|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 14, 2022 11:29:23 GMT -5
I've heard of something called " Generational Bias" , meaning your generation has the best of things. I frequently hear the basketball argument that Lebron James is better than Michael Jordan. The people of this generation think that everything and everyone is the best . And the Jordan generation argues that he was better than Bill Russell. AAAAAHHHHH! Context is everything in these kinds of discussions, but they too often devolve into "get off my lawn" arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 14, 2022 11:31:40 GMT -5
Your first exposure to anything, especially entertainment, in my opinion is what molds what you like. Or at least what some might consider your formative years. While I grew up in the 80's, the 90's were my more formative years, no matter when the material I consumed came from. I can think of AoA, Fine Young Cannibals, The Avengers (not the comic) The Three Stooges, Commodore 64, arcades (Rampage being one of my favorites) for a quarter, The Hardy Boys Casefiles, Metroid, Pink Floyd, and my first crush (who was much older than me) all as things I enjoyed in that decade, though very few of them actually being a product of said generation. While I enjoy, for the sake of the actual OP, comics from most all decades, the 90's will be my favorite. I was just getting into comics and the fantastical feeling (and a little overwhelming) of so much material to read. So much history of so many characters to read was exhilarating. Now some months after getting into comics, I discovered back issues. And had that overwhelming, but fun feeling of even more comics to discover. But nothing will beat the familiarity of good old over the top 90's comics. The Golden Age of everything is 12, right? It's one reason that each of us loves comics of a certain era no matter how objectively flawed they might be.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2022 12:24:00 GMT -5
One thing I would like to add is how people, myself included, often forget about the business side of things.
If I may stick with my original WWE analogy, RAW airs on the USA Network, SMACKDOWN airs on Fox. Both shows have their own WWE ‘world’ champion. Now, some are not a fan of that, but I read recently that it’s a business decision. The USA Network wants its own champion. Fox want their champion. So while people like myself might pine for the 80s WWF of one ‘world’ champion, there’s a business reason for it.
And sticking with that, an emotive part of me “dies” whenever I check sales figures for the month and see that the latest X-crossover issue got the highest sales that month - or that a Venom crossover, with 456 tie-in issues, got the highest sales. Or one of DC’s CRISIS tie-ins. Now, I can and often do whine about that (“Why can’t we do away with these big events?”), I realise the commercial reality: Marvel will keep putting out “Dawn of Apocalypse X-Universe Multiverse In Crisis” events as long as the sales figures justify them.
So the WWE and comic examples above remind me that any pining for a replication of a previous era is futile, given the business realities.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2022 13:50:40 GMT -5
For instance, the coloring and printing in comics, now, is OBJECTIVELY better. There is no argument. The paper is better, the color is capable of more colors and subtlety, and the printing is as good as any magazine or book, in most cases. Actually, from a pure art/aesthetic standpoint, I don't believe it's objectively better. It's just a different technique, and it's a different product. That's like saying classical music is better than blues because it has more notes. And much like "more notes" can sometimes be boring to listen to, more colors and subtlety can be boring to view (personally I find modern coloring atrocious and kills the whole vibe aesthetically). It's still subjective.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 14, 2022 14:02:24 GMT -5
Your first exposure to anything, especially entertainment, in my opinion is what molds what you like. Or at least what some might consider your formative years. While I grew up in the 80's, the 90's were my more formative years, no matter when the material I consumed came from. I can think of AoA, Fine Young Cannibals, The Avengers (not the comic) The Three Stooges, Commodore 64, arcades (Rampage being one of my favorites) for a quarter, The Hardy Boys Casefiles, Metroid, Pink Floyd, and my first crush (who was much older than me) all as things I enjoyed in that decade, though very few of them actually being a product of said generation. While I enjoy, for the sake of the actual OP, comics from most all decades, the 90's will be my favorite. I was just getting into comics and the fantastical feeling (and a little overwhelming) of so much material to read. So much history of so many characters to read was exhilarating. Now some months after getting into comics, I discovered back issues. And had that overwhelming, but fun feeling of even more comics to discover. But nothing will beat the familiarity of good old over the top 90's comics. The Golden Age of everything is 12, right? It's one reason that each of us loves comics of a certain era no matter how objectively flawed they might be. Well that was certainly said about science fiction. And I wonder how true it is empirically. Anecdotally, it's not true for me. I actually think about this a lot, though I have a tendency to shy away from talking about it because it seems to be one of those things that trigger dissension and flame-wars. I think this ties in to what has become known as Sturgeon's Law, that "90% of everything is crap." People, in general, seem to become very emotionally invested in the things that they like and get upset when faced with an opposing opinion that it's crap. I'm lucky enough to recognize that an awful lot of the things that I really like are crap. It doesn't mean I shouldn't like them. I just have to recognize that they're crap. I think that one of the things is that nostalgia is easy. It takes no work to consume media that either you've consumed before or that is aesthetically similar to what you've already consumed. Which is fine in moderation. Hell, it's even fine if you recognize what you're doing. What drives me nuts is the intellectual flaccidity that comes with the statement that "there's no good "X" any more." I see it all the time with both comics and music (and I'm sure it's in other places) and it almost always strikes me as demonstrating a lack of intellectual curiosity. I find it particularly egregious in music since it has absolutely never in the history of the world been easier to find new music than it is now.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Mar 14, 2022 14:06:17 GMT -5
Yeah, I hate the garish color in most/many comics since what, the 90s?
