Venom Movie 3 3

[AnthonyTheAbyss]

10 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

(quote here)

You make very valid points.  But I don't think people in general are as finely in tuned to your insight of the history of comics.  Having said that, I'd like to know your opinions of the following covers that I consider "classic" (not trying to set a trap...just curious to see if we differ):

Spider-man #1 (Mcfarlane cover) - One of the most duplicated covers

Batman #608 (Jim Lee 2nd print) - Considered one of the best Batman covers ever

X-Men #141 (Days Of Future Past) - One of the best stories in comics

Captain America #109 (Retelling Of Origin) - Just a personal favorite in my collection

 

***Spider-man #300 I know we already don't agree so no need to add it to the list

[Martin Sinescu]

On 8/23/2018 at 11:40 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Yes, I know people will disagree. Those who disagree, I would invite you to come up with your own definitions for what makes a "classic" cover and/or why ASM #300 would fit the bill.

Perhaps I could accept your homework invitation and the whole class could come up with our own definitions for a "classic" cover, but this is truly not the place. It's a thread about the Venom movie in which you weirdly decided to deputize yourself as the Sheriff of Everything You Know is Wrong so you could "Rock" the boat by telling everyone the arbitrary standards they should be conforming to for judging a classic cover. It's a total ruse, anyway, as there's so much room for subjectivity and impossible-to-prove points in this objective litmus test you've manufactured for me to just say, "Yes ASM 300 fits all of the criteria, it's a classic" or for me to come up with definitions and you to just refute them all just for the sake of proving a point. 

On 8/23/2018 at 11:40 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

Here's the most important thing to avoid: do not mistake your personal nostalgic feelings for a cover for an objective analysis of what makes a "classic" cover. It's easy to do that...but it would be a mistake. 

A common theme of yours that you use to pigeon-hole people: Forsake nostalgia for dry analysis. Again, it's a ruse: Your detached, scientific approach is just an arbitrary set of rules that you have fabricated. I asked the question because I thought you might respond with some source of art criticism from which you had adopted these principles or perhaps Overstreet had attempted to explain their reasoning, but your emoji showed that you had no interest in backing up these random guidelines which you have taken it upon yourself to interject into this thread about the Venom movie.

On 8/23/2018 at 11:40 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

1. If it is impactful. If it made most people say "holy shnit. Wow." when it came out. 

2. If it is well designed (this is the layout and use of space.)

3. If it is well executed (this is the quality of the linework itself.)

4. It's original - it's not an idea that's been done and/or seen before.

5. If it is easily understood by all who see it.

6. If multiple generations, upon first encountering it, have the same reaction.

And it has to have ALL those qualities, not just some of them.

There is literally no cover that will meet these standards:

1 - Completely unprovable. How in the world are you going to gauge this? Unless you already started back in the late 30's, you aren't. From what you've said on these boards, it seems like you weren't even collecting when ASM 300 came out, or DKR, or Batman 428, so how do you know whether these covers made most people say "holy shnit, wow" when they came out or not? Will your Cap City numbers tell you this?

2 - Subjective, who are you poling? Once you step outside of your own analysis, answers will begin to vary, perhaps even wildly. Again, it's all opinion, this is a subjective judgement, not objective analysis.

3 - Subjective, same reason. Can you even see "the quality of the linework itself"?

4 - Subjective - not an idea that's been seen or done before? What? I can see if you're trying to eliminate cover swipes, but Batman 227 is regarded as a classic (okay, probably not by your standards) and it's not original, so now what?

5 - Completely unprovable and why does it have to be easily understood? Why? 

6 - Completely unprovable, how will you gauge multiple generations' reactions upon first encountering it?

AND it has to have ALL those qualities?!? Why? Because you're making the rules, that's the only reason. All of these judgements are based on nothing except you setting up a random set of rules to try to prove something that's totally subjective and there's no reason why anyone should have to meet your criteria for their own opinion. If you don't think it's a classic cover, whatever. I think refuting ASM 300 as a classic and turning around and showing DKR 1 as an example of a classic is laugh-out-loud ridiculous, but, since you are the champion of questioning all, I question what you post and see a lot of subjective ego cloaked in scholarly, dry analysis.

"Classic" cover is a subjective term. If people want to apply it to a book that doesn't meet "Rock's Law" for classic covers, it's really okay and, again, not really appropriate for this thread. Your bizarre intrusion would've been better suited to bring up in the ASM 300 thread or it's own thread in CG.

