Why people hate most modern books 3 3

[theCapraAegagrus]

Considering that the Modern Age includes the 90's - I can't say that I despise them - because that decade has a ton of great stories that I love.

The 2010's are awful, though. It's so difficult for me to find a series that has both great artwork and a great story. I think I even made a topic about this a few months ago. Superman and Action Comics are only a couple of (ongoing) titles that interest me. There are some limited series/crossovers that are great, but they're very few and far between.

IMO, back in the days, it wasn't difficult at all to find a compelling book. I didn't live then, but when I rifle through the pre-modern books at the 3 LCS near me, they all look good and read well. At least, there's nothing that turns me off right away, unlike current titles that do so very easily.

I think it's a matter of talent being spread too thin. There are too many titles. IMO they need to consolidate artists and writers so that every book has two-way value of visual and story appeal. DC seems to have a decent amount of titles that do this. Marvel is extremely disappointing to me in this regard.

[Prince Namor]

3 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

New characters, whodua thunk it.

Once again... haven't we already established why creators don't want to make new characters for Marvel?

I'd LOVE to see Grant Morrisson or... John Bryne or someone take over Marvel and go hog wild with ideas... but... won't happen.

[Logan510]

Just now, Chuck Gower said:

Once again... haven't we already established why creators don't want to make new characters for Marvel?

I'd LOVE to see Grant Morrisson or... John Bryne or someone take over Marvel and go hog wild with ideas... but... won't happen.

They don't have editors?

Haven't we already established that for every Spawn there are 1000 Trenchers?

[Prince Namor]

1 minute ago, Logan510 said:

They don't have editors?

Haven't we already established that for every Spawn there are 1000 Trenchers?

If my boss lets me go buy a lottery ticket while I'm on the clock, I'm not giving 80% of it to him.

[the blob]

11 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Officially (i.e. legally), the character was created by Stan Lee and John Buscema from a 'suggestion' by John Romita Sr. 

Romita did the cover. How do we know when he started it and how much Of the visual ideas were his?

[Prince Namor]

In 1972 it was considered ground breaking that Marvel would put out three comics titles featuring female leads (The Cat, Night Nurse, and Shanna the She Devil) and WRITTEN by women...

These days the idea of it is argued about all over the internet...

[Prince Namor]

6 minutes ago, the blob said:

Romita did the cover. How do we know when he started it and how much Of the visual ideas were his?

I'm not a Marvel lawyer, so you may want to ask them. Believe me, I'm on the side of believing ALL of those artists got a raw deal back then. 

[Prince Namor]

16 minutes ago, Logan510 said:

They don't have editors?

 

Editors are just pawns of the corporations, and at this point Marvel puts restrictions on character creation within their own organization. It saves them any unnecessary lawsuits down the line. They have their own agenda for what they want.

And they WANT a female Thor. And an Asian Hulk. And a female Iron Man. It means Brand X (or some disgruntled creator who leaves and goes on his own) can't create a character similar to Iron Man, only as a female (market diversification), and black (market diversification) - THEY now have the rights to this type of character. This is how corporations think. Expand. Monopolize. Own everything.

Stan Lee and whoever he was working with were MUCH MORE the type of SJW's that knuckleheads complain about on the internet these days than today's Marvel is. They made those characters because they really did have a SOCIAL agenda to present. Personally, I applaud them for that. Then and now. Today's Marvel? DIVERSITY is a concept about MONEY. 

This is the type of art America has created. Milk a sucker until he's full and make sure you've got another lined up. Nobody who OWNS Marvel could give two chits about 'creativity' or new 'character creation'. Not unless the company 100% own it and it has long term potential for market expansion. 

[the blob]

45 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Considering that the Modern Age includes the 90's - I can't say that I despise them - because that decade has a ton of great stories that I love.

The 2010's are awful, though. It's so difficult for me to find a series that has both great artwork and a great story. I think I even made a topic about this a few months ago. Superman and Action Comics are only a couple of (ongoing) titles that interest me. There are some limited series/crossovers that are great, but they're very few and far between.

