don't have knowledge of what exactly transpired (this I could be wrong about, but it's what I recall). As for going back, God said no. He thought it was clever, but he wouldn't leave the same loophole open again. For me the story had a lot of heart and I can forgive the appearance of God because it's no more impossible than the Cosmic Cube, Beyonder, Celestials, Eternity etc... We've already opened the near omnipotent can of worms a hundred times, might as well go all out. But yes, I do think you're right about deaths in comics. For big characters they mean little, if not nothing, because revival is always going to happen at some point. I find that dealing with death and loss for main characters is far more intriguing than having them die. Emotional resonance and the depth it gives characters is much more worthy a way of using death as a storytelling tool. An exalt for you and your always insightful comments.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 2, 2011 22:54:04 GMT -5
I forgot to mention that it was established during George Perez's Giant Man miniseries that Josten as Goliath opened a two way hyper-spatial rift between earth and a Kosmosian Prison World. That Kosmosian Prison World is where mass is stored and drawn from by Pym particles. So that Prison World could be the place... Pfft-- right. Sold. I'll take it. I'm in. I am ON BOARD! This is still faaaaaar more plausible and palatable (and supported by existing MU pseudo-pscience, more or less) than the extreme contortions of gullibility we had to endure to get back Ben Grimm, or Hawkeye, or Puppet Master after their demises. . . ! HB Which Ben Grimm revival are you referring to? I have to say I liked the Mark Waid one where they had to go to Heaven. It really fit the FF (they'll go ANYWHERE...) and he did the storyline right after Ben was killed so it wasn't dragged out and it was hardly the event they made of Johnny Storm's recent 'death' (cough cough...)
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 1, 2011 21:19:52 GMT -5
I forgot to mention that it was established during George Perez's Giant Man miniseries that Josten as Goliath opened a two way hyper-spatial rift between earth and a Kosmosian Prison World. That Kosmosian Prison World is where mass is stored and drawn from by Pym particles. So that Prison World could be the place...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 31, 2011 23:43:34 GMT -5
Hmm. Weaker cases certainly have been made where, nevertheless, a seemingly bonifide death has been, er, overturned. It's usually villains, granted, but the point is still sound. And Wikipedia's entry wastes no effort in pointing out that Bill's continuity is wildly inconsistent and riddled with paradox and loose ends. And I'd really like to see him come back. Always had a warm spot in my heart. Liked his costume, too-- it was just unapologetically "superhero-y". Heh. HB Weaker cases? You mean like the fact that thanks to Doom's Time Machine, Cap himself saw the moment when Bucky was blown up and said there was no way he could've survived? ;D And if that wasn't enough for you, how about the fact that Erik Josten once grew so big, his atoms came apart completely and then came together again in the Kosmos universe? True he had a mix of ionic rays and Pym particles, but it was the Pym juice that made him pop up there. What if your original mass is sent off into this alternate dimension and replaced with the Pym particle duplicate? That would explain why giant sized characters aren't crushed by their own weight- the weight isn't accurate- it's a manifestation that observes its own quantum mechanics. Plus if we start hypothesizing on the effects of Pym Particles and their ability to shunt the original mass somewhere else, then in theory Scott Lang, Jan and Bill might all be off together in some subatomic world fighting the good fight and not dead thanks to some hokey and sensational storytelling from Bendis and Millar.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 31, 2011 13:44:48 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong. I know how it happened. It just doesn't make any sense. Look, Goliath (who I think was a WCA reservist during Englehart's run) was killed by the Thor clone in the piece of nonsense that was Civil War #4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Goliathdeath.PNGOk, I suppose that explains it, except... ...that's not how lightning works no really, do hundreds of people each year go to emergency rooms because lightning blew a big ol' hole in their chest? Nope. Lightning doesn't kill that way. Read this page for example to see the effects of lightning. www.harkphoto.com/light.htmlI couldn't find "blows