[RockMyAmadeus]

43 minutes ago, Martin Sinescu said:

Perhaps I could accept your homework invitation and the whole class could come up with our own definitions for a "classic" cover, but this is truly not the place. It's a thread about the Venom movie in which you weirdly decided to deputize yourself as the Sheriff of Everything You Know is Wrong so you could "Rock" the boat by telling everyone the arbitrary standards they should be conforming to for judging a classic cover. It's a total ruse, anyway, as there's so much room for subjectivity and impossible-to-prove points in this objective litmus test you've manufactured for me to just say, "Yes ASM 300 fits all of the criteria, it's a classic" or for me to come up with definitions and you to just refute them all just for the sake of proving a point. 

Is there a reason why you're being confrontational? 

43 minutes ago, Martin Sinescu said:

A common theme of yours that you use to pigeon-hole people: Forsake nostalgia for dry analysis. Again, it's a ruse: Your detached, scientific approach is just an arbitrary set of rules that you have fabricated. I asked the question because I thought you might respond with some source of art criticism from which you had adopted these principles or perhaps Overstreet had attempted to explain their reasoning, but your emoji showed that you had no interest in backing up these random guidelines which you have taken it upon yourself to interject into this thread about the Venom movie.

Again, is there a reason why you're being confrontational? Was my comment directed at you, or anyone in particular? 

No.

No, it wasn't. 

So why do you feel the need to make a scene, and critique someone else personally? Is it your job to police the board, so that everyone posts in the manner in which "Martin Sinescu" approves...? There are lots of people who post here whose posts make my teeth hurt. Do I criticize them, or attempt to analyze them, or even interact with them if they don't engage me?

No. I just ignore them. Problem solved.

So why do you think it's ok for you to do so?

If you don't like what someone says, or the way they say it, there's an ignore function.

It works.

Really.

You should use it. Provided I'm not violating the board rules, what business is it of anyone to tell someone else how and what they can post? 

Are my rules for what makes a classic cover my own? 

Yes. Obviously, as I clearly state. Are they "arbitrary", as you claim? No. Do you offer a counterargument? No, you don't even bother. You just presume the outcome. 

My initial suspicions regarding your previous post have proven correct. My "emoji" was because your initial question was disingenuous, as this all proves. You were offended that I offered my definition, which was clearly stated to be my own, so you asked a loaded question. Someone mentioned #300 as a "classic cover", which was my springboard for...discussion. Which is what a message board is about, no...?

You then post a lengthy reply to my position, which would be fine and perfectly accepted, had it been offered in the spirit of honest discourse...but should I remind you that this is the "Venom movie thread", and you're doing what you're complaining of me doing...? For a thread that is on page 26, with several hundred posts already...?

Seriously: put me on ignore. Problem solved. All the conflict on this board is caused by people who refuse to simply ignore those they don't like. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by RockMyAmadeus

[Gatsby77]

52 minutes ago, Martin Sinescu said:

It's a thread about the Venom movie in which you weirdly decided to deputize yourself as the Sheriff of Everything You Know is Wrong so you could "Rock" the boat by telling everyone the arbitrary standards they should be conforming to for judging a classic cover. It's a total ruse, anyway, as there's so much room for subjectivity and impossible-to-prove points in this objective litmus test you've manufactured for me to just say, "Yes ASM 300 fits all of the criteria, it's a classic" or for me to come up with definitions and you to just refute them all just for the sake of proving a point. 

A common theme of yours that you use to pigeon-hole people: Forsake nostalgia for dry analysis. Again, it's a ruse: Your detached, scientific approach is just an arbitrary set of rules that you have fabricated. I asked the question because I thought you might respond with some source of art criticism from which you had adopted these principles or perhaps Overstreet had attempted to explain their reasoning, but your emoji showed that you had no interest in backing up these random guidelines which you have taken it upon yourself to interject into this thread about the Venom movie.

 Shh...next thing you know he'll try to force his personal definition of "comic collector" down the entire message board's throats...

[RockMyAmadeus]

Just now, Gatsby77 said:

 Shh...next thing you know he'll try to force his personal definition of "comic collector" down the entire message board's throats...

If you don't like what someone says, or the way they say it, there's an ignore function. This is provocation, contentious posting, meant to create conflict. 

