|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 25, 2021 12:54:39 GMT -5
Great subject, dbutler69! Alan Moore : I really, really, really disliked The Killing Joke. It's not that it was a bad story in the sense that the writer botched the job; it's that I find the story needlessly sadistic. I'm sure a critic could argue that it is possible to pen a well-written story that deals with a sadistic madman, sure, but I don't think that such a story is appropriate for a comic-book featuring established characters in long underwear. Besides, even if we admit that there's a place for an official DC comic in which it's appropriate for the Joker to torture Barbara and James Gordon in a most graphic way... the conclusion, in which Batman and the Joker share a hearty laugh, is simply obscene. I would have been less shocked if Bruce had just broken the Joker's neck then and there!!! Roy Thomas : Red Sonja's origin. Drawn twice, no less, once with art by Howard Chaykin and once by Giordano and Austin. That story and what it left as a legacy is a huge slap in the face of the independent, self-possessed sword woman that Sonja was in Conan the barbarian #23 and 24 and SSoC #1. Gah! Chris Claremont : The post mutant massacre era (circa issue 210). Now let me say first that I thoroughly admire Chris for having tried something daring: ditching the extremely popular characters, supporting cast, and comfortable situation the X-Books had been in for years, and replacing them with something new. It was a huge gamble, and one that must have taken a lot of guts. Unfortunately, the gamble didn't pay off. Big fan of the X-Men as I was, I never managed to care for the Psylocke-Havok-Dazzler-Longshot additions, nor for the Lone Rangers in the Australian outback story arc. Philippe Druillet : one of my gods, when it comes to comics... But Chaos, which at the time was supposed to be the final Lone Sloane book, was an utter disappointment (with a plot twist pilfered from Jim Starlin's Magus saga, too).
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on May 25, 2021 14:08:30 GMT -5
Roquefort Raider regarding Chris Claremont, I think everything he did up until maybe 1984 was gold, or almost everything anyway. After that, not so much. I'll certainly agree with you on post-Mutant Massacre, though, but I'm putting the date a bit earlier than you are.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on May 25, 2021 14:48:50 GMT -5
Making Peter Parker's parents murdered SHIELD agents was the stupidest idea Stan Lee ever had.
Cei-U! I summon the not-so-everyman hero!
|
|
|
Post by impulse on May 25, 2021 14:57:02 GMT -5
I liked Claremont's ideas and willingness to shake things up, and no one quite captures the voice of certain core X-characters like he did. That said, man, the execution of a lot of his stuff has not aged well.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 25, 2021 15:13:40 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. 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). Yes, that was a more constructive take on the character for me. The earlier appearance was too negative, in my judgement. It's a defensible POV, but not one I happen to share: I think it's entirely one-sided and therefore shallow and misleading. I also believe that most of those negatives are traceable to the pervasive attitudes of the era, just as is. e.g. the homophobia of Chandler's Marlowe.
Fleming himself actually produced the most interesting deconstruction of the Bond character in a short story called The Hildebrand Rarity, though I've never seen anyone talk about it.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on May 25, 2021 16:23:00 GMT -5
Making Peter Parker's parents murdered SHIELD agents was the stupidest idea Stan Lee ever had. You know... it's probably VERY difficult to be sure absolutely WHO came up with that idea.
John Romita has described being the "DE FACTO EDITOR" on ASM the whole time he was on the book, even when others were drawing it (Don Heck, Jim Mooney, John Buscema, Gil Kane, Jim Starlin).
LARRY LIEBER wrote & illustrated that story. He may have come up with the idea. But I'd think, more likely, Romita did.
"Ye editor" was always more in the habit of RE-writing other people's stories at the dialogue stage.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on May 25, 2021 16:27:08 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.
from John "I AND I ALONE KNOW HOW TO WRITE THESE CHARACTERS PROPERLY" Byrne.
|
|
|
Post by foxley on May 25, 2021 16:36:25 GMT -5
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). Yes, that was a more constructive take on the character for me. The earlier appearance was too negative, in my judgement. It's a defensible POV, but not one I happen to share: I think it's entirely one-sided and therefore shallow and misleading. I also believe that most of those negatives are traceable to the pervasive attitudes of the era, just as is. e.g. the homophobia of Chandler's Marlowe.
Fleming himself actually produced the most interesting deconstruction of the Bond character in a short story called The Hildebrand Rarity, though I've never seen anyone talk about it.
Particularly in the later volumes, Moore tends to reduce the portrayal of characters he does not like to caricatures. As bad as his portrayal of Bond was, Bulldog Drummond copped it worse (although the racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, antisemitism, etc. is far more overt in the Drummond novels. Kim Newman also targets the character is some of his short stories, but does in a far more subtle and deconstructive fashion).
