|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 18, 2019 23:51:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 19, 2019 0:23:13 GMT -5
Haven't read the Spider-Man comic in question but I dislike that cynical kind of emotional-button-pushing in general.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 19, 2019 9:13:11 GMT -5
Yep. It’s definitely the Oscar bait of comic book stories. How can we attempt to emotionally manipulate people? Sick little kids are always good.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 19, 2019 9:24:42 GMT -5
Don't forget dogs. Especially dogs piloting planes.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 19, 2019 17:55:57 GMT -5
"The Kid Who Collects Spider-Man" is a load of over-sentimental, toe-curlingly schmaltzy rubbish. There! I said it. Yeah, yeah...I know...it's supposed to be a classic -- a Top 10 all-time Spider-Man story and all that, but I've always thought that it was the very definition of an overrated comic. I'm currently reading through some 1983 vintage Roger Stern/John Romita Jr. issues of ASM and Bill Mantlo/Al Milgrom issues of PP:TSSM, and this evening I got to re-read Amazing Spider-Man #248. My opinion of it hasn't changed at all. I mean, isn't it essentially just a recap of Spidey's origin? ...only with a ladle-load of sickening sentimentality for the eponymous "kid" thrown in. It's a well drawn and reasonably well written recap, sure, but it comes off as being much too mawkish and too manipulatively maudlin for my tastes. It never feels like it earns its pathos. It's just too eager to pull the reader's heartstrings by layering on the fake poignancy with a trowel. Maybe I'm just a hard-hearted old b***ard, but I fail to see why this story is held in such high regard. Yeah, I didn’t think much of it.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Nov 20, 2019 1:09:06 GMT -5
ON THE OTHER HAND (you jerks)
Kid Who Collects Spider-Man is perfectly paced, extremely well drawn -with more of a slow, shadow-laden, indy sensibility than traditional Marvel bombast = and extremely clever in interweaving two different narratives that occur at two different times in two completely different media. The narrator writing an article that pre-dates the actual story but is presented to us alongside the simple, theater-inspired "Just two people talking" main story is one of those things that can only be done in comics, and the shocking climax to the Spider-man story followed by the even climaxier ending to the article is an amazingly dextrous one two punch. Sure it's working in a different emotional realm than most superhero fiction but I think that's a *good* thing.
But it's also more formally and structurally ambitious and creative than 99.9% of mainstream comics.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,627
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 20, 2019 2:23:17 GMT -5
ON THE OTHER HAND (you jerks) Kid Who Collects Spider-Man is perfectly paced, extremely well drawn -with more of a slow, shadow-laden, indy sensibility than traditional Marvel bombast = and extremely clever in interweaving two different narratives that occur at two different times in two completely different media. The narrator writing an article that pre-dates the actual story but is presented to us alongside the simple, theater-inspired "Just two people talking" main story is one of those things that can only be done in comics, and the shocking climax to the Spider-man story followed by the even climaxier ending to the article is an amazingly dextrous one two punch. Sure it's working in a different emotional realm than most superhero fiction but I think that's a *good* thing. But it's also more formally and structurally ambitious and creative than 99.9% of mainstream comics. Well, obviously it's all a matter of personal taste, but personally I wouldn't call having a newspaper article giving us background on the kid's life, juxtaposed with a thinly-disguised origin recap "extremely clever". It's a reasonably effective narrative device, sure, but it's hardly ground breaking. I also see precious little indie aesthetic here. I get that Roger Stern isn't going for the usual superhero bombast here (I'm not an idiot!), but the "emotional realm", as you call it, that the story is working in is called mawkish over-sentimentality in my book. Giving the kid cancer and only weeks to live, as a way of evoking emotion and pathos, is just so lazy. As a reader, Stern never once makes me care about the "kid", never once prompts a genuine emotional connection to the character...he just expects the fact that the kid is dying to do all the emotional heavy lifting. But it can't. It just falls flat. That's what I meant when I said earlier that the story doesn't earn its pathos. Clearly a lot of readers disagree with me because "The Kid Who Collects Spider-Man" is widely regarded as a classic Spider-Man story, but for me it feels like a lazy, manipulative and hollow piece of writing.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 20, 2019 6:13:57 GMT -5
Rob Liefeld gets a lot of flack but I have a lot of respect for him. He believed in himself and is still producing. I was interested in what he wrote about Alan Moores recent bashing of Superhero movies and their fans.
