|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 14, 2022 21:12:35 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 . I think that term does characterize a common phenomenon, but even having grown up fully in the Jordan era, even I don't believe either of those two were better than Wilt the Stilt (nor Gretzky also from my youth over Orr). BILL RUSSELL... when you have more rings than fingers, there's no more argument. But to get back on topic... I totally think that there's a nostalglia bias. I've watched and read a few things I loved as a youth (Night Court comes to mind, or Sword of Shannara).. and I was crushed at how bad they were. I've since tried to stay away from re-watching that sort of thing, and just stick with my fond memories.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2022 22:01:42 GMT -5
I think that term does characterize a common phenomenon, but even having grown up fully in the Jordan era, even I don't believe either of those two were better than Wilt the Stilt (nor Gretzky also from my youth over Orr). BILL RUSSELL... when you have more rings than fingers, there's no more argument. But to get back on topic... Yeah, it was a little inside joke to myself (except I really do believe Wilt over Jordan)...my dad grew up in their era and he was ADAMANT that Bill Russell was the greatest, and I would tease him all the time about Wilt. But bringing even that comparison back on topic...my real hero as a kid was Dr. J and never got serious consideration as "the greatest", but he was the coolest player I had ever seen. It was "right time right place" a bit, I was born on Long Island like him and a kid in the 70's so he was literally the hometown hero during those glorious Nets years. Same thing when Reggie Jackson came to town with the Yankees...he was no Mantle, Gehrig, Ruth, but he was Mr. October and his 3 home run game in the '77 World Series that I watched live was more magical to me than anything prior or since. Which brings the analogy full circle...is "formative/sentiment" really just another way of saying "you had to be there"? And that's why I guess I really do appreciate everyone being passionate about the slices of history they got to personally live (except those who truly do get carried away and uncool about it).
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 14, 2022 23:17:52 GMT -5
Computer coloring allows the potential for wider variety in coloring; but, I think too many colorists don't have the same background as the previous generations to understand how color reproduces on the page, vs what a computer can show. I've seen it with graphic design students at the local university. I think a lot of modern computer coloring on comic books is done by people who don't really understand how to use the tool, or don't have enough experience to use what it can do, well. I of feel that there was an earlier elite group of computer colorists, when the technology began to hit the medium, who did tremendous work; but, as the softwares and systems became cheaper, the companies hired cheaper colorists to do the work and the end results weren't quite as good. Steve Oliff and his Olyoptics is a prime example. Compare the work he and his group did with others and you can see the difference.
I definitely hate recoloring of older color process comics. The artists and colorists knew the limitations of the technology available and tailored their work to fit within that. The recoloring loses that and it tends to overwhelm and miss the subtleties of the original coloring.
These days, I find myself exploring more non-superhero genre stuff. I just picked up a bunch of western, romance and crime comic stuff, to check out the work of the artists of that era. The romance stuff had some tremendous artists working on them, who had more freedom to play around with things like fashions, prints, decor and even the staging, without needing to resort to the extremes of superhero tales. I picked up a bunch of Doug Wildey stuff, from Youthful, a Golden Age publisher. Also a bunch of St John, Ace and Avon material, as well as the other post-war publishers, leading into the 50s collapse. Lot of great artists working there and a lot of Silver Age greats who are developing beyond their rookie work, like Joe Kubert.
As for basketball, if they didn't play to the sounds of 'Sweet Georgia brown," I didn't care. Meadowlark Lemon, Geese Ausbie, Curly Neal, Marques Haynes, Gip Gipson, Sweet Lou Dunbar. That was "my team."
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 14, 2022 23:27:54 GMT -5
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.
