Ideas for the lantern corps in DCUC

[MasterJailer]

Most comics today read like poor, poor fan fiction scribbled out by bad wannabe writers who've missed the point of the characters they're writing. Even more dire though is the fact that editors have utterly abandoned their responsibilities and refuse to corral their talent and shoot down a bad idea.

 

Since when have comics ever been bereft of bad ideas?? Bad ideas are perhaps the only constant tradition of comics since their inception.

 

There was a time when comics could be ranked as truly stellar in its writing. You had Wolfman and Perez on the New Teen Titans. You had Mike W. Barr on Batman, Byrne on the Fantastic Four, Byrne and Claremont on the X-Men and Miller on Daredevil. Then there were the lesser books that didn't grab as much of the spotlight but were consistently solidly entertaining such as the Defenders, the Avengers, Green Lantern, and many others. This mid-range strata was very wide. The percentage of poor books were never as widespread as they currently are where you have twenty X-books out there and not a one is readable. There are Spiderman logos on about a dozen books and I couldn't tell you which one was an actual Spider-Man title. All look horrific. As far as I can tell, every title DC puts out has been renamed Blackest Night.

 

Yeah. Bad ideas have always been a part of comics but NEVER have the bad ideas been so prolific and widespread.

[ARROW]

There was a time when comics could be ranked as truly stellar in its writing. You had Wolfman and Perez on the New Teen Titans. You had Mike W. Barr on Batman, Byrne on the Fantastic Four, Byrne and Claremont on the X-Men and Miller on Daredevil. Then there were the lesser books that didn't grab as much of the spotlight but were consistently solidly entertaining such as the Defenders, the Avengers, Green Lantern, and many others. This mid-range strata was very wide.

 

And then you had the likes of Jim Shooter writing Secret Wars 1 & 2, and Larry Hama writing GIJOE, both the top selling books of their day--and none of those books held good writing in them. In fact, the biggest selling comics have often had the worst writing, and more than a few had weak art. For every gem of a book, there were 20 mutts.

[Xorr]

Ganesh wrote:

 

Ehhhhh that's a tough call man. There's a ton of stuff coming out every month, or regularly enough. I think you're just playing the grumpy old man card here.

 

To a large degree, I am, I admit that.

 

But nothing I see interests me. I thought the Marvel Zombies thing was a stupid gimmick, the Civil War thing was politically motivated and stupid, and the characters have changed so much that they're simply not the characters I grew up with...they just share similar names, powers, and costumes. But again, there is so much vintage stuff left to collect (or in my case, re-collect to a large degree), that there's no point in bothering. It's just overpriced anyway. For the cost of a new comic that I don't care for, I can get a vintage comic I actually love.

 

I was disappointed with Spiderman as a Sam Raimi movie. Then disappointed by the movie itself.

 

It disappointed me because it came so close, but still managed to fall so far short. Too many unnecessary changes that did nothing other than irritate fans who love the character. And poorly done fight scenes. And the obligatory wet t-shirt nonsense for drooling teen fanboys. Ugh.

 

It happens so much in the Tobey Maguire-Man movies it makes you question the point of a secret identity in the first place?

 

Amen. It also bothered me to no end when Tony Stark reveals his identity at the end of the first Iron Man movie. Come on!

 

How did you lose the collection? Flood, fire, or wrath of mom? To think of all the comics my mother threw out or made me throw out as a kid. . .

 

Far worse than that. I had at least 25,000 comics. Give or take. I lived in North Carolina. Left them with my best friend when I moved to California and then back to Chicago, and we had a falling out (based on a lie someone told him) and he went to the local comic store and said "How much you want for this?". Probably paid him pennies on the dollar, if that. I had everything in VF-NM condition, all bagged and boarded. All the Byrne Xmen run, the 1st appearances of Punisher, Wolverine, the new Xmen, etc. One short box alone, I calculated, would sell for $25,000. I had tons of Silver Age stuff (1st Silver Surfer and Galactus in FF, entire Thor run from JIM up to Thor #250 or something, etc). I could probably retire on that collection if I wanted. All gone. He has a price on his head. Seriously. :angry:

 

Garish or overzealous computer coloring is an easy way to completely ruin a page. Especially if you like a particular artists work, and some nutter goes in there and covers all the details and such with color holds or gross over rendering of color and whatnot. Another thing that gets on my last nerve is really DARK coloring. I know it's shooting for a cinematic mood; but when I can't clearly make out things on the page, could we please crank it up just a little please?

