Recency bias is the opposite of what we're talking about. Recency bias favours the new. Aren't we talking about favouring "our era" over all else?

I feel like I'm in a weird place because when it comes to Marvel in particular, I think the comics they produced before I was born are much better than the stuff they've published during my lifetime, with some exceptions like Ultimate Spider-Man and Alias. X-Men, Spider-Man, Avengers, I'd much rather read the stuff from the 70s and 80s than most of the stuff from the 21st century or even the 90s. With DC at least I still think their peak was when I was a very little kid and not well before I existed.

Looks good, aside from the copy and pasting going on, which is a personal bug bear.

Don't mistake me. I think he can definitely be an edgelord, too, but I agree that it's not all he can do. He can be quite good when he wants to be.

😧 My jaw just hit the floor.

Let me rephrase.

His Wolverine was okaaaay. I didn't like the Hand resurrection thing, and I thought it was too long and a throwaway, but I didn't hate it completely the first time through. I don't ever want to read it again, though.


Sounds like that was the editor's fault- changing his stories until he felt he had to leave. I'd be fascinated to hear how Quesada fit into the equation- the stories creators tell usually suggest that disagreements with editors resulted in him coming down on the creators like a ton of bricks, trying to beat them in line.[/quote]
People are quick to blame editorial whenever something falls short of the bar in comics. Granted, it seems to be correct a good bit of the time.

It's been a long time since I've read up on it, so take this with a pinch of salt. My understanding is Morrison was pretty much brought in as a superstar Name Brand creator to revitalize a floundering Marvel and was given basically free range to do what he wanted. I think he was interested in staying on longer, but he was being pressured to undo some changes perhaps, and said screw you guys, I'm goin' home. So, while I don't think what we got was necessarily fiddled with by editorial, I think they had disagreements on what was going on next.

Based on the speed that Quesada swept everything but the surface-level topical changes right back under the rug, this seems plausible to me. It's a shame, too, because the status quo change Morrison built for them was the first new and interesting idea the X-Books had seen in year.

Oh, well.

Unless you just don't like when 2 panels use the same angle I don't really see what the problem is.  Of course backgrounds aren't going to change in a split second when the action is entirely in the foreground.

There's something jarring about seeing the same thing twice or more on the same page, and I dislike how it's common now because it's so easy to copy and paste. Move the view point around, change the distance, draw something new...

Like I said, a personal bug bear, that can wreck *any* page for me.

And yes, I know tracing used to occur in the past, but the uncanny valley effect was avoided unless a photostat was cut and paste right on to a page. That happened, but much less commonly. It was usually used to save drawing a building multiple times, for example, typically cut from a past issue. One use I quite liked was when they'd photostat or trace a face, and gradually zoom closer and closer in to the eyes or mouth. Much more artistic.

Agreed. When a writer and artist knock it out of the park it's hard for them to screw it up, so when we read a great comic we assume that's mostly what happened. Of course sometimes the editor will have massively improved a piece of work. Look what happened to George RR Martin's books since he because so famous as to be practically uneditable!