|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 10, 2018 23:32:32 GMT -5
What do people think of the more recent Marvel Star Wars series compared to the first one?
These are 3 '1:50 variants' of #1, the one on the right being signed by cover artist Alex Ross (a tribute to #1 from 1977) and limited to 25 copies.
When it's done original stuff it's been good... The first Vader series was good.. Doctor Aphra is super fun (mostly) and the Poe Dameron series was realyl good. The main book is very hit and miss.. it definitely tries to hard to connect dots that don't need to be connected. I liked the Lando and Leia minis... a few of the others were pretty bad. Overall, I'd say a pretty similar ratio of good and bad as Dark Horse, they've just focused on a much narrower part of the timeline. At some point, they'll run out of that stuff to fit in between the original trilogy and do more interesting (or perhaps terrible) things.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 28, 2018 9:08:40 GMT -5
I am so tired of stories that have a future character coming back to visit themselves in the past. It’s an alternate timeline if you can’t remember it happening.
There I said it.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 28, 2018 22:32:25 GMT -5
I am so tired of stories that have a future character coming back to visit themselves in the past. It’s an alternate timeline if you can’t remember it happening. There I said it. Time Travel stories in general don't make sense.. they either involve the characters trying not to change stuff (which obviously is impossible) or trying TO change stuff (which always backfires).. either case generally has a bunch of wild coincidences to make it attempt (and fail to make sense) I think Babylon 5 was about the only time I thought it really worked as a plot device, and it only did so there because it was so carefully planned out.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Dec 29, 2018 10:46:14 GMT -5
That's because people assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Dec 29, 2018 14:00:23 GMT -5
That's because people assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff. Ahh, a Doctor Who reference. Since DW has been a comic, i'll just piggyback on that to say, I've always thought it was a ridiculous, false "rule"/"danger" that the Doctor cannot go into his own timeline for whatever inconsistent reasons, when past versions of himself have met the "current" one in a current timeline. So, when those past versions return to their time with experiences with / knowledge of a future self's life / actions, would that not violate the same rule? After all, the past Doctors are going into the past fully aware of their "future" self's knowledge (which happened the second they met each other), so the same, alleged danger(s) would actually unfold. Gah.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Dec 29, 2018 14:28:53 GMT -5
Aside from the Lando and Han miniseries', each and every story I've read has disinterested me. Generic fanfic, the whole lot of it. That describes 90% of the output of Marvel and DC for the last 40 years.
-M 40? I would not go that far, as 40 years ago was 1978, and industry still had some great events ahead of it, before the idiot implosion of too many "events", poor artists masquerading as writers (*cough*the Image founders*cough*), the speculator market, endless reboots, "shock" storylines (see: Sins Past, One More Day crap, etc.), but yeah, some comics of more recent times came off like bad fanfic from middle-schoolers.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2018 14:39:26 GMT -5
That describes 90% of the output of Marvel and DC for the last 40 years.
-M 40? I would not go that far, as 40 years ago was 1978, and industry still had some great events ahead of it, before the idiot implosion of too many "events", poor artists masquerading as writers (*cough*the Image founders*cough*), the speculator market, endless reboots, "shock" storylines (see: Sins Past, One More Day crap, etc.), but yeah, some comics of more recent times came off like bad fanfic from middle-schoolers. I'd even go earlier. To me, if it's not by the character's creators it's either fan fic or pastiche, not that either cannot produce good stories, but year any Superman after Siegel & Shuster is pastiche or fan fic, any Spider-Man after Ditko the same, etc. I've enjoyed a lot of the post-original creator stuff, but that doesn't make it any less pastiche or fan fic, and by 1978, most of the new generation of creators working in the industry were fans working on their favorites, even if it was good stuff, it's still fans producing content, even if they are paid for it. The events you cite are the unintended consequences of continuing to produce materials but replacing the original creators successively until the original vision and voice of the creation is lost in the shuffle but where fans continue to buy product based on loyalty and fandom not quality of the material or originality of the content. Comics became an industry based on continuing pastiches and fan fiction based on the original creations of creators long having stopped producing material for those characters. -M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2018 14:43:16 GMT -5
Hell if you watch the SyFy interview with John Romita I posted a while back, Romita even talks about trying to do Spidey in Ditko's style when he started, which is the very definition of pastiche. Buckler and BWS aping Kirby-pastiche, Roy trying to write like Stan-pastiche, etc.