Look, I worked with Alan for 3 years and as a talent he was a phenomenon. Period, end of story. However, As an individual he was as tortured as he came off here. He wrote 50 stories for me, several issues of Youngblood, won awards for his 3 years on Supreme. Judgement Day, Glory, Warchild. I paid him handsomely for 1996-1999 rates, 10k per issue. In my discussions with him, he came across as a sad guy, maybe he was sad that he had to take work for hire gigs after writing such brilliant works as Miracleman, Swamp Thing and Watchmen. I never figured it out but that was my impression of his disdain which only increased as everyone “betrayed” him. I taped conversations with Alan that I have yet to release, these were conversations he knew that I was taping, he’s quite funny at times and so much of it was his admiration for Quinten Tarantino and Pulp Fiction. He’s a fascinating figure to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Nov 20, 2019 7:17:46 GMT -5
I have never really understood the "dislike" for Liefeld. As Icctrombone says, believing in himself and achieving success where many others did not and becoming a recognizable "name" in an industry which is known for using, chewing up and spitting out the carcass of artists and writers is admirable. Liefeld must truly love comics or why else continue in a field where everyone is scorning and making fun of you? I could only wish to have achieved half of what Rob has accomplished. While I don't go out of my way to buy Liefeld issues I won't just ignore his stuff either.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Nov 20, 2019 8:47:02 GMT -5
I have never really understood the "dislike" for Liefeld. As Icctrombone says, believing in himself and achieving success where many others did not and becoming a recognizable "name" in an industry which is known for using, chewing up and spitting out the carcass of artists and writers is admirable. Liefeld must truly love comics or why else continue in a field where everyone is scorning and making fun of you? I could only wish to have achieved half of what Rob has accomplished. While I don't go out of my way to buy Liefeld issues I won't just ignore his stuff either. The dislike for Liefeld appears to have three prongs: 1) He lacks traditional art skills. He doesn't know which muscles actually exist, where the joints of a human are, or how they are articulate. He can't draw feet (which severely limits his compositional options) and can only draw a limited number of facial expressions, primarily the toothy grimace. He spawned a wave of imitators, and even compelled his predecessors to imitate him, because he sold well. So it's really a reaction against what the medium became under his influence. 2) He co-founded a company (Image) which initially emphasized art to the detriment of story. You could argue that it's hardly a crime to discover what the public wants, and give it to them. But that company built its initial success at a time now considered a low point overall, when sales were based on speculation and gimmickry rather than quality. 3) One hears tales of unfair business practices, advancing himself at the expense of other creators. He threw his weight around, both at Marvel and Image. That wouldn't exactly be unique, and figures like Stan Lee manage to get revered despite their mistreatment of their peers. On the plus side, his genuine enthusiasm for the medium shines through, compared to some of his peers who seem to feel embarrassed that they didn't find enough outside success to move on from comics. At least in public, he seems to be a good sport about the mockery of his incompetent art. Grant Morrison thought (and thinks) that Liefeld's work was exciting, analogous to late 70s punk rock that had little technical prowess but a whole lot of gusto. Image did become a haven for creative storytellers, not just flashy artists who drew pneumatic breasts and impossible biceps.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 20, 2019 9:12:09 GMT -5
The dislike for Liefeld appears to have three prongs: 1) He lacks traditional art skills. He doesn't know which muscles actually exist, where the joints of a human are, or how they are articulate. He can't draw feet (which severely limits his compositional options) and can only draw a limited number of facial expressions, primarily the toothy grimace. He spawned a wave of imitators, and even compelled his predecessors to imitate him, because he sold well. So it's really a reaction against what the medium became under his influence. 2) He co-founded a company (Image) which initially emphasized art to the detriment of story. You could argue that it's hardly a crime to discover what the public wants, and give it to them. But that company built its initial success at a time now considered a low point overall, when sales were based on speculation and gimmickry rather than quality. 3) One hears tales of unfair business practices, advancing himself at the expense of other creators. He threw his weight around, both at Marvel and Image. That wouldn't exactly be unique, and figures like Stan Lee manage to get revered despite their mistreatment of their peers. Very good points, all. I would add a 4th one that likely is exacerbated by your 1st; anytime anyone or anything is wildly successful or popular, there will emerge a group of people to loudly crap all over it, particularly if they feel it is unearned. You see it all the time in music, TV, etc, makes sense it would also occur in comics, so seeing Liefield become explosively, monstrously popular while also feeling his work "sucks" or is objectively poor seems to have really riled a lot of people up. That said... That is a great way of putting it. The energy and attitude more than makes up for the lack of technical ability. I agree that Liefield's art has a certain fun energy to it if you don't take it too seriously, even if drawing feet and a passing grasp of anatomical proportions continues to elude him. He draws better than I can in any case.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2019 9:51:28 GMT -5
"Monkey see, monkey do" can be a mindset in humans (some are not as evolved as they think they are). "Oh, look at that artist being bashed, I'm going to jump on that bandwagon."