I'll take pulpy newsprint over slick paper, too.
It amazes me how beautifully colored many comics were in the "old days" given the strictures they had to work around. Not everything, to be sure, but there are many examples of covers from the 60s and 70s in particular that are drop-dead gorgeous. Thank you, Jack Adler, for one.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2022 14:20:02 GMT -5
What drives me nuts is the intellectual flaccidity that comes with the statement that "there's no good "X" any more." I see it all the time with both comics and music (and I'm sure it's in other places) and it almost always strikes me as demonstrating a lack of intellectual curiosity. I find it particularly egregious in music since it has absolutely never in the history of the world been easier to find new music than it is now. Drives me nuts, too, particularly in wrestling circles. What, with all the wrestling (particularly in the U.S. and Japan), there’s really nothing they like? Really? I am not on any music forums, but I’ve had those discussions in real life. There’s a friend I love (he’s a good friend), and we both like heavy metal, but, bless him, he seems to think there hasn’t been any good metal since 30 years ago. Yet there are more metal bands than ever, it truly is a global genre. Hard to believe he doesn’t like any metal now.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Mar 14, 2022 14:57:26 GMT -5
For instance, the coloring and printing in comics, now, is OBJECTIVELY better. There is no argument. The paper is better, the color is capable of more colors and subtlety, and the printing is as good as any magazine or book, in most cases. Actually, from a pure art/aesthetic standpoint, I don't believe it's objectively better. It's just a different technique, and it's a different product. That's like saying classical music is better than blues because it has more notes. And much like "more notes" can sometimes be boring to listen to, more colors and subtlety can be boring to view (personally I find modern coloring atrocious and kills the whole vibe aesthetically). It's still subjective. I guess what I meant by objectively better was higher resolution dot screens, sharper images and printing, more archival paper, whiter paper, more colors, etc. The objectives of the printing process. I was thinking what someone who had no affinity for comics would think of the two examples being compared. And I totally agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Mar 14, 2022 15:05:59 GMT -5
Yeah, I hate the garish color in most/many comics since what, the 90s? I'll take pulpy newsprint over slick paper, too. It amazes me how beautifully colored many comics were in the "old days" given the strictures they had to work around. Not everything, to be sure, but there are many examples of covers from the 60s and 70s in particular that are drop-dead gorgeous. Thank you, Jack Adler, for one. I have passed up many a reprint volume because of the slick paper. I actually love the paper they used on the Kirby reprints from a few years back.. not pure white, and sort of a newsprinty feel... the perfect vehicle for Kirby's art.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2022 15:10:16 GMT -5
I know where you are coming from. I can’t remember the name of the volume, but I saw a Spidey reprint volume, which I think focused on Hobgoblin. They’d recoloured Hobgoblin too much. Or too well. Whatever the term is. Too bright, too garish.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 14, 2022 16:00:07 GMT -5
Yesterday afternoon I met my son's fiancees' brother for the first time. When he found out I read comics, he asked, "Do you like Megg, Mogg, and Owl?", and the first thing out of my mouth was, "Maybe it's a generational thing, but..."
