El Pollo Guerrera
Grimlock
His name has chicken in it, and he is good at makin' .gifs, so that's cool.
Status: Runner
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by El Pollo Guerrera on Apr 20, 2020 23:42:24 GMT -5
Here's a just odd opinon I got from a comic dealer I use for bunk deals ,not sure how this came up during a converstation, "You know most readers will say Rob Liefeld is the Ed Wood of comics. That is crap. The real Ed Wood of comics is Jack Kirby. Dude had good ideas but couldn't execute them well without some help." Wow... I can't see either Kirby or Liefeld as being the "Ed Wood of comics", mainly because both had something that Wood didn't have in his lifetime: success. I can't even think who might qualify. As I see it, Kirby would equate to "George Lucas of comics", with his post-Fourth World stuff being the Star Wars prequels. And Liefeld, I'd see as the "Michael Bay of comics", lots of action and very little substance (unless someone else is writing). |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Apr 21, 2020 0:37:34 GMT -5
Me: We already have an evil version of Reed Richards! He's called Doctor Doom*! (For extra hipster points replace Doctor Doom with the Wizard) For super extra hipster points, replace all of them with the Brute, who, like the Maker, literally *is* an evil Reed from a different Earth and has been around since 1972. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Apr 21, 2020 0:44:24 GMT -5
Here's a just odd opinon I got from a comic dealer I use for bunk deals ,not sure how this came up during a converstation, "You know most readers will say Rob Liefeld is the Ed Wood of comics. That is crap. The real Ed Wood of comics is Jack Kirby. Dude had good ideas but couldn't execute them well without some help." Wow... I can't see either Kirby or Liefeld as being the "Ed Wood of comics", mainly because both had something that Wood didn't have in his lifetime: success. I can't even think who might qualify. As I see it, Kirby would equate to "George Lucas of comics", with his post-Fourth World stuff being the Star Wars prequels. And Liefeld, I'd see as the "Michael Bay of comics", lots of action and very little substance (unless someone else is writing). Kirby was in-demand as an artist for over 50 years during his lifetime. Even without the various falling outs he had with publishers, there was always another ready to hire him. Wood didn't have that. Wood was a nobody during his life, and his films didn't enter the zeitgeist until after his death. That's not Kirby. It should also be noted that of the 40 or so films Wood wrote or directed, 90% of them were porn. Wood isn't Kirby by any stretch of the imagination. He's closer to one of those nameless artists that conned his way onto some Fox Comics title for a few issues, disappeared from the mainstream, did a few underground comics in the 60s and now has people "re-evaluating" his career with a lot of pretentious and made-up stories to make them seem to be a better artist - and human being - than they really were. Wood wasn't a terribly good person, no matter what Tim Burton wants people to believe. He was manipulative, exploitative of others in need, a racist and a homophobe. Did Kirby work best when he had someone helping form his ideas into something more palatable? Sure. But that's not what was happening with Wood, or even could have happened with Wood. |
|
|
|
Post by Zaq "That Guy" Buzzkill on Apr 21, 2020 1:29:35 GMT -5
Any writer who approaches Superman from the perspective of Clark Kent just being a mask he wears should be fired and never allowed to write him again. That applies to every medium. For that matter, Bill's idiotic speech about Superman in Kill Bill nearly ruined the whole movie for me. Tarantino loves his Superman hot-take, and he always finds room for it. The thing these people always get wrong is that they think "Superman" is somehow not Clark Kent. The Superman people get in public is the same person who went to public school. Did chores. Went on dates. He's just a guy, and his kindness is a direct result of his upbringing on a farm with two humans. "Clark Kent" only became fake when he moved to Metropolis. But that doesn't mean there is no Clark Kent. It means that "Superman" is the real Clark Kent. My take on this is that "Superman" and "Clark Kent" are disguises for the real Clark Kent/Kal-El "Clark Kent" is the physical disguise, it's when he wears the baggy clothes, adjusts his posture and voice and all that to hide who he is physically but personality wise he's still the cheese eating farmboy he was raised as. "Superman" is the emotional and mental disguise. He's this stoic, flawless figure of justice and hope that can show no weakness to the people of Metroplois, but doesn't have to hide himself physically. The real Clark Kent is the cheese-eating farmboy who hides nothing and is known only by his parents and few close friends (he even said once that his parents farm is the one place he can truly be himself). |
|
El Pollo Guerrera
Grimlock
His name has chicken in it, and he is good at makin' .gifs, so that's cool.
