|
Post by tolworthy on Jul 14, 2014 17:07:53 GMT -5
So do we comment on Comics Cube stuff in this very thread? Or am I missing something?
I somehow missed Comics Cube before, and love what I'm reading about the FF. Take the Doom Patrol article for example. Fascinating stuff. Never noticed the Doom Patrol thing before: the alienation theme was definitely front and centre for the FF in 1962 when Dr Doom Patrol was being planned. I'm amazed that alienation was seen as an argument *against* the similarity.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jul 10, 2014 2:40:38 GMT -5
I wish there was more religion in comics, purely because it's important to a substantial percentage of people (ten percent? fifty percent?). Ignoring it, or treating it as a minor point, makes comics unrealistic. I feel exactly the same way about politics. I get the reasons: writers don't want to offend people, but an unwillingness to embrace major themes makes for bland comics. So does a desire to offend - they are both extremes of bad writing. I am religious, though not conventionally: I no longer attend any church, and I don't believe in the supernatural. Religion has dominated my life since childhood, and I just don't recognise the religion I see in comics. Religious folk and comic writers generally seem at opposite poles, and I think that narrows the views of both. Take the examples above: "Four Horsemen" is one of Jack Chick's famous tracts. These are famous, and I find them fascinating and, in their own way, very well done. But they are extremes of polemic. Rabid evangelism is only a small part of religion. The average person in the pews does not see the world that way, or if they do, they usually haven't thought it through in any depth. (Same goes for extreme political views.) Similarly, the illustrated Bible is clearly made by outsiders to comics: it's like "the kids are reading these awful comics, let's give them something worthwhile". At the other extreme, religion seems alien to most comic producers: we have Nightcrawler occasionally referring to faith, but it's like the religion in The Exorcist: it's not religion as most people experience it. My point is that religion in comics is usually unrepresentative. To most believers, religion is a social thing: it is how you meet friends, it's a framework for making sense of the world. Most believers are not theologians, not rabid evangelicals, and not earnest preachers: they are just ordinary people who find that, usually for social reasons, a church meets some of their needs. A realistic comic would have maybe a quarter of the people attending social activities with their church friends: we just never see that. Ironically, the only mainstream entertainment that gets religion right (in my view) are the Simpsons and South Park. Ned Flanders may be an absurd, and most people would feel uncomfortable in his house, but he's also the nicest guy in Springfield. And Homer actually attends a church, while it has no effect on him (or the majority of attendees), simply because Marge does. That's pretty common. And while the South Park episode on Mormonism portrayed it as "dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb" they also make clear that people with dumb views can actually be nice guys with nice families: it works for them. Parker and Stone's other famous project, the Book of Mormon musical, has the same message. Personally I'd also like to see philosophers of religion more represented in comics, to give a serious intellectual view, but that's probably asking too much I see religion as a variant on politics: it isn't about beliefs, it's about belonging to a tribe. And I think that's why writers usually steer clear of both: religion and politics are dominated by in-group out-group feelings, and it's super easy to offend people. Would you like your favourite superhero as much if you found his politics were the opposite of yours? But in the hands of a good writer we can still like someone who differs from us: it makes their story richer, more interesting. it makes them a gateway to a more interesting world. For me the most interesting people are those who have opposite views to mine, but they can share them intelligently and with compassion. For example, I generally identify with liberals on most issues, but as someone who loves economics I love reading essays by "right wingers" like Peter Hitchens. I can see why Stephen Fry considers him a miserable turd, but I prefer Hitchens to Fry. Fry is very clever and very likeable, but ultimately (to me) vacuous: by his own admission he avoids hard topics. Occasionally he will have a strong opinion on some hot button issue (especially gay right, obviously) but mostly he just entertains with his wit. Hitchens on the other hand never met a topic he didn't have a strong opinion on, and at least he tries. I like that. If nothing else it creates intellectual conflict, and isn't that the bedrock of interesting writing? On the other extreme I also like the writing of Jewish writer Lionel Blue. He used to give regular Radio 4 talks full of homespun wisdom. He is such a bland pollyanna that my first reaction is to turn off the radio when I hear his voice. Yet the fact is that his blandness and desire to be nice is a reflection of a very large part of humanity, and the world is a much better place because of it. I want I find that most comics try to be like Fry: they want to look smart (and often they are); they occasionally making a stand on some hot button issue, but generally they avoid controversy, yet without going all the way and being gentle or curious. I want my comics to contain the full range of experience and people. I do want smart ass stuff, but I also want meaty stuff and I also want gentle stuff. I want it all.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jul 3, 2014 14:22:45 GMT -5
Just found another gem: House To Astonish. It's mainly new comics, but they show a great awareness of the past. Maybe I'm biased by the restrained British style, but I love it. They seem to really care for the art form. housetoastonish.libsyn.com
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jul 1, 2014 6:10:32 GMT -5
Just a heads up. Comic Geek Speak have a new FF-focused podcast. CGS is always pleasant easy listening. The downside is they don't read the FF much, so not everything is 100% accurate or particularly nuanced, but the upside is, well it's a podcast about the Fantastic Four. www.comicgeekspeak.com/episodes.phpEDIT: They pointed out a couple of angles I missed, and only made one semi-serious mistake. (Saying the Thing never beat the Hulk: he did in FF 166 and 320, his body beat the Hulk in giant size 1, and they were evenly matched several other times.) Generally an excellent podcast IMO.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 29, 2014 2:00:43 GMT -5
Ok, I changed my mind about the Professor X thing. I was wrong. Last night I read the Fantastic Four versus X-Men mini, and I realise that the X-Men are just inappropriate where under-age girls are concerned.
