|
Post by dbutler69 on May 24, 2021 16:00:28 GMT -5
Nobody's perfect. Take a writer you think very highly of, someone you consider one of your favorite writers, and tell of something they wrote that didn't exactly work out so well. I'll start.
Steve Englehart His retcon of the Falcon's origins, turning him into a former street hustler named Snap (Captain America #186) was a terrible idea! He sort of ruined a good character. I like to pretend that this never, ever happened. By the way, supposedly, Englehart didn't mean for this origin to stick, but was off the book before he had a chance to undo it, or whatever it is he had planned, then the next writer wasn't on the book long enough to do anything about it, then the next writer was Jack Kirby, who pretty much ignored Marvel continuity in his run, anyway.
Roy Thomas Roy is perhaps my favorite comic book writer, and while I enjoyed his Thor run overall, it ended ugly. For some reason, he decided to retcon the origin of Asgard and the Asgardian, and adapt Der Ring des Nibelungen in Thor's comic AND conclude Kirby's Eternals saga. Now, when I first read this a few years ago, I enjoyed it well enough. However, after having recently re-read it, this story (the ugly stuff starts somewhere around Thor #291 and continues up to about #300) is overly long, overly complicated, overly self-indulgent, and rather pointless. And if you picked up the Thor: Eternals TPB for the Eternals, you'll be disappointed. It collects #283-301, and the first several issues do feature the Eternals, and I think Roy does a pretty god job with them, considering that he's not Jack Kirby, but then the Eternals disappear, and only show up at the end in a cameo, so they're barely in the last dozen issues of that TPB. I actually thought the conclusion with the Celestials wasn't bad, considering that Marvel wasn't going to let them sit around for 50 years, but it's a shame that the Eternals played hardly any role in it.
John Byrne Vision Quest, from West Coast Avengers #42-45. Let's ruin the Vision, shall we?
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on May 24, 2021 16:09:48 GMT -5
There's a fair bit I could list from Mr. Byrne, but I hardly consider him a great writer.
I generally liked Chris Claremont's run on the X-Men up until the end of the first Brood storyline. Then everything became grim and depressing, starting with Storm's transformation into an angsty punk.
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on May 24, 2021 16:16:26 GMT -5
There's a fair bit I could list from Mr. Byrne, but I hardly consider him a great writer. Well, maybe I don't consider him a great writer, and certainly not quite in the class of Englehart or Roy Thomas strictly in terms of writing, but I have enjoyed some of his stuff a lot. Fantastic Four, Superman, his Batman/Captain America one-shot, plus his plotting on the X-Men.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on May 24, 2021 18:26:56 GMT -5
To me, a jaw-dropping " WTF?" moment from Steve Englehart in the mid-80s that tends to be overlooked, was when he was doing GREEN LANTERN. He got cartoonist & comics historian Fred Hembeck to research the entire history of Carol Ferris, a character who'd been horribly and inconsistently written for decades, in order to "figure out" what made her tick. And in one issue, he did an overview of her history, and, without my actually having read most of those older stories, I assume he did a fairly good job of it. UNTIL the ending. When, suddenly, out of left field, he decided to reveal that not only was Carol Ferris also Star Saphire (something we'd known for a long time), but, that she was ALSO... The Predator, a character that the previous team, Len Wein & Dave Gibbons had just recently created. Steve wanted to bring some kind of closure to Hal & Carol's relationship (such as it had been), so he could basically RID Hal of her permanently from then on. But this just made no sense. It was like a case of too much LSD kicking in suddenly, derailing what was otherwise (mostly) a well-intentioned and well-done story, while also insulting Wein & Gibbons in the process. Several years later... and not long before power-mad editor Kevin Dooley KICKED him right off the series, writer Gerard Jones took aim at that glitch... and FIXED it. I began to notice more and more instances in long-running comics where one writer would SCREW something over... and then another writer would have to come in and put it right... until, of course, another writer (or in some cases, the same one) would then SCREW things over even worse, until then another writer would come in a fix THAT. Why don't they just TELL GOOD STORIES, and stop messing with the heroes and their lives and careers? (Because "soap-opera" is easier for lazy writers to do, of course... ) The most MIRACULOUS thing the live-action GREEN LANTERN movie did was make Carol Ferris LIKABLE, and completely eliminate, right out of the gate, that stupid Hal-Carol-GL "triangle" that had always been a 5TH-RATE imitation of the Clark-Lois-Superman triangle. I know back in the 50s, DC editors & writers held their target audience in contempt and felt that "kids don't want romance", so every DC girlfriend was a horrid shrew. But kids don't read comics these days, and the over-aged adolescents who do (heh) deserve better.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 24, 2021 19:48:52 GMT -5
I think that's exactly what happens now... whenever a new writer takes over a series, they take only the bits of the past they like and ignore the rest, and no one seems to care if they do. When was the last time an Iron Man writer mentioned Teen Tony or the Crossing? Or the Falcon thing?