Status: Runner
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by El Pollo Guerrera on Apr 21, 2020 10:18:18 GMT -5
Wow... I can't see either Kirby or Liefeld as being the "Ed Wood of comics", mainly because both had something that Wood didn't have in his lifetime: success. I can't even think who might qualify. As I see it, Kirby would equate to "George Lucas of comics", with his post-Fourth World stuff being the Star Wars prequels. And Liefeld, I'd see as the "Michael Bay of comics", lots of action and very little substance (unless someone else is writing). Kirby was in-demand as an artist for over 50 years during his lifetime. Even without the various falling outs he had with publishers, there was always another ready to hire him. Wood didn't have that. Wood was a nobody during his life, and his films didn't enter the zeitgeist until after his death. That's not Kirby. It should also be noted that of the 40 or so films Wood wrote or directed, 90% of them were porn. Wood isn't Kirby by any stretch of the imagination. He's closer to one of those nameless artists that conned his way onto some Fox Comics title for a few issues, disappeared from the mainstream, did a few underground comics in the 60s and now has people "re-evaluating" his career with a lot of pretentious and made-up stories to make them seem to be a better artist - and human being - than they really were. Wood wasn't a terribly good person, no matter what Tim Burton wants people to believe. He was manipulative, exploitative of others in need, a racist and a homophobe. Did Kirby work best when he had someone helping form his ideas into something more palatable? Sure. But that's not what was happening with Wood, or even could have happened with Wood. So what is your opinion of my "Kirby = Lucas" comparison then? |
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Apr 21, 2020 11:19:41 GMT -5
I think that Jack Kirby/George Lucas comparison is pretty apt. Both had huge, vivid imaginations that allowed them to create worlds and characters rich with personality. However, they needed collaborators to keep them focused because they both had a tendency to get lost in their own heads. Very common with super creative people.
|
|
Ultimo Gallos
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Dreams SUCK!Nightmares live FOREVER!
Posts: 15,520 
|
Post by Ultimo Gallos on Apr 21, 2020 12:25:45 GMT -5
Wow... I can't see either Kirby or Liefeld as being the "Ed Wood of comics", mainly because both had something that Wood didn't have in his lifetime: success. I can't even think who might qualify. As I see it, Kirby would equate to "George Lucas of comics", with his post-Fourth World stuff being the Star Wars prequels. And Liefeld, I'd see as the "Michael Bay of comics", lots of action and very little substance (unless someone else is writing). Kirby was in-demand as an artist for over 50 years during his lifetime. Even without the various falling outs he had with publishers, there was always another ready to hire him. Wood didn't have that. Wood was a nobody during his life, and his films didn't enter the zeitgeist until after his death. That's not Kirby. It should also be noted that of the 40 or so films Wood wrote or directed, 90% of them were porn. Wood isn't Kirby by any stretch of the imagination. He's closer to one of those nameless artists that conned his way onto some Fox Comics title for a few issues, disappeared from the mainstream, did a few underground comics in the 60s and now has people "re-evaluating" his career with a lot of pretentious and made-up stories to make them seem to be a better artist - and human being - than they really were. Wood wasn't a terribly good person, no matter what Tim Burton wants people to believe. He was manipulative, exploitative of others in need, a racist and a homophobe. Did Kirby work best when he had someone helping form his ideas into something more palatable? Sure. But that's not what was happening with Wood, or even could have happened with Wood. Hmm would Fletcher Hanks be teh Ed Wood of comics? He fits way better than Rob or Jack. |
|
chrom
Backup Wench
Master of the rare undecuple post
Posts: 87,901
|
Post by chrom on Apr 21, 2020 12:37:50 GMT -5
Give me straight forward stories with Villains who are evil over needlessly complex stories and Villains who aren't bad despite the crimes they do and people they killed any day of the week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Apr 21, 2020 12:42:33 GMT -5
Kirby was in-demand as an artist for over 50 years during his lifetime. Even without the various falling outs he had with publishers, there was always another ready to hire him. Wood didn't have that. Wood was a nobody during his life, and his films didn't enter the zeitgeist until after his death. That's not Kirby. It should also be noted that of the 40 or so films Wood wrote or directed, 90% of them were porn. Wood isn't Kirby by any stretch of the imagination. He's closer to one of those nameless artists that conned his way onto some Fox Comics title for a few issues, disappeared from the mainstream, did a few underground comics in the 60s and now has people "re-evaluating" his career with a lot of pretentious and made-up stories to make them seem to be a better artist - and human being - than they really were. Wood wasn't a terribly good person, no matter what Tim Burton wants people to believe. He was manipulative, exploitative of others in need, a racist and a homophobe. Did Kirby work best when he had someone helping form his ideas into something more palatable? Sure. But that's not what was happening with Wood, or even could have happened with Wood. Hmm would Fletcher Hanks be teh Ed Wood of comics? He fits way better than Rob or Jack. I'm not terribly familiar with Hanks but reading his Wikipedia entry (holy crap, is that the most pretentious leading sentence ever written for an entry on that site, or what?), it doesn't seem too terribly far off, though far, far less shitbaggery on Hanks' part than Woods'. |
|
Ultimo Gallos
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Dreams SUCK!Nightmares live FOREVER!