a big hole in ya" anywhere. But Thor and his hammer have special lightning, right? Maybe (but usually Thor says it's something like cosmic energy or anti-force when he shoots stuff directly from his hammer in a ray like fashion) but not the clone Thor. His hammer wasn't even Mjolnir, it was a prop made by Reed Richards. Why would Reed Richards put a lightning-like laser blaster in a hammer? Real lightning, which the fake hammer seemed to attract, is very good at hurting people and things. And I contend that making the hammer do strange things that make no sense defeats the purpose of trying to dupe people. A true friend of Thor's might notice that the hammer is coming off wonky. I suppose I could chalk it up to artistic license, but it's really dumb, it's like shooting someone and saying they died of strangulation. It leads me to two conclusions: One, Mark Millar just didn't pay any attention and threw stuff out there for shock value. or Two, Millar was actually pretty sneaky and threw in an impossible death that shouldn't have happened. And maybe Goliath died because he wasn't whole to begin with which is why the lightning sundered his atoms instead of just frying him. After all hadn't there been two Yellowjackets at one point? When Hank's split psyche manifested two less substantial version of himself thanks to the Pym particles? Who's to say that didn't happen to Foster as well? I dunno. But I do know the death scene in CW#4 makes no sense...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 25, 2011 23:26:24 GMT -5
I am telling you--in Essential Thor 5 there are some HILARIOUS Volstagg quotes! I won't spoil it--but trust me, he is at his funniest in these stories! You know I have this crackpot theory that the character Volstagg was fashioned after Ignatius in "Confederacy of Dunces." Has anyone else read that? It had me rolling on the floor laughing! Anyway--I haven't seen many of the Marvel movies, mainly because Spiderman bored me to death, and the first FF movie was, IMO, just okay. Nothing real exciting. I never saw Ghost Rider or the Punisher. I just never cared much about either character. I loved all the X-Men movies, however--even the third which everyone else seemed to dislike. I have to say--I think the Captain America movie is going to be a disaster. I just have the gut feeling. I think it'll do well in the domestic market. The problem's gonna be the overseas market. In some places it won't even be called "Captain America" rather just "The First Avenger." I don't think that bodes well for worldwide numbers...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 24, 2011 14:58:47 GMT -5
Some internet soul put together a bunch of clips from other movies to make an Avengers film from the late fifties/early sixties. I liked it. Felt like something from the dawn of the Marvel Age. Edit: i don't know why there's an ad attached to this...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 20, 2011 14:13:51 GMT -5
Wow. "Prince of Thunder"? Really? If ever there was a question about whether Disney would find ways to exert its subtle influence. . . I'm sure the official line is that being a "Prince" of Thunder gives him a stronger appeal to a younger demographic, razzarazzarazza and related nonesense. Clearly, when an established character who has been referred to as a god for nearly fifty years suddenly isn't partway through the first season of a (perceived) kids' animated series, I can't imagine any other reason than that a couple of letters or emails were received that were particularly vocal about there being only one God, and that their children would no longer be allowed to watch this show, and how could Disney betray their values, and what-not. Much the way Harry Potter was boycotted by a small faction of folks because, clearly, it's entirely about promoting the worship of Satan. (I say that, of course, w/ an ironic sneer.) But I shall delicately stop there, as this obviously wades right into the religious and political realms that we do a darned good job of not beating each other up over in this forum. (Say, is draganta's little L Ron Hubbard/Scientology slide show still operating on his/her posts. . . ?) HB ps- heya Drew, I see that was your 100th post! Yer movin' right up the ranks-- good job! Isn't Marvel kind of taking the line that Thor isn't a "God" when it comes to other media? I haven't seen the movie yet (planned to, but the timing didn't work with my day off), but in the promo for the film doesn't he refer to Asgard as a place where magic and science are the same thing and that magic is just science that humans don't yet understand? And doesn't that sort of take the mysticism and mythology out of it?