While I like continuity reference alot, at this point for Marvel and DC there's just too much, you can't have a timeline that includes 60,70,80 years of stories and still have those character alive and well and fighting crime. I think the only choices are selective canon or trying to reboot constantly like DC does (which clearly doesn't work)
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 24, 2021 22:23:39 GMT -5
I didn't like Alan Moore's take on James Bond in one of his League of Extraordinary Gentlemen books, forget the volume; and also, in the same series, there was a brief reference to Achilles that I thought glib and shallow. In both cases, one could argue that it's a matter of interpretation and that there is evidence to support Moore's negative view of the character in question, but these were mis-steps in my view.
I also didn't like the way Mr. Hyde was made into an over-sized Hulk-like monster - again, one could say it's a matter of taste but it certainly made the character less interesting to me.
|
|
|
Post by foxley on May 24, 2021 22:46:37 GMT -5
Probably not in most people's personal canon of great writers, but Michael Fleisher:
As far as I am concerned, Fleisher is the Jonah Hex writer: having taken a creation John Albano seemingly had no interest in and turning it into not only the greatest western antihero in comics, but one of the greatest western antiheroes full stop. Aside from Hex's appearance, pretty much every element you associate with Hex sprang from Fleisher's pen.
And, for the most part, he did a more than adequate job when he took over writing The Warlord from Mike and Sharon Grell. Until...
For some reason, late in his run, he had the independent, liberated, feisty Russian archaeologist adventurer Mariah (who was one of my favourite characters in the book) get into a romantic relationship with a man who physically abuses her. Not for a moment do I believe that Mariah, who was an expert swordswoman, who put up with this abuse and not just gut him. But it gets worse because when she was offered a chance to leave, she voluntarily chooses to stay! Seriously Fleisher, WTF?
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 24, 2021 22:48:09 GMT -5
I didn't like Alan Moore's take on James Bond in one of his League of Extraordinary Gentlemen books, forget the volume; and also, in the same series, there was a brief reference to Achilles that I thought glib and shallow. In both cases, one could argue that it's a matter of interpretation and that there is evidence to support Moore's negative view of the character in question, but these were mis-steps in my view. I also didn't like the way Mr. Hyde was made into an over-sized Hulk-like monster - again, one could say it's a matter of taste but it certainly made the character less interesting to me. Bond appears in The Black Dossier; but, to be fair, it's fairly consistent with elements of the literary figure. Fleming was pretty racist and his view of women wasn't exactly stellar. Moore does depict that. It's also meant to contrast with Emma Knight, the future Mrs Peel, who is shown to be more virtuous, when out from under the thumb of her uncle (I think...) Bulldog Drummond, who was pretty much every negative stereotype you could come up with, and yet was a hero to British readers of the era! Moore's point was to take aim at the Imperialist attitudes and negative aspects of these characters, contrasting the literary figures with the public perception, based more on their film appearances. The Mr Hyde thing had precedent, in the original Stevenson story, as Mr Hyde appeared bigger the more depraved he got. O'Neil takes it to the extreme; but, that is kind of the point. he actually contrasts that part well by making Hyde a more rounded figure, with a sort of "moral" code, especially in regards to Mina Murray. Achilles is understandable, to a certain point, based on the Iliad, where he is a bit of a schmuck, especially after he kills Hector. Like every author, Moore picks and chooses the elements that fits the story he wants to tell. Black Dossier gets a bit wonky for me, after the fantastic jobs of the first story and the War of the Worlds fight. like bits and pieces; but the whole gets a bit too esoteric for my tastes. The whole Century thing is bit more back in line to what I enjoy, though I thought he overdid the Brecht stuff and, I was less interested in the character mix, as he moved further into the 20th Century.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 24, 2021 22:58:56 GMT -5
I Liked David Micheline on Iron Man, but don't get me started on his and Jim Shooter's Carol Danvers mess, in Avengers.
Roy Thomas is one I think kind of lost the plot as his troubles with DC grew worse. I would agree on Thor & the Eternals, as they are used well, up to the point where Hero returns, then they just get dumped and only the Celestials remain. At DC, as I cover in my All-Star Squadron thread, he was doing a pretty entertaining job, until he decided, for whatever reason, to bog things down forever with the JSA space exile storyline, from the 40s. It just went nowhere and really distracted from the book. The same thing kind of happened with infinity, Inc, which went through artist struggles, after Jerry Ordway left and Don Newton suddenly died. It got some stability with Todd McFarlane, with both some fun stories from Roy and lively artwork from Todd (the stuff I most enjoyed from him), until he left. Then, we kind of have problems again and Roy becomes more and more focused on retelling old All-Star stories, until they are taking up the majority of the book and the modern tie to that story is waiting in the wings for its cue. It got especially bad after the JSA got dumped in Limbo. By that point I was pretty tired of Roy's diversions into his own personal nostalgia while the modern audience was wanting new stories of current and new characters, not a rehash of Gardner Fox stories.