-M
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Dec 29, 2018 17:04:00 GMT -5
40? I would not go that far, as 40 years ago was 1978, and industry still had some great events ahead of it, before the idiot implosion of too many "events", poor artists masquerading as writers (*cough*the Image founders*cough*), the speculator market, endless reboots, "shock" storylines (see: Sins Past, One More Day crap, etc.), but yeah, some comics of more recent times came off like bad fanfic from middle-schoolers. I'd even go earlier. To me, if it's not by the character's creators it's either fan fic or pastiche, not that either cannot produce good stories, but year any Superman after Siegel & Shuster is pastiche or fan fic, any Spider-Man after Ditko the same, etc. I've enjoyed a lot of the post-original creator stuff, but that doesn't make it any less pastiche or fan fic, and by 1978, most of the new generation of creators working in the industry were fans working on their favorites, even if it was good stuff, it's still fans producing content, even if they are paid for it. The events you cite are the unintended consequences of continuing to produce materials but replacing the original creators successively until the original vision and voice of the creation is lost in the shuffle but where fans continue to buy product based on loyalty and fandom not quality of the material or originality of the content. Comics became an industry based on continuing pastiches and fan fiction based on the original creations of creators long having stopped producing material for those characters. -M I have no complaint with quality fanfic. The original creators often worked under constraints of talent and resources that limited their product. Their vision had no purer motive than a paycheck to support their families. Stan Lee for one saw his comic book work for decades as a stepping stone to a more prestigious and lucrative career where he could use his birth name without embarrassment. The idea of creators either owning or having the purest versions of fictional characters is a modern contrivance born of copyright law and cults of personality. Even Superman and Spider-Man were mashups of existing archetypes.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 29, 2018 21:14:49 GMT -5
I don't know if pastiche refers to having Joe Sinnott ink the FF from the 60's to the 90's to keep the look of the book consistent , but I liked the results.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Dec 29, 2018 22:11:52 GMT -5
Hell if you watch the SyFy interview with John Romita I posted a while back, Romita even talks about trying to do Spidey in Ditko's style when he started, which is the very definition of pastiche. Buckler and BWS aping Kirby-pastiche, Roy trying to write like Stan-pastiche, etc. I feel like a minor distinction needs to be made here as we throw around the very posh-sounding pastiche. That word doesn't just mean "imitation." More complex than that, it means the polar opposite of Parody. So instead of mocking something, we are celebrating it. The celebrating part is pastiche. It's imitation as a deliberate form of flattery. So, for example I would suggest that Romita immediately following Ditko and attempting to maintain elements of Ditko's style is NOT pastiche; it's an editorial decision made with the goal of easing the readership into the change as gently as possible.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Dec 29, 2018 22:34:13 GMT -5
Yes, a pastiche is something done in homage (I'd say homage though is more worn out as a term in comics art than pastiche)... like someone writing a Lovecraftian short story who enjoys a lot of Lovecraft themself. It might have some humor to it but in a non-negative, appreciative, and good-natured way.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Dec 29, 2018 23:08:08 GMT -5
Yes, a pastiche is something done in homage. . . Right. Pastiche is overt. Its goal is to draw attention to the thing(s) it is emulating and away from itself.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2018 0:13:44 GMT -5
Intent (homage and/or parody) is not part of the definition of pastiche. Neither is an assumption of quality (good or bad). A pastiche is simply...
or
To homage or parody plays no part in the definition of what a pastiche is, it is simply something done in the style of another creator, but pastiche has become a loaded word with lots of connotative baggage that people bring with them to the term. Something done is a house style is a pastiche of the artist whose style it is based on. That's neither homage, nor parody, nor a judgment of quality, it is simply what it is. And by that denotative definition, much of the output of the big 2 publishers after the creators have left the work has been pastiche. That's neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it's just what it is. But again people read far more into the term pastiche than what it actually is and try to spin things to avoid having something they like branded pastiche.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Dec 30, 2018 1:05:45 GMT -5
Intent (homage and/or parody) is not part of the definition of pastiche. Neither is an assumption of quality (good or bad)... OK. I see where our sensibilities diverge and I don't want to distract with petty semantics from the point you were making, which I agree with for the most part.
|
|