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 15, 2011 9:42:51 GMT -5
And I believe NBC was the same company that brought us that steaming turd they called THE CAPE. They thought that would be better than a show with an already established fan-base? The WW pilot must have been really bad, but if they gave The Cape a shot, it boggles my mind, esp. when Smallville lasted 10 years. Y'know.. . . . I'd wondered what bacame of THE CAPE. We pretty much only have the TV actually tuned in to anything when we watch football in the fall. And that show was being promoted RELENTLESSLY! Like, every single commercial break. And man, the kiss-of-death factor that that represents is almost comical. . . ! Even if a show might be good, the audience is inclined to hate it before it ever airs, because they're SICK TO DEATH OF BEING EXPOSED TO IT!!!! hoo-boy HB But the flipside of that is if the show isn't promoted enough, people complain the network wasn't behind the show...so they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. And the CW could give Smallville a chance because they only needed numbers in the 2.0 range. For NBC, they can get five times that running a show where fat people run on treadmills and have little cost (Biggest Loser is an extremely inexpensive show to produce...). NBC or ABC or CBS, who occasionally put on superhero shows are often doomed to failure. The budgets and constraints of TV don't often do heroes justice the way big screens do these days. Oh and I've read summaries of David E. Kelley's Wonder Woman script. It was doomed from page one. Here it is on Daily Beast if you're so inclined... www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-02/wonder-woman-a-sneak-peak-at-david-e-kelleys-script/
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Feb 2, 2011 17:35:54 GMT -5
The owner at my local LCS doesn't like to buy trade paperbacks. He says they don't grow in value. Individual issues when they become back issues, can go up by 10, 20 or 100% or more, depending on how rare or hot the issue is. But even an average issue goes up slightly- better return on his investment. That may be part of the reason for the price uptick- gives the comic store more financial incentive to buy them.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jan 4, 2011 1:28:42 GMT -5
Tales to Astonish #36 Y'know, this is a very neat, eye-catching cover, I really do like it a lot, on that level. . . . . . EXCEPT when you start to analyze it with anything like "real-world" constraints. How big is that ant, for Pete's sake?? It's, like, the size of a small squirrel! More like one of those giant bird-eating spiders. . . ! There was an old Outer Limits episode that featured something like it ("Xanthium Misfits" was roughly the title that comes to mind---). Heh. Aaaaaand, oboy, ol' Hank is trapped under a chunk of glass-- even though he still has full-sized strength! And he is prevented from just growing out of this dilemma. . . how? Yep, owen, much as I generally like Ant-Man's existence, your assesment of his half-baked usage in those early days is pretty much on the money. Science classes! Stan & the gang needed to have paid more attention in science classes!!!HB HB, you're thinking of the zanti misfits. hooo-boy that was a creepy episode of the outer limits
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Dec 22, 2010 15:42:30 GMT -5
Just wanted to wish the few hardy souls who still stop by a happy holiday season. Not much Avenger stuff out there I'm looking at with the exception of the cartoon and Academy. Don't even browse the Bendis stuff anymore mainly because it has no staying power with me and after several years I just don't feel like complaining anymore so not much output from me these days. But it's a time to look forward so here's hoping 2011 is a better Avenger year!