|
|
|
Post by foxley on May 24, 2021 23:02:06 GMT -5
I didn't like Alan Moore's take on James Bond in one of his League of Extraordinary Gentlemen books, forget the volume; and also, in the same series, there was a brief reference to Achilles that I thought glib and shallow. In both cases, one could argue that it's a matter of interpretation and that there is evidence to support Moore's negative view of the character in question, but these were mis-steps in my view. I also didn't like the way Mr. Hyde was made into an over-sized Hulk-like monster - again, one could say it's a matter of taste but it certainly made the character less interesting to me. Bond appears in The Black Dossier; but, to be fair, it's fairly consistent with elements of the literary figure. Fleming was pretty racist and his view of women wasn't exactly stellar. Moore does depict that. It's also meant to contrast with Emma Knight, the future Mrs Peel, who is shown to be more virtuous, when out from under the thumb of her uncle (I think...) Bulldog Drummond, who was pretty much every negative stereotype you could come up with, and yet was a hero to British readers of the era! Moore's point was to take aim at the Imperialist attitudes and negative aspects of these characters, contrasting the literary figures with the public perception, based more on their film appearances. The Mr Hyde thing had precedent, in the original Stevenson story, as Mr Hyde appeared bigger the more depraved he got. O'Neil takes it to the extreme; but, that is kind of the point. he actually contrasts that part well by making Hyde a more rounded figure, with a sort of "moral" code, especially in regards to Mina Murray. Achilles is understandable, to a certain point, based on the Iliad, where he is a bit of a schmuck, especially after he kills Hector. Like every author, Moore picks and chooses the elements that fits the story he wants to tell. Black Dossier gets a bit wonky for me, after the fantastic jobs of the first story and the War of the Worlds fight. like bits and pieces; but the whole gets a bit too esoteric for my tastes. The whole Century thing is bit more back in line to what I enjoy, though I thought he overdid the Brecht stuff and, I was less interested in the character mix, as he moved further into the 20th Century. I disliked the Black Dossier. I enjoyed the first book of the Century, but in the second one Orlando just became an absolute Mary Sue, completely stealing the spotlight from Mina and Allan: the characters we have been following since the series started. And the the third book is nothing but pure vitriol being spouted against J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter for reasons I cannot fathom.
Fortunately, he got back on track with the Nemo books he followed this with: especially Heart of Ice, which I thought was close to the quality of the original two LoEG miniseries.
And while I agree with berkley's assessment of his treatment of Bond in the Black Dossier (which left a bad taste in my mouth), I did like what he did with Bond in The Tempest, where it is revealed that there have been a series of Bonds cloned from the original: each displaying unique personality traits (paralleling the movie Bonds).
|
|
|
Post by majestic on May 24, 2021 23:48:44 GMT -5
Keith Giffen. Not his writing but his art style. When he changed it and it became more abstract.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 25, 2021 11:19:28 GMT -5
Keith Giffen. Not his writing but his art style. When he changed it and it became more abstract. Well, his problem is that he didn't seem to define his own style. at the start, he was a Kirby clone, with bits and pieces of Adams (and/or Buscema) and then he came back slicker and a bit more unique, then just turned into a Jose Munoz clone. He wasn't as directly derivative of Munoz, after several years, but he also didn't seem to leave it behind, either.
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on May 25, 2021 11:20:47 GMT -5
Bond appears in The Black Dossier; but, to be fair, it's fairly consistent with elements of the literary figure. Fleming was pretty racist and his view of women wasn't exactly stellar. Moore does depict that. It's also meant to contrast with Emma Knight, the future Mrs Peel, who is shown to be more virtuous, when out from under the thumb of her uncle (I think...) Bulldog Drummond, who was pretty much every negative stereotype you could come up with, and yet was a hero to British readers of the era! Moore's point was to take aim at the Imperialist attitudes and negative aspects of these characters, contrasting the literary figures with the public perception, based more on their film appearances.
I had no problem with a repellent Bond, but was bemused by a traitorous Bond.
I found the Golliwog character to be not only offensive, but also unentertaining, and Moore's defense of his use of the character disingenuous.
Also, the finale of the series seemed pointless to me. I'm left with no clue as to why Prospero would have wanted to do the things he did, and the main characters seem barely bothered by Earth's complete deterioration.
Another Mooreian misstep: as much as I adore the Promethea series, his 'multiple personality mayor' both behaved like no MP/DID person who has ever existed, and was offensive on the face of it by basically being there to mock people with mental illness. If you compare him with Crazy Jane over in Morrison's Doom Patrol, it's all the more striking.
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on May 25, 2021 11:24:07 GMT -5
Vision Quest, from West Coast Avengers #42-45. Let's ruin the Vision, shall we?
What bothered me most about this storyline was that it was all to bring back Jim Hammond. Don't get me wrong: I like Jim Hammond, he's one of my favorite Timely characters. But we already had an android hero (Vision) and we already had a Human Torch (Johnny Storm) so in the modern era, Hammond is redundant.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,411
|
Post by Confessor on May 25, 2021 12:31:10 GMT -5
I also didn't like the way Mr. Hyde was made into an over-sized Hulk-like monster - again, one could say it's a matter of taste but it certainly made the character less interesting to me. I liked it, personally, but in the original text by Robert Louis Stevenson it does state that Hyde is smaller in stature than Dr. Jekyll. So, it's not really a matter of interpretation; it's a matter of (fictional) fact.
|
|