[Gatsby77]

Ironically, I agree with RMA that ASM 300's not a classic cover - nor does anyone care that it's an anniversary issue. If that were true, ASM 200, 400, 500 would be keys - they're not.

He's also right in his distinction between a mere "nostalgic" cover and a "classic" one.

Werewolf 32 isn't a classic cover. Nor is ASM 300. Nor is New Mutants 87.

New Mutants 87 is classic *to me* because it was my grail book when I was 13 -- I mowed lawns for a summer to afford my first copy (a whopping $50). Iconic? Sure.

Classic? Not even close -- especially not, considering it's a cover swipe.

My opinion is ASM 300 belongs in the "nostalgic" cover category, but Spider-Man # 1 (for example) ranks as a "classic cover."

[MGsimba77]

Maybe this classic cover thing could make for a really spirited topic on CG? 

[ComicConnoisseur]

23 minutes ago, MGsimba77 said:

Maybe this classic cover thing could make for a really spirited topic on CG? 

That would make a great thread.

Here are a couple I find special in these series.

                 

[RockMyAmadeus]

31 minutes ago, MGsimba77 said:

Maybe this classic cover thing could make for a really spirited topic on CG? 

It might. You do have to watch out for people who are so offended by other people having and expressing opinions with which they disagree, they accuse them...from a single thread, mind you, with a simultaneous point-for-point counterargument...of "forcing" said opinions down the "entire message board's throat", despite, of course, the fact that "the entire message board" doesn't agree on anything, certainly wouldn't agree on that, and no one is forced to read anything anyone else posts.

"Forcing your opinion down X's throat" being code for "why won't you shut up and stop disagreeing with me already???" 

That total ignore feature cannot come soon enough.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

7 hours ago, AnthonyTheAbyss said:

You make very valid points.  But I don't think people in general are as finely in tuned to your insight of the history of comics.  Having said that, I'd like to know your opinions of the following covers that I consider "classic" (not trying to set a trap...just curious to see if we differ):

Spider-man #1 (Mcfarlane cover) - One of the most duplicated covers

Batman #608 (Jim Lee 2nd print) - Considered one of the best Batman covers ever

X-Men #141 (Days Of Future Past) - One of the best stories in comics

Captain America #109 (Retelling Of Origin) - Just a personal favorite in my collection

 

***Spider-man #300 I know we already don't agree so no need to add it to the list

As I mentioned earlier, there's a lot of subjectivity to the discussion.

One of the more difficult aspects of determining classic covers is making the distinction between what came before, and what came after, you started collecting. For example...you bring up Batman #608 2nd print. I like the cover, but I saw it brand new on the shelf, so I have a hard time considering it a "classic" cover. I like it, and I especially like it in contrast to Superman #204.

Plus...there's a lot to be said about stuff that was exceptionally popular when you first started collecting (as opposed to reading), and saw what was at the local comic shop that was priced way above what you could afford. Do I think the way I do about the cover to Batman #428 because it was thoroughly unobtainable when I first started collecting? Maybe! Probably! It has to be considered.

But I look at what Overstreet has designated a "classic cover" and I look at what CGC has designated as well...plus various other publications and even quite a bit posted here...to see what other people consider classic, and what made an impact on other collectors at the time. Just because one person says it is, doesn't make it so...but if a cross section of people, over time, say the same thing, then the case begins to take on a little more weight. I formulated my qualifications based on what these various covers had in common, and I began to see the common threads that these books possessed.

As far as the covers you mention:

Spidey #1 (McFarlane) - While I don't necessarily think that homages are a sign of a "classic" cover, especially because of the impact that title had on the reading and collecting public had at the time...it was, by far, the #1 selling book of 1990...it was ubiquitous...I think, in the way McFarlane executed the cover, the case could be made. 

For comparison, here's a cover that made a massive impact on me when it came out just a couple of weeks later:

I think that's a fantastic cover, the best Gulacy ever did. Would it ever get a "classic" cover designation in the future? Probably not.

X-Men #141...again, lots of duplication, but is the cover really a standout if it wasn't for the historical impact of the story? Hard to say. Of that run, I have a hard time finding one that would fit the definition of "classic." Had the last panel of #132 been the cover...? Oh yeah. 

Cap #109 - Cap #109 is a personal fav of mine, too, but I think it suffers when compared to Cap #111 and #113. #111 I think especially has the claim to being a "classic" cover. If #113 didn't have the Hydra agents and Rick Jones on the cover, busying it up, I think it would clearly qualify.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Back to the movie...