When he asked me what I read, I was stuck--I don't follow anything religiously and don't think I've bought a new Marvel or DC this century. I follow individual creators, but even two that I mentioned to him (Richard Sala and Spain) have been dead for a few years now. If it wasn;t for online library lends and gifts/borrows from friends, I don;t think I would've read any "new" mainstream creators, and even when there's stuff I liked, it doesn;t go further than that--I'm not looking for more.
Like tonebone, I don;t like slick paper and overworked colors on new comics and especially on reprints, and I'm not attracted to tables full of longboxes of those comics. But I still love going through junkboxes of newsprint stuff (as long as they're <$5), and much more inclined to pick up humor or horror than superheroes (though I'll pick up some DCs). And I'll pick up reprints of almost anything from before '75 or so if it's at a good price (cheap!)
How much is based on my age? The time I was most into comics (until now) was probably the late 70s-early 80s when I was picking up a ton of DCs and some Marvels. But honestly with very few exceptions I have no love for that stuff now and am willing to unload a lot at a dollar a book.
I love 60s stuff that's often from before I was reading comics or stuff I wasn;t reading at the time--so that's not necessarily nostalgia. And I like alternative stuff from the undergrounds to today when it shows some thought and craft. I mentioned Megg, Mogg, and Owl--I know it has a following, but it seems to be one joke. Same with Fante Bukowski by Noah van Sciver--I thought he'd take the stock character of the self-important unpublished writer and do something new or different, but it was the same old.
I like cartooning--that is telling stories in pictures. I probably like Kirby and Ditko more today than ever, not as "creators of the Marvel Universe," but as two folks who let the pictures tell the story and reveal character, whatever they were working on. I think Sam Glanzman is probably one of the best auteur creators to come out of the 70s-80s, certainly out of mainstream comics. There are others--Chaykin, Miller, Byrne--but they were hit and miss and too tied to existing characters. American Flagg probably holds up better than anything out of this group because it came from a time when the first wave of independent publishers (no pun intended there) were consciously trying to offer something different to a different audience, not compete w/ the big two on their terms.
I think there's a lot of exciting stuff going on now but, honestly, I don;t have the time, cash, or interest to get too deep into it. Maybe as I go back to work out of the house I'll find an LCS I can target for weekly/biweekly visits.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2022 16:27:05 GMT -5
Actually, from a pure art/aesthetic standpoint, I don't believe it's objectively better. It's just a different technique, and it's a different product. That's like saying classical music is better than blues because it has more notes. And much like "more notes" can sometimes be boring to listen to, more colors and subtlety can be boring to view (personally I find modern coloring atrocious and kills the whole vibe aesthetically). It's still subjective. I guess what I meant by objectively better was higher resolution dot screens, sharper images and printing, more archival paper, whiter paper, more colors, etc. The objectives of the printing process. I was thinking what someone who had no affinity for comics would think of the two examples being compared. And I totally agree with you. Ah, I see your point...the technical aspects of the production methods, and that makes total sense. If I apply back to my music analogy, classical music objectively has more complex scales/forms/compositions than blues with which to create music. I'm with you.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Mar 14, 2022 16:30:41 GMT -5
My point, if I have one, is that for me personally, I want to not go down that rabbit hole of claiming a previous era of something was better, whether it be WWF/E, comics, soap operas or anything. As an example, I still say that Jerry Lawler couldn't hold a candle to Tojo Yamamoto. There-- I said it... but then again I grew up in the late '60s-early '70s, so this fits your point.
|
|
|
Post by commond on Mar 14, 2022 17:18:21 GMT -5
My point, if I have one, is that for me personally, I want to not go down that rabbit hole of claiming a previous era of something was better, whether it be WWF/E, comics, soap operas or anything. As an example, I still say that Jerry Lawler couldn't hold a candle to Tojo Yamamoto. There-- I said it... but then again I grew up in the late '60s-early '70s, so this fits your point. Did you see much Jackie Fargo as a kid? He's a guy we don't have a ton of footage of.
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Mar 14, 2022 18:04:44 GMT -5
As an example, I still say that Jerry Lawler couldn't hold a candle to Tojo Yamamoto. There-- I said it... but then again I grew up in the late '60s-early '70s, so this fits your point. Did you see much Jackie Fargo as a kid? He's a guy we don't have a ton of footage of.
Oh yeah, Jackie was a champ. Many people don't know that he mentored both Lawler and Tojo early in their respective careers.
|
|