I never read the X-Men much before, but my eyes have been opened. I nominate Claremont's 1987 "FF v X men" as embarrassing. Which is a shame, as it's also a really good story. But it centres around a naked 14 year old girl. In each of the four issues the X-Men and any other visitors get to leer at her - sorry, to gaze at her in a concerned way. They have her in a big glass tube in the middle of the room so everyone gets a really good view, and they even have a raised balcony for group viewing so they can all get a better look.
But just to show the X-Men don't have a 14 year old fetish, the four issue mini also includes Sue Storm's one and only full nude scene, where she uses her forcefield to rip off all her clothes. And they even find space for Rogue to get naked and fly though the air outside with everyone watching her. There may be other nudes I missed, as I tended to skim the X-Men sections.
I'm not really complaining in general, but under age girls and Susan Storm-Richards? That's just wrong.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 28, 2014 10:14:45 GMT -5
The Marvel Time sliding time scale was already in place by 1980. So it had probably been about eight years Marvel Time since the events of X-Men #1 in 1980. True, but this of course depends on exactly how Marvel Time works. Well since you bring it up.... As far as I can tell, and I've researched this in some detail, the heroes simply aged slowly between 1968 and 1988: all dates were still accurate, but the people were unable to notice the stretching. Our world and the Marvel universe did not separate until the chaotic period between Shooter and the ascendancy of Image (I pinpoint the break at the January 1989 issues if you want to be specific). So from 1968 to 1988 we have stretching time (slow ageing, but only for the heroes), but it was still anchored in 1961. Then from 1989 Marvel Time stretched too far and snapped: then we have the free floating sliding time we see today. At least, that's what the evidence suggests to me. I document it all on my web site. This image sums up the change: If I am right, then Jean Grey's dates (1956-1980) are accurate, but Franklin's influence prevented the heroes from seeing the implications: that something happened between 1956 and 1963 to make Jean jump at least ten years ahead, and that between 1968 and 1980 Jean aged less than five years, like everyone else. OK, I said that nobody noticed time stretching. There are two obvious exceptions: Dr Strange - as an expert on all things weird we might expect him to notice, and there is evidence that he did. And of course She-Hulk. We learn from FF 194 that Shulkie is effectively immortal, and since she is good friends with Franklin (and good at keeping secrets) he seems to have exempted her from the effect. It is also possible that Reed suspects, but Franklin's influence is pretty strong and the comics are ambiguous on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 28, 2014 2:40:34 GMT -5
Wuppertal, Germany. Home of the oldest operating monorail system in the world, and the famous Pina Bausch dance theater. Here is the "Schwebahn" passing through the Bayer factory grounds, where Aspirin and heroin were invented. We are so proud. I love it! (The location and monorail, not the heroin)
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 28, 2014 2:38:50 GMT -5
Near Inverness, Scotland, the noo.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 28, 2014 2:29:49 GMT -5
I seem to have stumbled onto a thread about my favourite comic moments. I love them all!* The Hulk, relaxed at a party? The Hulk as a clown? Ben dancing? It's all gold.* For me, the most embarrassing moment was when Sue Storm became a sex object. She used to be the only Marvel heroine who didn't need to flash the flesh. But come the 1990s she decided that she needed a boob window and had to practice her porn star poses. And yes, I love the other moments, even the Prof X and Marvel Girl one. The key is that Jean Grey was born in 1956, so she was only seven years old when the X-men founded, yet she looks and acts at least ten years older. The most likely explanation is the accident that almost killed her and led to her powers manifesting: she was saved by prof X entering her mind. Years of reading Dr Strange and Claremont X-Men tells me that there was a good chance that she was in limbo or some similar dimension at this point. It looks like the spent at least ten years there, possibly more. I wonder if she was actually in her 20s when prof X revealed his feelings? If he had protected her for years and seen her grow up into a mature adult then his comments were appropriate: she was old enough for him to love, but he knew he could not abuse his position. I love these little details that point to hidden depths.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 26, 2014 17:45:08 GMT -5
Somebody put a lot of work into this website: auntpetunia.com/"This site is dedicated to celebrating the greatest TV show never seen, the 1963-64 version of The Fantastic Four." I'd love that to be real! I like how they lampshade the "is this fake?" in the "about". With a few more tweaks it would be even more convincing, but they've put in so much effort already that it seems ungrateful to nit pick.* Great find! *OK, since you asked, the obvious nitpicks are mainly from page 1: the home page is by far the weakest part - the other pages are superb.