I think the casting of Tom Hardy is fantastic. Far, infinitely better than that Topher Grace debacle. 

But every time I see the trailer, and Venom comes up, there's a plastic, inorganic quality to the look that just takes me right out of the film, and almost makes me want to laugh.

And, of course, they went with the "I'm Erik Larsen, and I hate Venom, so I'm going to make him look as clownishly ridiculous as I possibly can" 50,000 sharp, spikey teeth, and the stupid, 10 foot long tongue.

Plus...Eddie was always in control of the Symbiote...but in the movie, the Symbiote is clearly in the driver's seat.

That said, I did like the tagline "the world has enough superheroes."

So, we'll see how it goes.

[Lazyboy]

2 hours ago, Martin Sinescu said:

I think refuting ASM 300 as a classic and turning around and showing DKR 1 as an example of a classic is laugh-out-loud ridiculous

By the way, Jaydogrules is the one who started this tangent by needlessly (and wrongly) calling ASM 300 a classic cover. Kind of like the time he randomly brought up the Sandman 8 editorial variant and his ideas about that book in the Lucifer TV show thread, which ended up completely derailing that thread.

[Martin Sinescu]

2 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Seriously: put me on ignore. Problem solved. All the conflict on this board is caused by people who refuse to simply ignore those they don't like. 

First, this is a coward's way out. We all have to deal with opposing viewpoints and personalities on message boards and in reality. I have not and will never put anyone on ignore because that's not how reality works and I'm not going to make a message board cozier for me by blocking opposition. Second, if you don't like that I disagree with your argument, then you seriously need to look in the mirror because this started when you took issue with someone making an off-handed comment about ASM 300 being a classic cover and responded with a massive set of instructions with examples on why that person was wrong. You wrapped it up as "Objective" analysis when it was not. That doesn't offend me, but I can see someone setting up a persuasive argument to suit their needs as a way to influence other's opinions, when, again, it is based on virtually only subjective or unprovable criteria. You don't respond to these points, you just frame it as confrontational and personal on my part rather than try to support your statements, that way you can just blow it all off as just some crazy guy with a vendetta. Well done.

[RockMyAmadeus]

8 minutes ago, Martin Sinescu said:

First, this is a coward's way out. We all have to deal with opposing viewpoints and personalities on message boards and in reality. I have not and will never put anyone on ignore because that's not how reality works and I'm not going to make a message board cozier for me by blocking opposition. Second, if you don't like that I disagree with your argument, then you seriously need to look in the mirror because this started when you took issue with someone making an off-handed comment about ASM 300 being a classic cover and responded with a massive set of instructions with examples on why that person was wrong. You wrapped it up as "Objective" analysis when it was not. That doesn't offend me, but I can see someone setting up a persuasive argument to suit their needs as a way to influence other's opinions, when, again, it is based on virtually only subjective or unprovable criteria. You don't respond to these points, you just frame it as confrontational and personal on my part rather than try to support your statements, that way you can just blow it all off as just some crazy guy with a vendetta. Well done.

If you don't like what someone posts, or the way they post, ignore them. Making aggressive, hostile, personal comments about PEOPLE is toxic, has no place here, and is a violation of this board's rules.

This board is NOT "reality." This board has rules. I have to follow them. Ostensibly, so do you. That means that I don't get to say whatever I want to you, and must exercise self-control. 

So do you.

If you want to have a discussion, keep the personal garbage out of it. "Opposing viewpoints" is one thing...your previous post was quite another. So spare the attempts to say "I'm just DISAGREEING with you!" No, you came after ME, personally, and went for the jugular.

You want to have a civil discussion? Let's have it. But keep your personal comments about other members to yourself.

[PunisherPunisherPunisher]

...will get more popcorn when the movie comes out 

[Jaydogrules]

3 hours ago, Martin Sinescu said:

First, this is a coward's way out. We all have to deal with opposing viewpoints and personalities on message boards and in reality. I have not and will never put anyone on ignore because that's not how reality works and I'm not going to make a message board cozier for me by blocking opposition. Second, if you don't like that I disagree with your argument, then you seriously need to look in the mirror because this started when you took issue with someone making an off-handed comment about ASM 300 being a classic cover and responded with a massive set of instructions with examples on why that person was wrong. You wrapped it up as "Objective" analysis when it was not. That doesn't offend me, but I can see someone setting up a persuasive argument to suit their needs as a way to influence other's opinions, when, again, it is based on virtually only subjective or unprovable criteria. You don't respond to these points, you just frame it as confrontational and personal on my part rather than try to support your statements, that way you can just blow it all off as just some crazy guy with a vendetta. Well done.

