|
|
Post by dlw66 on Feb 28, 2007 10:17:45 GMT -5
Many of you have a much broader reading experience than I. Given our discussions of NA, Civil War, mischaracterization, etc. it occurred to me: what is the most consistently conceived series in your reading experience? That is, all books have high and low periods. But overall, looking back over, say, 20 years (more or less) -- what sticks in your mind as the most steady book creatively?
|
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on Feb 28, 2007 10:41:39 GMT -5
I would have to say, Captain America has done ok, and the Hulk, except for brief periods of what the heck moments for Marvel.
|
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on Feb 28, 2007 11:30:53 GMT -5
I'm not going to claim to be broadly read in Marvel either, but Captain America's characterization has been remarkably consistent for most of what I remember.
There haven't been a lot of major departures. Ed Brubaker's Cap, some say, is pushing the envelope with Cap being characterized as more of a hardcase than the Gruenwald-ish Cap of the last 20 years, who can be a bit of a milquetoast.
But as far as quality of writing and art, the Cap book has been just all over the place -- mainly on the bad side of things the last 17 or so years since Gruenwald/Lim.
RSC
|
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Feb 28, 2007 15:40:47 GMT -5
Are we talking over non-Marvel as well as Marvel?
From Marvel, it's hard for me to say. I've only really kept up with the X-Books and even they have had some pretty crappy moments (some pretty awesome ones, too).
That being said, I'd say "Bone," "Sandman," and "Y: The Last Man." Granted, all but "Bone" have less than 10 years under their belt. I think for the best consistency, it's best if only one writer remains on the title. Whenever a new creative team arrives, there's also concern for continunity and characterization.
I can credit "X-Men" for maintaining those two, despite changes in quality.
~W~
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Feb 28, 2007 15:53:29 GMT -5
Are we talking over non-Marvel as well as Marvel? That being said, I'd say "Bone," "Sandman," and "Y: The Last Man." Granted, all but "Bone" have less than 10 years under their belt. We can talk about whatever you want! Bone is an excellent choice, and although I've never been a Sandman fan from what I hear from those who are that book is another excellent example. Hmmm... this certainly applies to the books you cited. However, in reference to the X-books, I really feel when Claremont started to explode the X-universe with a ton of characters is when I got off the boat. It just got too large for me to even attempt to keep it all straight (maybe it was just me...  ). |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Feb 28, 2007 18:19:06 GMT -5
"Amazing Spider-Man"...
|
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Feb 28, 2007 22:28:22 GMT -5
Hmmm... this certainly applies to the books you cited. However, in reference to the X-books, I really feel when Claremont started to explode the X-universe with a ton of characters is when I got off the boat. It just got too large for me to even attempt to keep it all straight (maybe it was just me... ). Nah, it's not just you. Keeping track of all those characters is very difficult - trust me. I've felt that the best way, really, is to focus in on just the central characters. For example, just the characters that have been on the X-Men team (proper) and have held a central role (Cyclops, Phoenix, Beast, Archangel, Iceman, Storm, Wolverine, Colossus, Nightcrawler, Shadowcat, Rogue, Gambit, Professor X, etc.). Other teams and characters are expendable, only really need to be checked in on they have story that tie into the greater mythos of the X-Men's world. At least this the way I handle things with the X-Men Blog -- uncannyxperiment.blogspot.com/~W~ |
|
shandon
New Avenger
With great power comes great responsibility
Posts: 7
|
Post by shandon on Mar 1, 2007 10:53:47 GMT -5
Not sure about the consistency of ASM. Wouldn't the introduction of totem-magic be considered a major recharacterization?
|
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on Mar 1, 2007 16:29:43 GMT -5
Not sure about the consistency of ASM. Wouldn't the introduction of totem-magic be considered a major recharacterization? To me, I didn't see that as much as a recharacterization or recon as much as a new point of view on the incident. Magic spider/Peter chosen? Radioactive spider/Peter randomly got bit? You can take it or you could leave it, I guess. ~W~ |
|
|
|
Post by balok on Mar 1, 2007 20:01:38 GMT -5
The magic totem story was a significant re-imagining of Spider-Man's origin, but as thew40 says, it could have happened that way - or not. JMS wrote the story well, leaving the readers and Spider-Man wondering just how much of it was true. I was prepared to dislike it from the initial solicitations, but found it an enjoyable read.
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Mar 1, 2007 20:05:44 GMT -5
I was prepared to dislike it from the initial solicitations, but found it an enjoyable read. See, we're positive around here... Where's Doom when you need him? |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 2, 2007 2:27:27 GMT -5
But, how exactly, again, did Peter gain his ability to shoot organic webs...  |
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Mar 2, 2007 21:09:09 GMT -5
But, how exactly, again, did Peter gain his ability to shoot organic webs... Through all the exactitude of comic-book science and an ad hoc villainess called the Queen, whose insect-related powers caused Peter to undergo a metamorphosis (even though spiders aren’t insects and don’t metamorphose), which was pretty gross at the time but had the ultimate effect of giving him organic webshooters in his wrists (which are also pretty gross and are not where spiders would have them—which would be even grosser) and a mental ability to sense insect life—the latter of which was hardly used before he underwent another metamorphosis which gave him another power (wrist-…spikers?)—which was hardly used before he underwent the technological metamorphosis of the “Iron Spider” costume. Catch your breath yet? |
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Mar 7, 2007 4:31:47 GMT -5
I think Captain America has been fairly solid throughout, while somewhat evolving itself at the same time. Amazing Spider-Man I have always enjoyed too (including all the back issues etc), but it went really down around 2000-2003, after the relaunch and MJ supposed death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yellowjacket on Mar 13, 2007 9:46:11 GMT -5
This isn´t about Avengers, is it? I think at least the first 20 years of Avengers are the most consistent title in point of quality. No FF and no Spider-Man can compete over this period, both have as many good as bad stories, whereas Avengers were amazingly consistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Mar 13, 2007 9:58:42 GMT -5
I'd have to disagree if we are going to start from the early 60's and move forward. I'd have a hard time picking my favorite title from among the three you mention if you look at just the Silver Age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Mar 13, 2007 17:03:43 GMT -5
Well, if we're talking consistent QUALITY, and not characterization, my vote goes to the Silver Age's FF...
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Mar 13, 2007 20:27:59 GMT -5
I gotta go with the Black Panther. It's always been about him finding a balance between being a hero and a good ruler.
|
|
).
