|
Post by badwolf on Jun 21, 2022 11:20:38 GMT -5
Noting here my admiration for the man's many accomplishments, I find this statement to be entirely true. Vince Colletta could ink John Byrne better than John Byrne. Yikes, I didn't say that!
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Jun 21, 2022 11:41:24 GMT -5
Forgot to answer the thread question: I'll probably think of others later on, but the first one that comes to mind is Steve Englehart leaving Doctor Strange. It killed the series for me, though I tried to give the new creative team(s) a chance, and now and then there would be an individual issue that was OK but most of them never reached even that modest level of creative success and certainly couldn't compare with the magic of Englehart's run. I'm tempted to add Englehart's departure from the Avengers because with hindsight it was almost as much of a death knell for that series as it was for Doctor Strange, as far as my personal taste goes. But that's in hindsight: at the time, I quite enjoyed the first few issues of the Shooter/Perez run, so it didn't feel as devastating as the sudden end of his Doctor Strange run.
Also, at least Englehart had just finished a big multi-issue story in the Avengers and left before starting a new one, whereas in Doctor Strange he had just begun what seemed to be intended as a major new storyline.
Here's one that I only experienced after the fact, reading the back issues: what about Jim Starlin leaving Captain Marvel? I've always assumed this was by his own choice, since he went on to write Warlock and what became his pet character, Thanos, but from the perspective of the CM series itself it seems like a pretty serious blow: I don't think it recovered until the Moench/Broderick run several years later, and even then only partially. I wonder how readers felt about it at the time? Englehart's leaving Avengers was a big one for me. I agree about Starlin; Warlock went on to become mindboggling but Captain Marvel was only really interesting because of Starlin's work, and when he left the character became rather bland. Byrne leaving X-Men: I'd forgotten about this one because I did keep buying the book for several issues afterwards. I had been around for the earlier Cockrum run and had liked his work so I wasn't averse to his return, even though I did prefer Byrne over him; but Cockrum's art in his second X-Men run wasn't nearly as good as in his first, and I dropped the book sometime around #150. So in retrospect, Byrne's departure did more or less lead to the end of my time as an X-Men reader. This was upsetting to me too, and I agree about Cockrum's second run. Still, it was readable, and I was glad I stuck it out when Paul Smith came on board. I quit when he quit, though, and never looked back.
|
|
|
Post by invalidusername on Jun 21, 2022 13:04:26 GMT -5
Noting here my admiration for the man's many accomplishments, I find this statement to be entirely true. Vince Colletta could ink John Byrne better than John Byrne. Yikes, I didn't say that! Sorry about that. I'm failing at the internet.
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Jun 21, 2022 17:40:13 GMT -5
I was crushed when Michael Golden left Micronauts... but then, after a spell, I got Pat Broderick. Then I was crushed when he left. Then, after a spell I got Gil Kane. Crushed again. Then Butch Guice. Then I was crushed when the Micronauts left.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jun 21, 2022 17:43:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jun 21, 2022 20:55:19 GMT -5
Stupid computer. It should have just insisted on a complete question being asked. "Why?" is no more thought-provoking than "Who?". They are both unanswerable for the same reason. Still love The Prisoner, though. Sorry to extend the tangent, but I get cranky about supposedly "deep" stuff that is obvious nonsense. Don't get me started on koans. It's answerable, though. The correct answer is, "Why not?"
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jun 22, 2022 0:41:12 GMT -5
Stupid computer. It should have just insisted on a complete question being asked. "Why?" is no more thought-provoking than "Who?". They are both unanswerable for the same reason. Still love The Prisoner, though. Sorry to extend the tangent, but I get cranky about supposedly "deep" stuff that is obvious nonsense. Don't get me started on koans. It's answerable, though. The correct answer is, "Why not?"
Oh yeah, I don't feel any impulse to criticise this trope seriously, as enjoyable as it is to poke fun at it. I take it in the spirit in which I think it was meant, which for me was as a symbolic gesture rather than a serous comment on the nature of artificial intelligence.