All you need to know from RMA's lecture is that Miracle Man 15 is an undisputed "classic cover" and ASM 300 is not. 

Oh wait..  

#1 Here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sprucestreetcomics.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/the-top-25-greatest-amazing-spider-man-covers-of-all-time/amp/

#6 Here (referred to as a classic in introduction):

http://www.nerdgoblin.com/comic-book-rewind-top-10-spider-man-covers/

#23 Here (referred to as a classic in introduction):

http://www.comicsbackissues.com/best-spider-man-covers/

#11 Here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbr.com/the-15-most-iconic-spider-man-covers/amp/

Heritage Auctions seems to think it's a classic and "iconic" cover as well:

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/covers/todd-mcfarlane-amazing-spider-man-300-cover-original-art-marvel-1988-/a/7099-92276.s

One thing of note about all of these lists-  they do not all contain the identical books in the identical order.

Go figure.  

Now, just for fun let's have a look at some synonyms for "iconic":

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/iconic

Two words included on there: "classical" and "historic", the latter which RMA used to describe the cover to ASM 300 in his first post on the matter, incidentally.

Can't wait for this movie! 

-J.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Jaydogrules

[RockMyAmadeus]

9 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

All you need to know from RMA's lecture is that Miracle Man 15 is an undisputed "classic cover" and ASM 300 is not. 

Oh wait..  

#1 Here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sprucestreetcomics.wordpress.com/2017/06/27/the-top-25-greatest-amazing-spider-man-covers-of-all-time/amp/

#6 Here (referred to as a classic in introduction):

http://www.nerdgoblin.com/comic-book-rewind-top-10-spider-man-covers/

#23 Here (referred to as a classic in introduction):

http://www.comicsbackissues.com/best-spider-man-covers/

#11 Here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbr.com/the-15-most-iconic-spider-man-covers/amp/

Heritage Auctions seems to think it's a classic and "iconic" cover as well:

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/covers/todd-mcfarlane-amazing-spider-man-300-cover-original-art-marvel-1988-/a/7099-92276.s

One thing of note about all of these lists-  they do not all contain the identical books in the identical order.

Go figure.  

Now, just for fun let's have a look at some synonyms for "iconic":

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/iconic

Two words included on there: "classical" and "historic", the latter which RMA used to describe the cover to ASM 300 in his first post on the matter, incidentally.

Can't wait for this movie! 

-J.

 

 

No.

 

[I like pie]

3 hours ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

 

 

[Martin Sinescu]

12 hours ago, Jaydogrules said:

All you need to know from RMA's lecture is that Miracle Man 15 is an undisputed "classic cover" and ASM 300 is not. 

Oh wait..  

-J.

 

 

Yup, no disputing that point.... oh wait.....

4. It's original - it's not an idea that's been done and/or seen before.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

2 hours ago, Martin Sinescu said:

Yup, no disputing that point.... oh wait.....

4. It's original - it's not an idea that's been done and/or seen before.

 

 

If you're interested in having a discussion, let's have a discussion.

If you're just going to join the ranks of the eternally offended, making snide, snarky comments because you're offended at something someone on the internet said with which you disagree, which wasn't directed at you personally, then there's no point.

As far as "jaydogrules"'s contention goes, the only reason people call ASM #300 a "classic" cover is because the book contains the first full appearance of arguably the greatest comic book villain created in the last 30 years, and they've stared at it longingly on store and convention dealer walls for decades. 

No first appearance by Venom = no "classic cover."

And "jaydogrules" fails to make the very important distinction between colloquially referring to something as "classic", or "a classic", and the "official, according to Overstreet and/or CGC designation" of "Classic cover." All of those links are the former, naturally, because distinctions...we don't need no stinkin' distinctions!

I strongly suspect that "jaydogrules" doesn't actually understand the designation and its use in the comics collecting hobby. 

I don't think ANYBODY disagrees that ASM #300 is "A" classic...just like ASM #298, #306, #312, #316, #325, #328...but it's not a "classic cover" the way the OPG and/or CGC refer to it.

I don't doubt that New Mutants #98 will...if it hasn't already...be called a "Classic Cover" soon enough.