However, some comic fans (or just Alan Moore fans) who have never read the originals assume that Moore's depictions are accurate and make criticisms using LoEG as their only source.
|
|
|
Post by commond on May 25, 2021 17:20:00 GMT -5
Great subject, dbutler69 ! Chris Claremont : The post mutant massacre era (circa issue 210). Now let me say first that I thoroughly admire Chris for having tried something daring: ditching the extremely popular characters, supporting cast, and comfortable situation the X-Books had been in for years, and replacing them with something new. It was a huge gamble, and one that must have taken a lot of guts. Unfortunately, the gamble didn't pay off. Big fan of the X-Men as I was, I never managed to care for the Psylocke-Havok-Dazzler-Longshot additions, nor for the Lone Rangers in the Australian outback story arc. I started reading X-Men during the Genosha storyline, so the X-Men hanging out in the Australian outback while the world thinks they're dead was the established norm for me; and trust me, I was well aware of the established norm because Claremont reminded the reader of it in every single issue Things got even messier when the X-Men stepped through the Siege Perilous. There was a couple of years after that where there wasn't an actual team in Marvel's hottest team book. I can't decide whether the X-Men got so big that Claremont could do whatever the fruck he liked, or it was Claremont's big double-concept album. I remember being geeked by the storylines that Claremont had in store if he'd stayed on the X-Men, but I suppose turning Wolverine "bad" and killing off the Professor were Claremont treading the same old ground again.
|
|
|
Post by Ricky Jackson on May 25, 2021 18:10:59 GMT -5
I think one of the main reasons I never got into X Men was because when a friend tried his hardest to convert me the book was in its late 80s team split up and scattered around phase and I found it totally incomprehensible
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 25, 2021 19:37:17 GMT -5
It's part of why I never came back, after leaving the book behind, following the Paul Smith run and the marriage of Scott and Madelyne Pryor. Even then, there were elements that were rubbing me the wrong way, like quashing Wolverine and Mariko's romance (not to mention wedding), coupled with Mariko always being shown in kimonos, despite it being the 1980s. For special occasions, maybe, but that generation of Japanese women dressed in modern clothing, even if their fathers were Yakuza bosses (even more so, most likely). After I left, whenever I poked my head back in, I couldn't make heads or tails about what was going on and couldn't be made to care. The one caveat was the Asgard storyline, with Art Adams, in the New Mutants and X-Men annuals. The more they used event storylines, the less inclined I was to even flip through an issue. Thankfully, I had reprints of the glory years to console me, in Classic X-Men (since I wasn't going to pay dealer prices for the original issues).
I've talked about the Master of Kung Fu storyline, in the first half dozen issues of Marvel Comics Presents. That was a real step down for Doug Moench.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 25, 2021 20:45:22 GMT -5
Yes, that was a more constructive take on the character for me. The earlier appearance was too negative, in my judgement. It's a defensible POV, but not one I happen to share: I think it's entirely one-sided and therefore shallow and misleading. I also believe that most of those negatives are traceable to the pervasive attitudes of the era, just as is. e.g. the homophobia of Chandler's Marlowe.
Fleming himself actually produced the most interesting deconstruction of the Bond character in a short story called The Hildebrand Rarity, though I've never seen anyone talk about it.
Particularly in the later volumes, Moore tends to reduce the portrayal of characters he does not like to caricatures. As bad as his portrayal of Bond was, Bulldog Drummond copped it worse (although the racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, antisemitism, etc. is far more overt in the Drummond novels. Kim Newman also targets the character is some of his short stories, but does in a far more subtle and deconstructive fashion).
However, some comic fans (or just Alan Moore fans) who have never read the originals assume that Moore's depictions are accurate and make criticisms using LoEG as their only source. Yeah, the Achilles reference I mentioned came across to me like something someone would say if they'd never read the Iliad, just a synopsis or description of it. I still like the League books, though I haven't gotten round to reading the last few yet, but I think Moore probably tried to throw too many references into those later volumes, resulting at times in this sort of superficial, throwaway line or sequence.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on May 25, 2021 21:37:12 GMT -5
Moore tends to reduce the portrayal of characters he does not like to caricatures. As bad as his portrayal of Bond was... And then I realized you meant Alan... not Roger.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on May 26, 2021 10:33:19 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. This. Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on May 26, 2021 10:59:29 GMT -5
Great subject, dbutler69 ! Alan Moore : I really, really, really disliked The Killing Joke. It's not that it was a bad story in the sense that the writer botched the job; it's that I find the story needlessly sadistic. I'm sure a critic could argue that it is possible to pen a well-written story that deals with a sadistic madman, sure, but I don't think that such a story is appropriate for a comic-book featuring established characters in long underwear. Besides, even if we admit that there's a place for an official DC comic in which it's appropriate for the Joker to torture Barbara and James Gordon in a most graphic way... the conclusion, in which Batman and the Joker share a hearty laugh, is simply obscene. I would have been less shocked if Bruce had just broken the Joker's neck then and there!!! With you here to the nth degree. There are no more unnerving descriptions of wartime violence than those found in the Iliad; none more disturbing than can be read in All Quiet on the Western Front (notably the description of the screaming, panicky horses caught in no-man's land during an artillery bombardment; no account of rape more shattering than Lavinia's in Titus Andronicus. But these scenes are all the more unsettling because they are entwined with genuine emotion; the characters are not being used as pawns by the writer to scratch a perverse itch; the violence to mind and body is not played out before us to titillate and shock us. And it is not thrust at us on page after page, but rather used to real to us the depths of human depravity, evil, whatever you want to call it. To be honest, I can't remember where Killing Joke fits into the continuum of gratuitous sadism in comics, whether it kicked off the trend, or was part of an already established one, but either way, the door was smashed in and suddenly it seems, every comic was luxuriating in and glorifying extreme, cruel, sadistic violence. Because they could. Even if we allow that Moore, as an excellent comics writer, should have the leeway to explore this kind of topic, the ripples created by this kind of approach eventually reach all shores, and thus, all kinds of inferior creators imitate what Moore did and the publishers give them de facto permission to outgross each other. And then, no act of violence -- rape, maiming, even excising one's own face (Isn't that what the Joker did in some fairly recent issue?) -- is ever enough to shock, stun, or repulse readers. And the line between old-fashioned super-hero and bloodthirsty vigilante was erased in spilled blood.
|
|