 

I really don't like the computer-generated look of comics these days. It's not hand drawn art anymore. It looks generic and artificial to me. It loses the essence of the artists' talents.

 

I suspect it's just tough to get in because the market is shrinking and there's already a surplus of talent. Then there are established guys who can produce great work Mark Texiera comes to mind, who can't land a solid gig anymore. I asked him if he was going to be working on anything in the future, and he just seemed annoyed at the run around he was getting by a certain company.

 

I'd say there's a surplus of workers, but not a surplus of talent. Especially when it comes to writers.

[Xorr]

MasterJailer wrote:

 

Most comics today read like poor, poor fan fiction scribbled out by bad wannabe writers who've missed the point of the characters they're writing. Even more dire though is the fact that editors have utterly abandoned their responsibilities and refuse to corral their talent and shoot down a bad idea.

 

That's about as perfect an explanation as I have ever heard. I agree 100%.

[Wheeljack35]

LOL

 

Like the Fantasy Battle threads this has gone waaaaaay off topic

 

All I have to say on topic is that I like the Blackest Night line coming from DC Direct.In my Comic store they are cheaper then any of the big stores that charge around $17 for them

[Xorr]

MasterJailer wrote:

 

There was a time when comics could be ranked as truly stellar in its writing. You had Wolfman and Perez on the New Teen Titans. You had Mike W. Barr on Batman, Byrne on the Fantastic Four, Byrne and Claremont on the X-Men and Miller on Daredevil. Then there were the lesser books that didn't grab as much of the spotlight but were consistently solidly entertaining such as the Defenders, the Avengers, Green Lantern, and many others. This mid-range strata was very wide. The percentage of poor books were never as widespread as they currently are where you have twenty X-books out there and not a one is readable. There are Spiderman logos on about a dozen books and I couldn't tell you which one was an actual Spider-Man title. All look horrific. As far as I can tell, every title DC puts out has been renamed Blackest Night.

 

Yeah. Bad ideas have always been a part of comics but NEVER have the bad ideas been so prolific and widespread.

 

So true! I remember when we had Bill Mantlo, Gerry Conway, Steve Englehart, Len Wein, Steve Gerber, Marty Pasko, Archie Goodwin, Jim Shooter (before he lost his mind) and Chris Claremont all writing multiple titles, and with great artists on so many issues or titles...John Byrne, George Perez, Marshal Rogers, Mike Ploog, Walt Simonson, Jackson Guice, Michael Golden, Frank Brunner, etc. While Dick Dillin was never a real fan favorite, he always did a great job, he never put in a bad issue. We had great runs going on the Avengers, FF, Xmen, Marvel Team Up, Marvel Two In One, Amazing Spiderman, Thor, and other titles all at the same time. There were some stand-out superstars as far as titles and creative teams went, but as you said, the second tier was also really, really well done.

 

I used to buy somewhere in the range of 40+ titles a month from Marvel and DC alone in the 70's. By the mid-80's all I was buying was Thor, Scout, Jon Sable, American Flagg, and perhaps one or two others I can't even remember. It was less than a dozen comics a month. Probably 5-6 titles if that. There was nothing good out there. Still the same.

[Xorr]

Wheeljack35 wrote:

 

Like the Fantasy Battle threads this has gone waaaaaay off topic

 

Good lord, I hadn't even noticed how far off we got. Wow, talk about thread drift!