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 23, 2010 17:16:50 GMT -5
It's funny how tastes differ. I LOVE Moondragon and Jack of Hearts and Quicksilver and cannot stand the She-Hulk. Hate She Hulk with a passion. I am stunned I left her off my expansive list. Ok since I fudged the rules first time around with my dirty dozen or so worsts, I am going to do a rewrite... 1) Sentry- Remember how Bendis couldn't wait to bring this guy into the fold talking about how awesome he was going to be? Not too many people missing the Sentry these days are they? he totally dropped the ball with this one. 2) Ares- A third rate version of Hercules with virtually nothing of any real value added to the team. A pointless, pointless addition. 3) Echo- Can someone just answer why? It seems like BMB just liked to drop these characters in and then do nothing with them. 4) Deathcry- A concession to X-fans, just more of the X-ripoff style that Harras was doing. I mean the Starjammers, Exodus, logos on their uniforms, I didn't hate Harras, but he was really just doing X-Men in Avengers clothing... 5) She-Hulk- I just don't get why people love this character. It stuns me that they keep trying to give her a title. I've lost count of how many times she's been cancelled. She adds nothing that a more interesting character like say Thundra would bring to the table. 6) Jessica Jones- It's just annoying the way that Bendis has just inserted this character into so many past events. It feels like someone took a magic marker and drew this annoying character into the background of so many events. This is the complete definition of shoehorning somebody in... 7) Rage- Just an awful caricature of a character. I understand there was more to the character than his primary appearance and perhaps Hama was trying to play into that; give Rage this stupid gang member on steroids look only to reveal much more depth in this young, almost Capt. Marvel (DC version) type character, but the character never evolved past his look so he just feels like an angry black guy with an attitude and that's just such a dull dishwater character...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 19, 2010 13:41:51 GMT -5
I don't know that I can stop at seven... Ares, Echo/Ronin, Deathcry (maybe the stupidest name ever...), Sentry, Jessica Jones, Silverclaw, Captain Britain, (nope, can't stop at seven) Sersi, Rage, Sandman, Wolverine, D-Man and Valkyrie.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 17, 2010 15:51:34 GMT -5
actually if I may offer a slight correction- wolverine says "multitasking- it's my mutant power. don't tell anyone." and yes this wasn't terrible. here's the deal. I think when Bendis is dealing in his milieu, which is relatively normal settings with something extraordinary happening ala Powers, he's fine. The minute he tries to go full out with super heroes- the big fight scenes, the crazy origins, the outlandish plots, he leaves his "zone" and it gets all screwy. he writes ordinary stories with super heroes well enough. he does not write super hero stories well at all, though.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 4, 2010 13:40:23 GMT -5
I... didn't hate it. For me and bendis, that's as a rave review. The first five pages are his typical talking heads and it didn't ring true to me, but the rest...I was okay with. I'm as stunned as it gets on that. I would've sworn that Alan Davis was co-plotter as I usually like his stuff, but it was all bendis. I'm gonna go open that ice skating rink in hell now...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 3, 2010 10:34:29 GMT -5
You're right...here's a more concise link. www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=69312It's discussed as a small part of a much larger and more interesting story about gays and comics and their fans here... Very interesting article, FF. It in fact mentioned a trend amongst my gay comic-book reading friends (I'm a theater professional. . . a huge percentage of my friends and co-workers for the last 30 years have been gay. And a surprising number of comic book folks contained within that sphere.) that I'd noticed back in the early 90's: X-Men was almost always the preferred title. I assumed it was for almost exactly the reason mentioned in the article. As far as gay characters go-- yeesh, the problem is that no company is likely going to "out" a popular, mainstream character, as it were, for fear of possible public backlash. Batwoman is certainly a step in the right direction, as are Hulkling & Wiccan-- but I'd like to see a commitment to a likable, adult male gay superhero. I kinda don't count Northstar, as he's always struck me as a third-stringer. . . and because he has all the personal warmth of Pietro Maximoff. Not a likable guy at all. And THEN, once sexual orientation is quietly revealed, it needs to NOT be made into focal point for the book! That's the hardest trick of all-- but would be the best way to handle it. Make it NOT a big deal in the telling of the stories. Possibly controversial topic we're touching here. Hopefully no hornets' nests getting stirred up. . . HB doubtful it'll stir up a hornet's nest. we're a well read bunch here and fairly open when it comes to civil liberties (I don't think I've ever seen a negative comment towards gays or lesbians here). And I think we've all seen the hamhanded way comics have tried to make relevant minority characters. Someone once pointed out that Marvel has no in-between black characters- either they're pimps and street hustlers (Falcon and Luke Cage) or royalty/genius millionaire types (Black Panther, Storm, Black Goliath, Night Thrasher). It's a long road...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 2, 2010 21:48:25 GMT -5