1. flip the Corman image over so it's less recognisable, and most important, give them black collars and belts!
2. set it in 65 or 66 - anything earlier is just too early for TV to be interested
3. "Excelsior productions" is a giveaway - that wasn't Stan's catchphrase until later, and anyway, Stan wouldn't be making it.
Various minor give-aways on other pages, but it's meant for fun so I'll give them a pass. Generally an excellent job.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 24, 2014 0:56:40 GMT -5
Print on demand is an option, but you tend to pay more for lower quality that way. A standard floppy can be $5-$8. Imagine what a big hardcover TPB would cost? That's the beauty of going for British or European comics. 22 pages can be 11 chapters. Make that 50 pages and there's a decent read. The trick is to find the right collection. A few years ago DC Thompson published 64 page anthologies of their weekly strips and those things were amazing: Thompson always gave great value per page, and 64 pages was several days' reading. Nine out of ten stories suffered from being back to back (the writing was poor), but the rare exception was amazing.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 24, 2014 0:52:15 GMT -5
I love the line about immortality. That's what matters.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 23, 2014 8:22:05 GMT -5
Thanks. I have often thought that Egmont would be an ideal publisher for this. My understanding is vague, but I think they bought a ton of old IPC comics, and don't have any way to make money from them. They seem like good people to deal with too. Some of the strips, e.g. 1960s adventures by Spanish artists, are pretty good and don't take up many pages.
I think the hard part would be finding good writing. A couple of years ago I bought a Look In anthology: I recall the art being superb, but the stories were appallingly bad. Apparently they paid top rates, but had just one guy writing all the strips, and he would literally write them all on a Thursday afternoon then go to the pub.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 22, 2014 14:56:06 GMT -5
I was asked to review a comic recently finished via kickstarter. I've tried for a while to find the right words - the art is good (by several pros), and the story (time travel and fun) moves at a good pace. But really it isn't aimed at me so I can't do the review justice. To see for yourself, its kickstarter page is here:
This raises a wider issue: if a person can raise ten thousand dollars for a graphic novel, could a fan of old comics raise, say, two thousand dollars to reprint some forgotten classic character?
Example: character X has superb quality, was moderately popular in the 1960s, but today is making no money for anybody. So a fan says to the rights owner "let me create a 'best of' anthology from my old comics, to test the waters. It will cost you nothing, any profits go to you, and in fact I will pay you $2000 just to show I'm serious." Result: forgotten characters are now available in print.
What do you think? feasible?
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Jun 18, 2014 20:33:31 GMT -5
pseudo science and pseudo reality were the order of the day in the early 60's. That is true, yet ironically they were more realistic than today's superhero comics, IMO. Powers were less and continuity mattered more, so all the crazy stuff is easier to explain. Take the Hulk's gravity and inertia defying feats for example. we can appeal to the Gladiator principle: in Fantastic Four 250 Reed observed that Gladiator's feats of strength were impossible using raw force alone (e.g. when he lifts an entire building the building should crumble). Reed therefore concluded that Gladiator's power is largely telekinetic. The same reasoning leads to the same conclusion for all other Hulk-level strong guys. In the old days we were expected to question stuff. For example, the very first page of Action Comics 1 gives a plausible explanation for why Supes has dense skin and why he can leap an eighth of a mile. Early issues of the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man had guides to how the powers worked. Sure, the science turned out to be wrong, but Stan was no scientist, it was as good as he could do. And since the powers back then were limited (like Superman's leaping ability) they weren't stretching believability too far. In modern comics we are expected to just accept pseudoscience, but back in the day we were expected to question it. The original meaning of "suspend disbelief" as coined by Horace, Shakespeare and Coleridge, was to temporarily suspend questions until after the show, because answers could be found later if needed. But modern comics do not suspend disbelief: they ignore it. The older writers may have known fewer facts, but they were more scientific IMO, because science is about asking questions.
|
|