IMO, back in the days, it wasn't difficult at all to find a compelling book. I didn't live then, but when I rifle through the pre-modern books at the 3 LCS near me, they all look good and read well. At least, there's nothing that turns me off right away, unlike current titles that do so very easily.

I think it's a matter of talent being spread too thin. There are too many titles. IMO they need to consolidate artists and writers so that every book has two-way value of visual and story appeal. DC seems to have a decent amount of titles that do this. Marvel is extremely disappointing to me in this regard.

Are you sure your standards are not higher now? I watch movies from the 80s I thought were great movies and now they seem like krapola . We watched scarface the other day. It is full of a lot of bad acting (from good actors) and characters that are not credible. The dialogue in footloose was embarrassing. Both movies I thought were awesome back then.

Edited February 4, 2019 by the blob

[the blob]

14 minutes ago, Chuck Gower said:

Editors are just pawns of the corporations, and at this point Marvel puts restrictions on character creation within their own organization. It saves them any unnecessary lawsuits down the line. They have their own agenda for what they want.

And they WANT a female Thor. And an Asian Hulk. And a female Iron Man. It means Brand X (or some disgruntled creator who leaves and goes on his own) can't create a character similar to Iron Man, only as a female (market diversification), and black (market diversification) - THEY now have the rights to this type of character. This is how corporations think. Expand. Monopolize. Own everything.

Stan Lee and whoever he was working with were MUCH MORE the type of SJW's that knuckleheads complain about on the internet these days than today's Marvel is. They made those characters because they really did have a SOCIAL agenda to present. Personally, I applaud them for that. Then and now. Today's Marvel? DIVERSITY is a concept about MONEY. 

This is the type of art America has created. Milk a sucker until he's full and make sure you've got another lined up. Nobody who OWNS Marvel could give two chits about 'creativity' or new 'character creation'. Not unless the company 100% own it and it has long term potential for market expansion. 

these new characters/retconned characters do not make trademark/copyright monopolies anymore. The captain marvel/superman lawsuit would have been a sure loser today. Seriously, if deadpool did not warrant an infringement lawsuit then nothing will.

[theCapraAegagrus]

8 minutes ago, the blob said:

Are you sure your standards are not higher now? I watch movies from the 80s I thought were great movies and now they seem like krapola . We watched scarface the other day. It is full of a lot of bad acting (from good actors) and characters that are not credible. The dialogue in footloose was embarrassing. Both movies I thought were awesome back then.

My standards are definitely higher, but I still read 80's and 90's comics. They're just much easier for me to digest than the past decade has been. I feel like artists are going for too much 'sharpness' and stuff in their work. The dialogue in some books today is definitely influenced by current slang - which is a huge turn off for me. I can still pick up 80's and 90's - and earlier - books and easily enjoy them.

[Prince Namor]

27 minutes ago, the blob said:

Are you sure your standards are not higher now? I watch movies from the 80s I thought were great movies and now they seem like krapola . We watched scarface the other day. It is full of a lot of bad acting (from good actors) and characters that are not credible. The dialogue in footloose was embarrassing. Both movies I thought were awesome back then.

Some people love comics from the 90's. Some people think, especially in regards to mainstream comics, that's it a horrifyingly bad decade. 

[Prince Namor]

23 minutes ago, the blob said:

these new characters/retconned characters do not make trademark/copyright monopolies anymore. The captain marvel/superman lawsuit would have been a sure loser today. Seriously, if deadpool did not warrant an infringement lawsuit then nothing will.

Marvel and DC aren't going to sue each other over infringement as they've each borrowed from each other over the years. But they successfully got McFarlane to change  his 'Overkill' character to 'Overtkill' back in 1992 and Liefeld had to change his 'Bedrock' character to 'Badrock'. When a powerhouse like Marvel/Disney takes on a creator for infringement... they have the financial backing to crush a small studio or individual creator.

[Logan510]

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

If my boss lets me go buy a lottery ticket while I'm on the clock, I'm not giving 80% of it to him.

If the EiC comes up with a concept and asks people working for him to flesh it out you can't create new characters?