that is a wild one. I did recall reading something about gerber's brief run and here it is... www.gayleague.com/wordpress/2009/05/31/steve-rogers-former-sissy-boy/now as to roger mckenzie's takeover, I have definitely seen more abrupt bits of storytelling. heck peter david's run on She-Hulk virtually ignored everything that Slott did on the title. I swear I've seen titles that have begun with a one- page synopsis that everything that preceded was wrapped up off panel and an exciting new storyline was beginning. Maybe the old Captain Action title? I think it happens in a couple of "heroes reborn" titles as well...I'll have to look through the old bins. Lots of stuff in there. Oh and an exalt for you for stumping me...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 2, 2010 0:35:51 GMT -5
Ohhhhhhh you guys, you guys-- Okay, okay, okay, okay-- I can't make an inspired defense on some of those historical formulaic constrictions (although I'd still maintain that they don't differ significantly from the restrictions of any superhero title. I mean, they're ALL going to return after the intitial setback and prevail, right-? Or nearly always?). The read-through I've nattered on about elsethread has certainly pounded them home. However, it's the soap-opera subplot that is by far the grossest offender there. The endless, unmoving, repetitive Thunderbolt Ross/Betty/Glenn Talbot dynamic that didn't change a whisker until issue #150 was mind-numbing and, I believe, detrimental to the book. And it's roughly the silver age-ish period that I would defend, regardless. From issue #109 to about #182 (1968-ish to 1974-ish). After that, I still enjoy the book, but it's more a case of loving it in spite of its flaws. And-- ohhh, here's son of HB needing to get on the computer again. As you gracefully admit yourself, FF-- our family comes first! HB Not my intent to pick on old Hulkie. My only problem is that if you take a Cap or a Spidey story from that era, yeah they might outslug the bad guy, to finish the issue but they're just as likely to out-think the baddie du jour or lose for winning (i.e. spidey unable to get another punch in but the baddie realizes he has to get away before the cops get there, so it's a default win...) And with the Hulk, it's established canon that as long as he can get mad enough, his strength just has no upper limit. So even if it is written differently, it almost shouldn't be, because it's such a simple go to crutch and pretty logical given the character. And as such, it's an easy out. Even Thor was constantly fighting foes whose power he couldn't match, but as for Greenskin it was almost always a matter of when he would get stronger than his opponent and not if he could win. But like I said when i was a young'un he wasn't my fave so maybe I didn't look at those stories with a compassionate eye. Interestingly enough for me, the best Hulk stories are emotional ones, where his strength simply takes a back seat to his inability to be happy...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on Jun 2, 2010 0:23:48 GMT -5
I didn't quite get that level of specificity from the link, but even if that's the case--- man, at some point the editorial brain has to prevail and ask, "Wait a minute, even if this is cathartic for me, is it really something our fans will want to read? Or at the very least, will it have an important, positive effect on them?" I don't know-- horrible near-misses with sexual predators is just a hard-sell as entertainment in my mind. Too many folks have lived it, actually, and to be casually reminded of it in a comic book-? I. . . don't see the plus side to the equation, as much as my heart goes out to Jim S if he indeed survived this scenario. HB You're right...here's a more concise link. www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=69312It's discussed as a small part of a much larger and more interesting story about gays and comics and their fans here...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 31, 2010 18:55:04 GMT -5
Yeesh! How squirmy! That's one of the few issues of the old Incredible Hulk magazine-format that I don't have, in fact. Let's see- material inappropriate for the younger readers that were indeed buying the book; situation not well-handled from a societal viewpoint (i.e.- attempted serial rapists remain free to prey on others & suffer no consequences); Banner's non-reaction completely out of character, w/ an inane justification; doesn't serve any enlightening or thought-provoking purpose at all--- just an extremely ugly, trashy incident in the story that doesn't rise above the level of shock value. Ugh. . . HB Actually the story is based on an incident that happened to Shooter in real life... goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2006/03/25/friday-in-the-shooter-gallery/
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 31, 2010 10:15:31 GMT -5