Posts: 15,520
|
Post by Ultimo Gallos on Apr 21, 2020 12:49:55 GMT -5
Hmm would Fletcher Hanks be teh Ed Wood of comics? He fits way better than Rob or Jack. I'm not terribly familiar with Hanks but reading his Wikipedia entry (holy crap, is that the most pretentious leading sentence ever written for an entry on that site, or what?), it doesn't seem too terribly far off, though far, far less shitbaggery on Hanks' part than Woods'. Hanks was a drunk that would beat his wife and kids. Left them one day and died years later drunk on a bench in a park. Dude was a piece of shit,but his art has a look to it that catches your eye. I figured you might know about him thanks to the two or 3 volumes of his work Fantagraphics put out in the past decade. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Apr 21, 2020 12:58:13 GMT -5
I'm not terribly familiar with Hanks but reading his Wikipedia entry (holy crap, is that the most pretentious leading sentence ever written for an entry on that site, or what?), it doesn't seem too terribly far off, though far, far less shitbaggery on Hanks' part than Woods'. Hanks was a drunk that would beat his wife and kids. Left them one day and died years later drunk on a bench in a park. Dude was a piece of shit,but his art has a look to it that catches your eye. I figured you might know about him thanks to the two or 3 volumes of his work Fantagraphics put out in the past decade. Well, there ya go. Okay yeah, the Woods analogy seems more apt with Hanks then, for sure. |
|
Zone Was Wrong
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Currently living off the high that AEW brings every Wednesday and Friday
Posts: 17,782
|
Post by Zone Was Wrong on Apr 21, 2020 12:58:53 GMT -5
Lets see, not sure how unpopular some of these are but:
Dick Grayson should have stay Batman. It was fresh and interesting and made sense in the growth of the title. Moving Bruce to a supporting role would have been a better use of the character but of course $$$.
I enjoy roller derby, hyper meta Harley Quinn and honestly don't see the appeal of her animated series outfit. It made her look like a generic hench(wo)men to me. I especially love this side of her because of when her psychologist side comes out, it makes it all the more serious and stands out.
Superior Spider-Man was frigging terrible. The villain won and made everyone think Peter was an asshole. I don't know why I should be rooting for this character.
Lex should have stayed a hero. (Yes I know what I just said about Otto, but this felt more natural than that damnit) I love it when comics actually flip the table on the status quo and felt like an interesting curveball for the character. Though, I will say I did like the whole Justice/Doom War storyline as well so I don't know what to think lol.
(one I'm sure isn't unpopular) Wally West is the best Flash and should have been THE main Flash for all time. Family man superhero, who has connections to the whole DC universe was an interesting story and what happened since Barry came back made me falter on DC for awhile.
Cyclops post-M Day was my favorite Marvel character. Dude was making the hard choices to save his species to the point of grudgingly putting aside his morals and forming a hit squad for preemptive strikes. Loved that time so damn much.
I don't actually mind Bendis and while I wish he would be on more street level titles like The Question, I don't mind him as a writer.
Even though I love the comic, The Killing Joke version of Joker's origin never made a whole lot of sense to me when compared to Joker as a character. While I'm sure he wasn't as much of the master chemist he is now back then, dude still developed the Joker gas and what not and I could never reconcile that with the failed comedian presented in the story. Though, the fact it is shown through an unreliable narrator helps mitigate that a bit.