[ARROW]

I really don't like the computer-generated look of comics these days. It's not hand drawn art anymore. It looks generic and artificial to me. It loses the essence of the artists' talents.

 

Most of it remains hand-drawn; reason being that many artist selling their pages to augment their income.

Digital work processes the art a great deal now, and a growing number of artists rely upon the computer to make doing the work feasible.

Nowadays, one can draw the comic entirely in pencil, and then scan into the computer, punch up the density of the pencils and print from that. No inking needed.

How much closer to the pure essence artist's work can you get than the original line-work??

There's a few folks that go all digital, and I'm going that way too by the end of the year. Using a Cintiq monitor, a comic can be drawn entirely in the machine, and STILL have the exact same look as a book done on paper.

The pencil and inking "brush" tools can be calibrated to reproduce exactly the same stroke as any wet brush or pen--the pressure sensitivities of the stylus allows for the same "single-stroke" line-weights that a wet tool provides......without the wet.

Its become a bigger consideration given that many of the tradition wet tools are falling by the wayside in quality--they literally do not make pen nibs or paper like they used to.

A digital tool will maintain its consistency regardless.

Most artists will use a combination of paper media and digital processes because it simply gives them more options to create more intuitive work.

 

As for colouring.............whew......colourists have far more opportunities now with digital tools, than they ever did with wet media. There's just no comparison to the potentials here.

[MasterJailer]

There was a time when comics could be ranked as truly stellar in its writing. You had Wolfman and Perez on the New Teen Titans. You had Mike W. Barr on Batman, Byrne on the Fantastic Four, Byrne and Claremont on the X-Men and Miller on Daredevil. Then there were the lesser books that didn't grab as much of the spotlight but were consistently solidly entertaining such as the Defenders, the Avengers, Green Lantern, and many others. This mid-range strata was very wide.

 

And then you had the likes of Jim Shooter writing Secret Wars 1 & 2, and Larry Hama writing GIJOE, both the top selling books of their day--and none of those books held good writing in them. In fact, the biggest selling comics have often had the worst writing, and more than a few had weak art. For every gem of a book, there were 20 mutts.

 

As per my point, even the worst written book of that period held more charm and entertainment than almost everything being published in this day of four monthly Superman books none of which have Superman in them!

[Xorr]

Arrow wrote:

 

As for colouring.............whew......colourists have far more opportunities now with digital tools, than they ever did with wet media. There's just no comparison to the potentials here.

 

Now there I gotta agree, obviously. And printing quality is far higher than it ever was. Sure. But the computer drawn stuff just looks like computer drawn stuff. There's no soul in it at all. It just looks sterile to me. Give me Kirby in B&W raw pencil over anything being done by anyone on a computer these days. No comparison at all. Kirby blows them all away. Same for so many other artists from back in the day.

[MasterJailer]

I really don't like the computer-generated look of comics these days. It's not hand drawn art anymore. It looks generic and artificial to me. It loses the essence of the artists' talents.

 

Most of it remains hand-drawn; reason being that many artist selling their pages to augment their income.

Digital work processes the art a great deal now, and a growing number of artists rely upon the computer to make doing the work feasible.

Nowadays, one can draw the comic entirely in pencil, and then scan into the computer, punch up the density of the pencils and print from that. No inking needed.

How much closer to the pure essence artist's work can you get than the original line-work??

 

 

This essence is then smothered by drab, lifeless coloring that buries and clouds the penciling.

 

A tragedy of our time is that the evil computer has given every untalented fool will a couple of photoshop lessons under his belt the delusional self-granted license to call himself an artist. The computer is strictly a tool of expediency and economics. It has no other advantage unless your goal is to produce muddy skin tones and a reality where everything shines like plastic and badly rendered metal.

[ARROW]

This essence is then smothered by drab, lifeless coloring that buries and clouds the penciling.