That doesn't apply to everyone, of course. I mean, look at a forum like this. Someone like Shaxper is going through various Superman titles - and his posts, like others, are balanced. I've found people here to be that way. I'm a John Byrne fan, but I know Shaxper has criticised some aspects of Byrne's Superman run. And that's fine. He's been balanced and articulate. But if he had just kept posting "Byrne sucks!" or something, I'd think it was an agenda, a bandwagon, a case of "Monkey see, monkey do!"
It can be fashionable and trendy for some to crap all over something. Non-wrestling fans won't get this, but it became very fashionable to boo John Cena. Why? I wish I knew. It seemed like one person did it at times - and the rest followed. If asked, could they sincerely and honestly answer why they were booing? Or was it a bandwagon?
I think the way to ascertain a person's intent is to read or listen to what they are saying. A person who articulates something well is to be trusted, whether it's Shaxper's reviews or Confessor's opinion on a particular Spider-Man issue. But the "You suck!" brigade, who seem to be most vocal, do seem to enjoy crapping on things not for thoughtful reasons, but because they've barely evolved from the apes/monkeys that fling crap in cages.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Nov 20, 2019 11:16:56 GMT -5
Too true. And some people just like negative attention. Some people enjoy trolling for the sake of it. Some people just love to complain! Too true on it being trendy to rip on something. Case in point, the band Nickelback is constantly trashed for their music's aesthetic, repetition and samey-nature, and juvenile lyrics. It became almost a meme to say they suck. Granted, it was all true in their case, but still.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 20, 2019 11:44:18 GMT -5
For me , it’s a matter of giving people credit even if I don’t like their work. Liefeld is highly successful. He is credited with reviving the Bew Mutants and creating Deadpool and Cable who have success in the box office. He created his own universe which he sold for a pretty penny. He has made more out of his career than Kirby and maybe people like Alan Moore have done. It can’t be denied.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 20, 2019 11:51:47 GMT -5
I don't like his art and felt it only looked good when Karl Kesel was finessing it. That said, in the 90s, he said and did a lot of stupid things that earned him a lot of criticism; most of it deserved, in my opinion.
1.) Leaving aside his style, which is a subjective thing, he was busted, multiple times, swiping from other artists. Not making homages, as he tried to make excuses, but wholesale swiping of poses and page layouts. Much of it was far more blatant than the worst of Rich Buckler. That didn't sit well with many corners.
2.) He joined Erik Larsen is dismissing the contributions of writers to stories and characters, to the point of claiming Louise Simonson made no contributions to Cable and other New Mutants/X-Force characters. His viewpoint was the drawing was all that counted, which is ridiculous. Personality and character background help give life to the character, beyond the simple design.
3.) He was busted by his partners for using company resources for personal projects, in violation of the terms they had set up. They met to vote him out when he simultaneously resigned, leading to a he-said, she-said in regards to whether he was kicked out or quit the group.
4.) For all the talk of creator's rights and fair compensation and ownership, he ran his own imprints as work for hire and rolled back on people owning characters created within the book.
Now, that was all in the 90s. It was fair to criticize him on those points, then and certainly relevant to point to them, in discussion to some of those topics, today. However, there is a certain set that will expand that into worse sins.
I will mock his style and the content of his comics, as they look amateurish to me and have the writing level of a third grade assignment from a low C student. That said, at least he is doing what he wants and has made a good living doing it. Of the few later era things I have seen, he showed marked improvement over what he was doing in the 90s. His characters are still generic derivatives of someone else's work; but, he is in fine company there.
In regards to the comments about Alan Moore; I can see that viewpoint; but, there is a bit of an age difference there and a major difference in background, from what I have read Liefeld state about his own youth. I don't agree with the depiction of Moore as "sad," as much as cynical and pessimistic. I can relate. A pessimist is more often an optimist who has been kicked in the goolies too many times.
|
|