It's been quite a while since I last watched this episode - or the Star Trek one with a similar moment in which Kirk makes a tyrannical computer explode - but in a general way, I think scenes like this were more about the questions that we human beings find unanswerable, not the computer. The computer exploding is just a visual image of our own feeling of inability to cope with certain philosophical problems at an intellectual level - although in many cases we may feel more than capable of coping with them at an intuitive or emotional level. And that's another thing the exploding computer represents: the failure of pure intellect or logic to understand or deal with certain aspects of the world at a deeper level.
How justified or realistic all those different feelings are is another question in itself. But anyway, I think I'll still be able to enjoy those scenes next time I watch The Prisoner or Star Trek, without forgetting the problems they raise.
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jun 25, 2022 9:05:23 GMT -5
Byrne was his own worst inker. Disagree most vehemently! The earlier issues in the run look amazing. The best his art has ever looked. Yeah, I like Byrne inking his art. On Alpha Flight, the transition from Byrne inks to other inks (I think Bob Wiacek) is pretty jarring.
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jun 25, 2022 9:10:36 GMT -5
Byrne's self-inking (done with felt tip markers, for gosh sakes!) only magnifies his flaws and does little to spotlight his strengths. He is much better served by folks like Rubinstein, Sinnott, Austin, Green, or Hunt. Heck, even Colletta over Byrne is preferable.
Cei-U! All in my opinion, natch!
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jun 25, 2022 9:17:24 GMT -5
Byrne leaving X-Men: I'd forgotten about this one because I did keep buying the book for several issues afterwards. I had been around for the earlier Cockrum run and had liked his work so I wasn't averse to his return, even though I did prefer Byrne over him; but Cockrum's art in his second X-Men run wasn't nearly as good as in his first, and I dropped the book sometime around #150. So in retrospect, Byrne's departure did more or less lead to the end of my time as an X-Men reader. This was upsetting to me too, and I agree about Cockrum's second run. Still, it was readable, and I was glad I stuck it out when Paul Smith came on board. I quit when he quit, though, and never looked back. I prefer Cockrum's art on his first X-Men run, too. Also, his first run feels more crucial to the X-Men mythos. It sets up the building blocks for the Claremont era X-Men. In contrast, the second run seemed to meander. It's not something I perceive as being discussed for its crucial moments. There's the culmination in a big 150th issue, yet I've never heard anyone discuss that as a favorite story. I do have to say that I re-read his second run about a year ago, and my estimation of it rose a bit. I had tried a similar thing previously by re-reading later Claremont issues that I haven't re-read much and also found I liked them more than I remembered.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jun 25, 2022 10:26:03 GMT -5
Although I knew it couldn't last, I was downcast when the trio of Engelhart, Rogers and Austin left Detective after their way too brief six-issue run. For a few months, reading those issues was like living in the classic Gotham of the 40s but with the best of contemporary writng and art of late 70s (by a long shot) at the same time. The change was difficult, even though it was a bit gradual, with Rogers sticking around, Wein taking over for Engelhart and Giordano for Austin for three issues. (One was just a couple of framing pages around a reprint.) After that it was cold turkey as we went back to the wasteland that was late-70s Batman and DC in general. You be the judge. Just what Batman needed, more Rich Buckler and white gorillas.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jun 25, 2022 10:41:51 GMT -5
Jeff Perves not being in as much of the Gray Hulk Saga as he should have been.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jun 25, 2022 10:44:11 GMT -5
I was very sad to see Frank Robbins leave the Johnny Hazzard newspaper strip after 30 years. It meant we would see his unusual super hero style in books like Batman and The Invaders Would you trust this man to draw your favorite comic series?
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Jun 25, 2022 11:10:13 GMT -5
Wikipedia says Johnny Hazard ran until August 1977, so Robbins seems to have found time to continue producing it concurrently with most of his work for DC and Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jun 25, 2022 12:00:24 GMT -5
I was very sad to see Frank Robbins leave the Johnny Hazzard newspaper strip after 30 years. It meant we would see his unusual super hero style in books like Batman and The Invaders Would you trust this man to draw your favorite comic series? Draw favorite comic series? No. Write said favorite comics series...yes.
|
|