[ In fairness to Rog, who do you think HAD a good run on Hulk? My problem with the Hulk is he's kind of annoying in his own way. As long as he gets mad enough, he'll just win the fight. In its own way it's just as limiting as Superman's power levels in the 1950s. Since Superman could do anything, there was no suspense and to me that was the hallmark of Hulk stories for decades and sadly has returned, especially with Rulk and World War Hulk. It was just a matter of getting mad and then he'd win. Every hero in the MU coming at Hulk would lead to"grrr, I'm just getting madder, so nobody can stop me." Not even Moondragon, who could just shut down your mind? Sersi, who could change you into bunny slippers? Dr. Strange who could send you to another dimension? If hundreds of heroes can't stop him and they can beat every bad guy, then the message is Hulk is essentially unstoppable. No suspense. Peter David did the only thing that even made a modicum of sense and took that unstoppability away. Hulk was weaker and could be hurt, there were times when he couldn't become and Banner had to rely on his wits (which is fine because he's exceptionally smart). The Hulk may be an interesting comment on rage and abuse in an abstract sort of way, but as a concrete character he just doesn't seem to work in his classic "Hulk is strongest one there is"- unless he's essentially portrayed as a villain in which case being strongest works because it gives heroes a real challenge. There are tons of people who like the character, but it seems only when the Hulk's in these big events where he's the antagonist or written by Peter David that the character's ever sold well on a regular basis... Hey hey hey hey HEY now, FF-! Don't . . . don't get me angry, 'cause. . . (ah heck, you know the lines from here. . . ) Heh-heh-- Seriously, though-- good runs on the Hulk? Absolutely: Roy Thomas, Archie Goodwin, Steve Englehart, and the majority of Len Wein's run. This spanned from the late 60's to the late 70's. Roy's run in particular was silver-age at its best, IMO. And what these writers focused on was introducing that version of the Hulk's character model (childlike, heart on his sleeve, extremely short-tempered, generally looking for a peaceful existence and/or acceptance. . . but sadly possessed of hopeless, dangerous physical power) into situations where he was perpetually denied his simple desires for one reason or another. I know this will cause some to choke on their coffee, but the whole "Hulk Smash You All", savage, mindless, perpetual-destruction-for-its-own-sake, violence-obsessed dynamo. . . never really existed in his own book. It's kind of a myth I think, perpetuated by the fact that his early guest appearances in other books tended to fall more into that realm. Be that as it may, though, even the Childlike Behemoth Searching For Happiness scenario can only be explored so far- especially w/ such a limited supporting cast. And also in Roger's defense, I'll admit that he'd inherited a title that needed a serious shift in direction. The direction he took was to revamp the supporting cast (a process started by the previous writer, in fact), and to create a MUCH darker-natured Hulk than we'd seen before. But that also made him a much less sympathetic central character-- and thus considerably less interesting. And from there he just never got quite back on track. Bill Mantlo, John Byrne, Al Milgrom-- all tried new or retro directions w/ limited (or no!) success-- and then Peter David, who was without a doubt the best writer the title ever had. The strength thing has been inconsistent over the years-- but it's never made him as invincible as you may be remembering. Knockout gas has been used on him a zillion times; he's fallen to overwhelming numbers, to severe cold, even to overwhelming strength. He's been captured plenty of times. Generally, the hubris of others is as invaluable to his prevailing over them as is his own might. And, hey!- according to Marvel at the time, the Hulk through the 70's was one of their top five sellers! Oh, I know it's all tied to commercialism & marketing & what-not-- but it was certainly holding its own before the 80's took their toll. Geeze, look at me-- I need to go cold-turkey on Hulk-talk in other threads. I think I've crossed the line into ridiculousness. . . Okay, thanks FF--- out for now-- HB Any discussion on here is good discussion. I wouldn't worry about derailing a thread at all. In any case I'll take your word on the Hulk's sales. I seem to recall the book was one of Marvel's perennial underachievers, like Cap, Daredevil and Doctor Strange but I'm certainly not the biggest fan of the Hulk in that era. I will however take you to task on the plotlines of the Hulk. While it's true he would get knocked out and taken captive, the end result was almost universally the same. In round two, the Hulk would just get mad and break everything or outslug everyone. Due to the character's limitations it was really the only way to end most of the storylines. Yes there are some good ones out there, especially when the Hulk would get to Jarella's world, but I think old Hulky suffered from an ad nauseum cycle of Thunderbolt Ross and Hulkbuster stories. And while you're right that the Hulk was likely portrayed with less sympathy in other books, it wasn't entirely out of character. None of this appearances seemed to contradict anything that has appeared before. I was actually much more of a Defenders fan than the main Hulk title and even to his friends he was always as much a hindrance as help to them (you could literally see Nighthawk flinch every time he asked the Hulk for something, and Dr. Strange was always frustrated). In fact, I did a google search trying to find other good Hulk stories and it seems going by the very fickle web, only parts of PAD's run and Planet Hulk have inspired fandom to really write with love and passion about Hulk stories. I would write more and perhaps I'll edit, but the wife is telling me we should go out and enjoy the memorial day festivities...