And Tojo mentored young Bobby Eaton (and young Jerry Jarrett, for that matter). For me, Memphis is early 80s, with Lawler, Dundee, Dutch Mantell, Eaton & Sweet Brown Sugar (Koko B Ware), the Gibson Brothers (Ricky & Robert, before Robert hooked up with ref Paul Morton's son, Ricky), Jimmy Hart, the Fabulous Ones, The New York Dolls, the Bruise Brothers, Jim Cornette & the Galaxians (the future Nightmares, Ken Wayne and Danny Davis), Austin Idol and young Eddie Gilbert (who I first saw in the WWF, against young Curt Hennig). Didn't see the 70s, but did see the later 80s and 90s and it wasn't the same. I still prefer ICW Randy Savage to WWF Randy Savage, even though he had better opponents. Memphis Randy, to WWF too, as he had more variety in his matches. I used to have the Wrestling Gold series, which had a Mid-South Colosseum match between Savage and Austin Idol, where Savage used an Airplane Spin, in the match, which looked fantastic!
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 15, 2022 8:46:23 GMT -5
Computer coloring allows the potential for wider variety in coloring; but, I think too many colorists don't have the same background as the previous generations to understand how color reproduces on the page, vs what a computer can show. I've seen it with graphic design students at the local university. I think a lot of modern computer coloring on comic books is done by people who don't really understand how to use the tool, or don't have enough experience to use what it can do, well. I of feel that there was an earlier elite group of computer colorists, when the technology began to hit the medium, who did tremendous work; but, as the softwares and systems became cheaper, the companies hired cheaper colorists to do the work and the end results weren't quite as good.... I hate to think it's still happening after 20+ years of computer coloring, but it still seems like some colorists are still making decisions based on how things look on the screen without thinking about how they will look printed. Two totally different things. I've also read some artists complaining that colorists will add rendering or effects that don't match the light source placement in the line art. I don;t know how siloed it is now, but with so many coloring techniques and options available, the inkers and the colorists should talk about the overall strategy for the printed book. I definitely hate recoloring of older color process comics. The artists and colorists knew the limitations of the technology available and tailored their work to fit within that. The recoloring loses that and it tends to overwhelm and miss the subtleties of the original coloring.... Yeah--I just read a collection of Crime Suspenstories online and it was like the colorist couldn;t help themselves trying to "improve" Marie Severin's original work, adding tones that weren't there and didn;t belong,
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Mar 15, 2022 9:06:32 GMT -5
I definitely hate recoloring of older color process comics. The artists and colorists knew the limitations of the technology available and tailored their work to fit within that. The recoloring loses that and it tends to overwhelm and miss the subtleties of the original coloring. As for basketball, if they didn't play to the sounds of 'Sweet Georgia brown," I didn't care. Meadowlark Lemon, Geese Ausbie, Curly Neal, Marques Haynes, Gip Gipson, Sweet Lou Dunbar. That was "my team." Totally agree with the coloring statements.. I think "re-colorists" think "this is what the colorist wanted it to look like, but the paper was crummy", but in reality, the colorists of old were playing to the fact that the paper was PART of the color. They weren't dummies, and knew that the colors would be multiplied by the factor of the warm, dingy color of the newsprint. GOOD re-colorists take this in to account, and tend to be easier on the eyes, and more faithful to the original product, not botching it trying to overcome the paper color. And basketball... yeah the Globetrotters were the sum total of my sports knowledge, interest, etc. in my childhood. I broke my dad's heart when he bought me a wiffle ball and bat, and I immediately started swinging it around, making lightsaber sounds.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Mar 15, 2022 21:51:57 GMT -5
I've long believed the colouring in the average American comic looked its best in the early-mid '90s, after the Ben-Day was retired, before digital became the standard.
More of that generational subjectivity for y'all.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Mar 16, 2022 10:41:18 GMT -5
Quite a few WWE fans online seem to think the Attitude Era (late 90s onwards) was better than today. But during that era, when message boards were in their infancy, there were fans claiming 80s WWF was better. I don’t doubt that there were 80s fans claiming the territorial days of the 60s and 70s were better. And in the 60s, I could have imagined a wrestling fan saying, “This just isn’t as good as the wrestling I saw in the 30s and 40s.” I imagine that whatever era it was when you were into a thing when you were around 10-12 years old is the one you like the best of many things, ha. Hey driver1980 , I just wanted to say I'm really glad to see you back on here. I took a break as well, but have tried to pop back in from time to time. I really enjoyed your posts a lot from before, they were some of the ones I looked forward to back then. Thank you for the welcome back! I am glad you are both back!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2022 10:47:09 GMT -5
Thank you!