 

A tragedy of our time is that the evil computer has given every untalented fool will a couple of photoshop lessons under his belt the delusional self-granted license to call himself an artist. The computer is strictly a tool of expediency and economics. It has no other advantage unless your goal is to produce muddy skin tones and a reality where everything shines like plastic and badly rendered metal.

0

 

Sounds to me like you actually need to take a good long look at some modern comics.

And learn a bit more about how comics are produced.

[Xorr]

MasterJailer wrote:

 

A tragedy of our time is that the evil computer has given every untalented fool will a couple of photoshop lessons under his belt the delusional self-granted license to call himself an artist. The computer is strictly a tool of expediency and economics. It has no other advantage unless your goal is to produce muddy skin tones and a reality where everything shines like plastic and badly rendered metal.

 

I am so glad I was not drinking anything stronger than bottled water when I read this because it just shot out my nose from laughing! It was funny and accurate at the same time!

[MasterJailer]

 

Sounds to me like you actually need to take a good long look at some modern comics.

 

 

I have. I pity the wasted opportunities.

 

 

And learn a bit more about how comics are produced.

 

Sounds to me like you need to learn a bit more about how GOOD comics are produced.

[ARROW]

Sounds to me like you need to learn a bit more about how GOOD comics are produced.

Feel free to enlighten us as to what good comics are then.

 

Here, I'll assist you even:

 

http://www.htmlcomics.com/

 

You can link to any comics you happen to find therein, their listed database contains over 300,000 comics, so I'm sure you can find something.

 

Money-where-your-mouth-is-time!

[MasterJailer]

 

Here, I'll assist you even:

 

http://www.htmlcomics.com/

 

You can link to any comics you happen to find therein, their listed database contains over 300,000 comics, so I'm sure you can find something.

 

Money-where-your-mouth-is-time!

 

 

Condescension and arrogance are a poor way to try to make your point.

 

As I've often said, I have to go along with Xorr that 1986 is a pretty good marker not only for the end of good comics but for the end of the potential for good comics. You can pick just about any of the comics published prior to that date that have already been mentioned. Pick anything from the Byrne-Claremont X-Men, the Wolfman-Perez, New Teen Titans, the Levitz-Giffen Legion of Super Heroes, etc.

 

Of course you already know the books I'd come back with. A better exercise would be for YOU to enlighten US! Bring forth an example of these modern comics with that art by the artist who could draw rings around past masters of the medium!

[ARROW]

Sounds to me like you need to learn a bit more about how GOOD comics are produced.

 

Someone want to tell this guy what my day-job has been for the past 25 years??

 

Condescension and arrogance are a poor way to try to make your point

No condescension--if you want to make your point, what better way then to back it up with the real thing, right? Seriously, if you can point to something and say that "this is good" then we can all see it and debate from there.

 

Of course you already know the books I'd come back with. A better exercise would be for YOU to enlighten US! Bring forth an example of these modern comics with that art by the artist who could draw rings around past masters of the medium!

 

Stuff post 1986-

 

Marvels, art by Alex Ross.

Kingdom Come, by same.

Ultimates, art by Bryan Hitch.

Anything touched by Alan Davis--but specifically both The Nail mini-series.

Anything drawn by Dave Gibbons in the last few years,

Hero Bear and the Kidd, by Mike Kunkel.

Mad Love from Bruce Timm.

Batman Adventures, art by Mike Parobeck ( R.I.P.)

Anything drawn in the last few years of Mike Weiringo's life ( R.I.P)

SEIGE, by Oliver Coipel, heck add in House of M-- was done mostly by him.

Anything by Otomo Katsuhiro

Tom Grummett has done some great work after Superman: Man of Tomorrow.

John Romita Jr. on Spiderman

Jeff Smith on Bone

 

 

Also rans:

Adam Hughes

J. Scott Campbell

Joe Madeiura

Travis Charest

Jim Lee--all of whom have appealing art, and some occasionally decent storytelling.

Those are just off the top of my head...

[MasterJailer]

Sounds to me like you need to learn a bit more about how GOOD comics are produced.