 

[Logan510]

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

Editors are just pawns of the corporations, and at this point Marvel puts restrictions on character creation within their own organization. It saves them any unnecessary lawsuits down the line. They have their own agenda for what they want.

And they WANT a female Thor. And an Asian Hulk. And a female Iron Man. It means Brand X (or some disgruntled creator who leaves and goes on his own) can't create a character similar to Iron Man, only as a female (market diversification), and black (market diversification) - THEY now have the rights to this type of character. This is how corporations think. Expand. Monopolize. Own everything.

Stan Lee and whoever he was working with were MUCH MORE the type of SJW's that knuckleheads complain about on the internet these days than today's Marvel is. They made those characters because they really did have a SOCIAL agenda to present. Personally, I applaud them for that. Then and now. Today's Marvel? DIVERSITY is a concept about MONEY. 

This is the type of art America has created. Milk a sucker until he's full and make sure you've got another lined up. Nobody who OWNS Marvel could give two chits about 'creativity' or new 'character creation'. Not unless the company 100% own it and it has long term potential for market expansion. 

Spider-Woman and She-Hulk were not done to further any social agenda, they were done to preserve copyright.

Maybe if they were done in the information age it would've been portrayed that way 

And everything basically comes down to money, but I appreciate you mansplaining it to me

 

[KobaltDog]

[ADAMANTIUM]

17 minutes ago, KobaltDog said:

Well there is your problem, it's the CoNsUmEr  

[the blob]

1 hour ago, Chuck Gower said:

Marvel and DC aren't going to sue each other over infringement as they've each borrowed from each other over the years. But they successfully got McFarlane to change  his 'Overkill' character to 'Overtkill' back in 1992 and Liefeld had to change his 'Bedrock' character to 'Badrock'. When a powerhouse like Marvel/Disney takes on a creator for infringement... they have the financial backing to crush a small studio or individual creator.

You are misremembering (at least according to my 3 minutes of google research). Overkill was changed because Hasbro already had an overkill toy and I guess MacFarlane was partnering with Hasbro. Mcfarlane made the bedrock change because he was worried about a lawsuit because a Flintstones movie was coming. He had not been threatened. Also, names do get more trademark protection than a vaguely familiar looking image, true. The bedrock change was nonsensical. I have no idea how there could be any likelihood of confusion 

Edited February 4, 2019 by the blob

[ADAMANTIUM]

Well there is your problem, it's the CoNsUmEr  

But for the record, I don't hate moderns, nor snakes, nor sparklers.

[fullerjason]

I don't hate moderns but I hate the variant game. Now mind you I don't mind variants if they were actually different. Creating a regular Cover A then a Variant cover B, taking said variant cover B and removing the color to make a variant C, taking the Variant C and adding Copic colors to make a Variant D and then taking the Cover B and removing any logos to make a virgin variant E is ridiculous and lazy. If a regular cover A is made and then another artist does a cover B variant and a different artist does a cover C Ok, fine. Currently it's just make one variant and lets see how we can twist it to make 13 slightly different variants.

I have no issues with characters like Thor becoming a woman. Why? The character Thor has so many stories written about him what could writers do with him now? It opens the character up to new stories. They never ultimately stay that way and it may open up possible stories for Thor in the future as the characters always revert back at some point. The publishers are damned if they do damned if they don't. If a story they write using the regular Thor isn't mind-blowing and new they get called hacks. If they change a character they get called soy milk drinking, SJW, snowflakes from some far off crazy echo chamber. People were mad with the Superior Spider-Man arc and that was fresh and a nice take on Spider-Man much the same way that many like The Batman Who Laughs currently. Many probably do not like the fact that a Batman was corrupted by Joker and became, no that is not the correct word, embraced all of the attributes of the Joker. Love or hate that story it opens up Batman to different stories in the future. Superman has had every aspect of his life covered in comic format from flying backwards to time travel to how does he get a haircut. What new stories can be written about him that hasn't been done? Heck his powers have been messed with 3 or 4 times. Some writers have to take some risks with the characters and not everyone is going to like it and that is nothing new. I to agree that creating new superhero characters would be great but what are you going to do when every animal and adjective has been placed in front of man/woman?