I loved Doomsday Clock and thought it had a wonderful cap to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Apr 21, 2020 13:16:00 GMT -5
"Wally West is the best Flash" ain't exactly an unpopular opinion. Even people who like Barry seem to prefer he stay dead as he meant more that way. Only people who prefer Barry are people who were introduced through the Tv show and just don't have the background with Wally as Flash that a comic reader would. And Dan Didio, but his opinion about DC's third generation heroes (or 1st generation for that matter) shouldn't count for shit. The biggest mistake DC ever made was deciding they needed to keep smacking the reset button to appease the now mid-50s year old fans at the expense of literally everyone who came after them. Shit like this is why younger people don't get into comics like they used to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Apr 21, 2020 13:22:50 GMT -5
Harley Quinn fandom concerns me greatly. Most (*NOT* all, but most) graft on to (knowingly or subconsciously) the "sycophant who'll do anything for her abusive boyfriend" aspect or the "PTSD abuse victim who can't let her ties to her abuser go even after leaving, so he's still the most important thing in her life" aspect.
|
|
Zone Was Wrong
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Currently living off the high that AEW brings every Wednesday and Friday
Posts: 17,782
|
Post by Zone Was Wrong on Apr 21, 2020 13:26:40 GMT -5
Harley Quinn fandom concerns me greatly. Most (*NOT* all, but most) graft on to (knowingly or subconsciously) the "sycophant who'll do anything for her abusive boyfriend" aspect or the "PTSD abuse victim who can't let her ties to her abuser go even after leaving, so he's still the most important thing in her life" aspect. Yeah, I really don't get that part. Honestly, I love the her show on DC's streaming service. All about her re-empowering herself and striking out as her own person. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Apr 21, 2020 13:31:00 GMT -5
Harley Quinn fandom concerns me greatly. Most (*NOT* all, but most) graft on to (knowingly or subconsciously) the "sycophant who'll do anything for her abusive boyfriend" aspect or the "PTSD abuse victim who can't let her ties to her abuser go even after leaving, so he's still the most important thing in her life" aspect. I honestly find the way Joker's abuse of her gets romanticized to be utterly repugnant. I like Harley fine, but I find a lot of her fans like her for the wrong reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by mike1287 on Apr 21, 2020 13:35:25 GMT -5
Superior Spider-Man was frigging terrible. The villain won No he didn't. Spider-man won. Twice. When he's 'dying' he convinces one of his greatest enemies, the man who 'killed him', to become a good guy, or at to least try to. Then, when Otto realized he wasn't up to the job, steps aside to allow Peter to return to deal with a threat he couldn't. |
|
Zone Was Wrong
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Currently living off the high that AEW brings every Wednesday and Friday
Posts: 17,782
|
Post by Zone Was Wrong on Apr 21, 2020 13:39:43 GMT -5
Superior Spider-Man was frigging terrible. The villain won No he didn't. Spider-man won. Twice. When he's 'dying' he convinces one of his greatest enemies, the man who 'killed him', to become a good guy, or at to least try to. Then, when Otto realized he wasn't up to the job, steps aside to allow Peter to return to deal with a threat he couldn't. At the end, yes he let Peter back in control, but the villain won. He "killed" Peter and took over his body and pissed off most of the people in his life and further dragged his name in the mud with his methods. Sure, he was convinced by Peter to become a hero, but that doesn't excuse the fact this douche bag took over his body. Otto was so unlikable to me as Peter and turned me off from the comic. |
|
Lupin the Third
Patti Mayonnaise
I'm sorry.....I love you. *boot to the head*--3rd most culpable in the jixing of NXT, D'oh!
Join the Dark Order....
Posts: 36,429
|
Post by Lupin the Third on Apr 21, 2020 13:40:41 GMT -5
I thought the original Civil War was decent.
Did it get a number of things wrong? Probably.
But I thought it was a good read, and I've read it numerous times.
Also, I was with Team Cap.
|
|
thechase
King Koopa
Posts: 12,551
Member is Online
|
Post by thechase on Apr 21, 2020 13:42:09 GMT -5
Superior Spider-Man was frigging terrible. The villain won No he didn't. Spider-man won. Twice. When he's 'dying' he convinces one of his greatest enemies, the man who 'killed him', to become a good guy, or at to least try to. Then, when Otto realized he wasn't up to the job, steps aside to allow Peter to return to deal with a threat he couldn't. I've seen a million articles that refute everything you just said. And I agree with them Superior was worse than One More Day, at least I recognised every character in OMD even when they were acting out of it, Dan Slott is a talentless hack and the "broken watch" of Spider-Man writers, right once or twice, but for the most part a very poor hand. |
|