 

Someone want to tell this guy what my day-job has been for the past 25 years??

 

 

 

Oh brother. Not really the best way to make your point.

 

"I've been a chef for the past twenty-five years! My favorite dish? Dog poop!"

 

Rob Liefield has a good number of years under his belt as a professional artist too. If he offered me some art lessons, I'd have to say, "Thanks but no..."

[ARROW]

Sounds to me like you need to learn a bit more about how GOOD comics are produced.

 

Someone want to tell this guy what my day-job has been for the past 25 years??

 

 

 

Oh brother. Not really the best way to make your point.

 

"I've been a chef for the past twenty-five years! My favorite dish? Dog poop!"

 

Rob Liefield has a good number of years under his belt as a professional artist too. If he offered me some art lessons, I'd have to say, "Thanks but no..."

 

 

You cannot do something professionally for 25 years if you are no good at it, or if people do not like what you do.

(I both founded, and taught comics illustration and other cartooning programmes at art-colleges and film schools for about 10 years--based on my peers recognition of my skills and background as a comic book artist and cartoonist. I wasn't hired for that because I was the only guy around....)

 

And whatever anyone can say about Rob Liefeld's art, his work DID sell a LOT of comics.

[MasterJailer]

 

Stuff post 1986-

 

Marvels, art by Alex Ross.

Kingdom Come, by same.

Ultimates, art by Bryan Hitch.

Anything touched by Alan Davis--but specifically both The Nail mini-series.

Anything drawn by Dave Gibbons in the last few years,

Hero Bear and the Kidd, by Mike Kunkel.

Mad Love from Bruce Timm.

Batman Adventures, art by Mike Parobeck ( R.I.P.)

Anything drawn in the last few years of Mike Weiringo's life ( R.I.P)

SEIGE, by Oliver Coipel, heck add in House of M-- was done mostly by him.

Anything by Otomo Katsuhiro

Tom Grummett has done some great work after Superman: Man of Tomorrow.

John Romita Jr. on Spiderman

Jeff Smith on Bone

 

 

Also rans:

Adam Hughes

J. Scott Campbell

Joe Madeiura

Travis Charest

Jim Lee--all of whom have appealing art, and some occasionally decent storytelling.

Those are just off the top of my head...

 

 

Out of this sampling, Marvels and Mad Love are probably the only ones that were solid all the way around in terms of story and art. Kingdom Come had some nice Ross art but was really a shambles of a story. Ross is a nice painter but sadly DC has always proven all too ready to indulge his childhood fan fiction. Adam Hughes had potential to build a body of work that should've rivaled Adams, Byrne, and Perez, but unfortunately he became too rich too fast and got lazy.

 

You name a couple of good artists who unfortunately never had much to work with in terms of stories such as Grummet and the post-90's Romita Jr. Alan Davis continues to produce beautiful work but should never be allowed to write.

 

Travis Charest draws very nice stand alone images but his storytelling is horrendous and he is lethally slow!

 

The rest I really have no use for. Madeiura is out-right awful and illustrated one of the WORST comic books I ever suffered through, Ultimates 3 #1! Jim Lee is probably the best out of that early 90's Image school but that is very faint praise! Hitch did his best work when he was aping Davis. Now he's a scribbly xerox machine.

 

Overall, not a great selection. Where as prior to 1986, one could point to solid years of numerous titles as examples of quality work, after '86, stand-out quality work is highly infrequent and reduced to a few spotty examples.

[ARROW]

<sigh>

 

Yeaaaa, YOUR tastes always take precedence in a discussion where there's no accounting for taste.

[MasterJailer]

Sounds to me like you need to learn a bit more about how GOOD comics are produced.

 

Someone want to tell this guy what my day-job has been for the past 25 years??

 

 

 

Oh brother. Not really the best way to make your point.

 

"I've been a chef for the past twenty-five years! My favorite dish? Dog poop!"