Yes, so for me, that would have been WWF 1990-92, when I was 10-12. That said, I like a lot of what I have seen from before that era via the WWE Network. And there’s a lot I love today, looking forward to WrestleMania.
|
|
|
Post by arfetto on Mar 16, 2022 10:59:39 GMT -5
Reading the posts about coloring made me think about a few things. I have my own tastes shaped by the era I grew up in like most people of course, but I think the main reason I prefer collected editions over classic single issues is simply because I have a lot of allergies and sometimes old comics cause me problems in that respect. For some reason it didn't bother me when I was a little kid and my uncle gave me his '70s single issues, but as I grew older and started to collect comics from various places I kept having...issues with single issues haha.
And so, though I dislike some modern coloring, especially when the "gradient" type of re-coloring is used in a collection, I am fine with the DC Archives and Marvel Masterworks/Epic Collection approach (I know some people find the colors too bright on the paper stock, etc. but for me I kind of like it). The ideal of course would be the already mentioned Kirby collections DC did circa 2007-2008 or so, but as long as my eyes are not watering or nose running/getting stuffy (or on the worst occasion, having breathing trouble) I am content haha. I still haven't been able to get through my copies of Firestorm I bought because the ones I ended up with give me so much trouble.
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Mar 16, 2022 12:23:30 GMT -5
I think that comics, objectively, are more diverse (in theme and subject matter) and probably better than they were when I was younger. I do have nostalgia for the comics of my youth, but when I reread the back issues I'm not blind to their flaws, either.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Mar 17, 2022 7:58:33 GMT -5
I think that comics, objectively, are more diverse (in theme and subject matter) and probably better than they were when I was younger. I do have nostalgia for the comics of my youth, but when I reread the back issues I'm not blind to their flaws, either. I think the flaws are what make them endearing, and "of their time". Imagine reading old 70's Spidey comics with all the pseudo slang edited to make it more palatable... what would be the point of reading them?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2022 9:06:25 GMT -5
I think that comics, objectively, are more diverse (in theme and subject matter)... Maybe. Possibly. I don’t know. When I look at Mike’s Amazing World Of Comics, specifically the “time capsule” feature (or whatever it’s called), I notice some diversity in the 50s and 60s, with humour, romance, crime, war, horror, sci-fi, fantasy and superheroes. I see that same variety today, although the Big Two probably get most of the airtime and column space.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 17, 2022 16:50:03 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. I'm of the Jordan generation. no argument. Bill Russell was it. Anyone that says otherwise is wrong... the facts are right there in front of anyone to see. Jordan. Dr. J. Larry, Magic.. all fantastic players. None of them won a NCAA Title, an Olympic Gold, and 11 championships in 13 seasons. Unless you consider the goal of a sport as something other than to win the game, case closed.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 17, 2022 16:55:29 GMT -5
Quite a few WWE fans online seem to think the Attitude Era (late 90s onwards) was better than today. But during that era, when message boards were in their infancy, there were fans claiming 80s WWF was better. I don’t doubt that there were 80s fans claiming the territorial days of the 60s and 70s were better. And in the 60s, I could have imagined a wrestling fan saying, “This just isn’t as good as the wrestling I saw in the 30s and 40s.” I imagine that whatever era it was when you were into a thing when you were around 10-12 years old is the one you like the best of many things, ha. Hey driver1980 , I just wanted to say I'm really glad to see you back on here. I took a break as well, but have tried to pop back in from time to time. I really enjoyed your posts a lot from before, they were some of the ones I looked forward to back then. Thank you for the welcome back! I am glad you are both back! 'Better' is different than 'most successful'. Better can be what the person you're talking to liked best. Wrestling is entertainment, so different people are going to like different stuff. The 80s had some fantastic stuff. the 90s had different fantastic stuff. You can't argue that the 90s were not more successful tha the 80s though.. the money, TV ratings and general level of pop culture wrestling achieved in the Attitude Era was definitely the best. Personally, I'll take early 2000s Ring of Honor (or maybe the indy scene in general) as my fave
|
|