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter on May 29, 2010 23:48:14 GMT -5
As my re-introduction to the Marvel Universe I've been trying to work my way through Roger Stern's work on various titles (I haven't gotten to avengers yet), while I've long considered him one of my favourite writers I'm not sure how much of his work I've read in long runs before, and having forgotten a lot of what comes next it all feels fresh. So a level of realism and a clear love of the potential of existing characters particularly the villains (and when we get to the Avengers, the underused heroes of the MU). What would you guys consider his strengths? My goodness you're up early! (Well, or up late, depending. . . ) While I haven't had the opportunity to do a broader examination of Stern's work, I would submit (as I have elsewhere around here) that his stint on the Hulk, while clearly well-intentioned, did not work for me at all. I believe he came across a character that he simply couldn't get an intuitive handle on, and relied entirely on developing a new supporting cast, situational plot arcs, and a bevy of long stories that focused as much on the guest stars as they did the Hulk. I'm not sure sure I'd agree with the idea that giving the lion's share of character development and depth over to the villains and supporting cast is ultimately a recipe for success, since naturally you're buying a book titled "The Hulk" and not "The Locust". That being said, even as I was reading his run, it struck me that he had a fine knack for breathing life into even one-panel bystanders, and as you said, giving the bad guys an unusual amount of dimensionality. Comic book dialog needs to give the illusion of reality & naturalism even though it's peculiarly stylized-- and that's a hard tightrope to negotiate. And I think he's particularly gifted with that skill set. The 17-page story-lengths of the time were very much a hindrance for him, though, as it sort of forced an artificial plot decompression. Not enough story could get told at one go. So a medium-length story involving some west coast organized crime cartel (The Committee?), or the Tyrannus/Gold Bug/fountain of youth tale, became months-long yarns that weren't grand enough to support the time commitment or, ultimately, sustained interest. But it's kinda hard to fault Stern for that-- I think he was dealing with the cards he was dealt. And hey-- loved him on the Avengers-- no question. HB In fairness to Rog, who do you think HAD a good run on Hulk? My problem with the Hulk is he's kind of annoying in his own way. As long as he gets mad enough, he'll just win the fight. In its own way it's just as limiting as Superman's power levels in the 1950s. Since Superman could do anything, there was no suspense and to me that was the hallmark of Hulk stories for decades and sadly has returned, especially with Rulk and World War Hulk. It was just a matter of getting mad and then he'd win. Every hero in the MU coming at Hulk would lead to"grrr, I'm just getting madder, so nobody can stop me." Not even Moondragon, who could just shut down your mind? Sersi, who could change you into bunny slippers? Dr. Strange who could send you to another dimension? If hundreds of heroes can't stop him and they can beat every bad guy, then the message is Hulk is essentially unstoppable. No suspense. Peter David did the only thing that even made a modicum of sense and took that unstoppability away. Hulk was weaker and could be hurt, there were times when he couldn't become and Banner had to rely on his wits (which is fine because he's exceptionally smart). The Hulk may be an interesting comment on rage and abuse in an abstract sort of way, but as a concrete character he just doesn't seem to work in his classic "Hulk is strongest one there is"- unless he's essentially portrayed as a villain in which case being strongest works because it gives heroes a real challenge. There are tons of people who like the character, but it seems only when the Hulk's in these big events where he's the antagonist or written by Peter David that the character's ever sold well on a regular basis...
|
|