 

Rob Liefield has a good number of years under his belt as a professional artist too. If he offered me some art lessons, I'd have to say, "Thanks but no..."

 

 

You cannot do something professionally for 25 years if you are no good at it, or if people do not like what you do.

(I both founded, and taught comics illustration and other cartooning programmes at art-colleges and film schools for about 10 years--based on my peers recognition of my skills and background as a comic book artist and cartoonist. I wasn't hired for that because I was the only guy around....)

 

I'm sure you will be drawing pictures that will give the blind their sight back, but several statements you've made cause me to highly question your judgement and doubt your recommendations.

 

Joe Quesada has a good amount of experience as an artist too. He sits on a mountain of money and runs Marvel Comics. His accomplishments might even eclipse yours. A champion of a trendy style he describes as "mexican manga" and a defender of ultra-late artists, I cringe in pain whenever he opens his mouth and remain completely unimpressed by his overly labored art.

 

And whatever anyone can say about Rob Liefeld's art, his work DID sell a LOT of comics.

 

Yes. He did.

 

A lot of people will slow down and gawk at car accidents but we should still try to prevent them.

[MasterJailer]

<sigh>

 

Yeaaaa, YOUR tastes always take precedence in a discussion where there's no accounting for taste.

 

You missed the most important point.

 

Whereas prior to '86, you could point to Byrne's FIVE years on the Fantastic Four or Dick Dillin's TEN years on Justice League of America, after 86 all you could dig up as examples of this high quality art that draws rings around the Old Skool masters is a four issue mini-series and a single Bruce Timm story. Even if I gave you Hughs and Davis, all we'd be looking at are a few covers and arcs here and there. It's impossible to deny that notable contemporary comics are spotty and that would be a generous description.

[ARROW]

I'm sure you will be drawing pictures that will give the blind their sight back, but several statements you've made cause me to highly question your judgement and doubt your recommendations.

 

Well, do not keep us in suspense..... I'd like to see what you DON'T know about comic book art/production.

 

 

Joe Quesada has a good amount of experience as an artist too. He sits on a mountain of money and runs Marvel Comics. His accomplishments might even eclipse yours. A champion of a trendy style he describes as "mexican manga" and a defender of ultra-late artists, I cringe in pain whenever he opens his mouth and remain completely unimpressed by his overly labored art.

 

Lemme see if I mentioned Quesada on my list........nope, I didn't.

 

Why is that?

 

I don't like Quesada's art either, but I acknowledge what he's done as Editor in Chief of Marvel comics.

He's held the post for the past decade, whereas before him the revolving door booted out bodies every couple of years since 1986. His tenure has, at least, held the sales numbers in a market where comics shouldn't even exist any more--and all by some savvy creative decisions.

I guess that says Joe knows what he's doing, despite your dismissal of his talents.

 

And I'd say his accomplishments have far eclipsed mine any day of the week. LOL!

[MasterJailer]

 

 

Well, do not keep us in suspense..... I'd like to see what you DON'T know about comic book art/production.

 

 

Not so sound arrogant or condescending, but I know quite a bit about art, comic books, graphics, etc. I just don't need to list my credentials to back up my comments that stand well enough on their own.

 

[

Lemme see if I mentioned Quesada on my list........nope, I didn't.

 

 

I know. Don't turn away from the point.

 

 

I don't like Quesada's art either, but I acknowledge what he's done as Editor in Chief of Marvel comics.

He's held the post for the past decade, whereas before him the revolving door booted out bodies every couple of years since 1986. His tenure has, at least, held the sales numbers in a market where comics shouldn't even exist any more--and all by some savvy creative decisions.

I guess that says Joe knows what he's doing, despite your dismissal of his talents.

 

 

This is quite a bit of rosy revisionism regarding Quesada's tenure.

 

The house is on fire and Quesada's solution is to keep playing with matches. You seem to forgive him because the house hasn't burned to the ground yet. "Who cares that the house is on fire? It's still standing! See? He must be doing something right!"