RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books Top 5 Comic Creators today

So far they've been doing modernized adaptations of material that is more upbeat, such as Spiderman, X-Men, Daredevil, Batman, Superman and so forth. These movies that adapt more heoic and upbeat stories from the early 1960s and prior, are the blockbusters. With a few surface modern additions tacked on.

The darker material reaches a smaller niche audience.

Yeah. Like that last The Bat-Man movie. No one saw that shit.

I KNOW you like these works with reservations, Wondy-cakes. I got that the first time you said it. In fact, that's my whole point. The fact that you acknowledge the dark elements in these comics and STILL consider them good (YES, THERE ARE OTHER BETTER COMICS. You already said that.) should serve as evidence that it IS possible to be "dark" and "good" at the same time. Mind you, I said "POSSIBLE". I'm not saying every single comic to use the word "fuck" is a masterpiece, because saying that would be just as stupid as thinking that every comic that offends your precious little sensibilities is crap.

Yes, plenty of modern twists, which make the film qualify as "dark material". Have you even seen the film?

Again, what part of my plainly spoken english do you not understand?

I clearly prefer the earlier material (pre-Moore, pre-Miller) and clearly have reservations regarding the mid-80s Moore and Miller material. I merely said that of the modern material, the Moore and Miller material is as good as the modern material gets, not that I have a preference for it.

Again, I've made very clear the material I find most enjoyable. (if you forgot, see two previous posts above.

Your subjective spin. A millionaire whose parents were killed, who devotes his life to fighting crime and works out of a batcave are concepts over 5 decades old.

As I said, old concepts with a modern twist added on. But essentially, an old concept. It was an old concept in 1989 when Tim Burton did his first Batman movie.
It was an old concept, brought back to its 1940s roots, when Neal Adams and Dennis O'Neil did their first Batman story together (DETECTIVE 395) in 1969.

Again, what part of plain english do you not understand?

That's a pretty convoluted and weak argument you're trying to make.

Again, what part of my plainly spoken english do you not understand?

No, no, I get all that. But you still said you like that stuff. YES, there's OTHER stuff you like A LOT more. But you still said you like Moore and Miller's mid-80's output. With reservations? Oh, no doubt. But still, I could quote half a dozen posts of you recommending mid 80's material... MIRACLEMAN comics to mind.

I think the work of Moore, Morrison, Gaiman and Miller, even from the 80's, are pretty dark.





The stories of Moore and Miller are multi-layered, and have bright moments, and redeem themselves beyond their darkness by having something meaningful to say, but are still unmistakeably dark.

Rorschach in the WATCHMEN "The Abyss Gazes Also" chapter... I don't think there's a bright way to interpret that.
Alan Moore in a COMICS JOURNAL interview (issue 138) said it depressed him deeply to crawl inside the mind of Rorschach to fully flesh out the character in this chapter.




And as I said on the previous page, Moore said in a COMIC BOOK ARTIST interview that himself and others had unwittingly brought about a Dark Age in comics with their 1980's work, and that he was attempting to bring back an optimism and upbeat heroism that had been lost, when he created new titles like TOM STRONG and other ABC titles.

[ COMIC BOOK ARTIST # 9, August 2000, in an issue on Charleton characters and creators, pages 108-109.
http://twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html

• CBA: But you were able to purge yourself pretty quick, right? You didn't write that many, maybe four or five Superman stories?
  Alan: And that was enough. Those were ones I wanted to write, but since then, most characters have changed so much that they no longer feel to me like the characters I knew. So, I wouldn't have that kind of nostalgic interest in those sort of characters anymore. At the time, I was also saying I didn't feel that if there was some strong political message I wanted to get over, probably super-hero comics were not the best place to do it. If I wanted to do stuff about the environment, that there didn't need to be a swamp monster there, for instance. When I did Brought to Light, about the CIA activities in World War II, that story would not have been greatly enhanced by a guy with his underwear outside his trousers, you know. And also, there did seem to be a rash of quite heavy, frankly depressing and overtly pretentious super-hero comics that came out in the wake of Watchmen, and I felt to some degree responsible for bringing in a fairly morbid Dark Age...

]



Miller's work, from RONIN forward, is deeply cynical, and arguably paranoid in its portrayal of government. DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, DARK KNIGHT STRIKES BACK, GIVE ME LIBERTY, SIN CITY, ELECKTRA:ASSASSIN and HARD BOILED being prime examples.





I could find a few stories in Gaiman's SANDMAN that are upbeat (issue 50 in particular) but mostly I just found it very somber and morose. I read the first four trades and scattered issues after, and fail to see what people rave about. It's not horrible, but it's far from the best I've seen in comics.




I personally despise Morrison's works, although there are a few Morrison stories I somewhat like conceptually, although I find his work likewise pretentious, and (Gaiman-like ) full of quickie references to literature characters without really fleshing them out in his stories beyond the slightest cameo-reference, so I constantly envision Morrison musing to himself (and Gaiman as well) : Ah, look how clever I am to know this !
I'm not impressed.





All that said, if I were to recommend to someone some of the best written and illustrated comic series of the last 40 years, I would name at the top of the list Moore's SWAMP THING, MIRACLEMAN, V FOR VENDETTA, WATCHMEN, and SUPERMAN: WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE MAN OF TOMORROW.

And also Miller's DAREDEVIL, BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, and BATMAN: YEAR ONE.

Nothing by Morrison or Gaiman, despite some decent stories, would make my list though.

But because these above series are dark works, I have a much greater fondness for:

• Wein/Wrightson SWAMP THING 1-10 (DARK GENESIS trade)
• Joe Kubert's TARZAN 207-235
• Goodwin/Simonson MANHUNTER
• Jack Kirby's FOREVER PEOPLE, NEW GODS, MISTER MIRACLE, JIMMY OLSEN, KAMANDI, and O.M.A.C.
• O'Neil/Adams DETECTIVE (just out in hardcover) and BATMAN
• O'Neil/Kaluta THE SHADOW
• Englehart/Perez and Shooter/Perez AVENGERS 141-178, and Michelinie/Byrne AVENGERS 181-191
• Englehart/Rogers Batman in DETECTIVE 471-476 (reprinted in the BATMAN:STRANGE APPARITIONS trade)
• Michelinie/Romita Jr/Layton IRON MAN 115-156
• McGregor/Russell/etc.'s AMAZING ADVENTURES/Killraven 18-39
• Bruce Jones/Brent Anderson/Ron Frenz KA-ZAR 1-27
• Levitz/Giffen LEGION 285-306
• Stern/Romita Jr AMAZING SPIDERMAN 224-250

And many other series.





While I've re-read the Moore and Miller stuff many times, I've re-read these latter books and other series far more often.
They're a heck of a lot more fun.

I think the most interesting...and frightening...part of this entire conversation is that Mxy broke David so badly, that he had to take a ten month pause before responding and re-creating the argument again...

I think the most interesting...and frightening...part of this entire conversation is that Mxy broke David so badly, that he had to take a ten month pause before responding and re-creating the argument again...

Yes, it's an old concept. It's a very old concept. But you can't deny that the movie is a lot darker than most superhero movies... it's darker than every Punisher film ever made. It's darker than most adaptations of new material. And it's certainly darker than every single example you provided in your post about "superhero movies that have done well" (conveniently neglecting to mention Bat-Man)...

...and it has done much, much better than all of them.

Again... have you seen the movie?

Re-creating? All he's doing to repeating his same shit over and over again.

More accurately, I didn't care, stumbled across the topic months after-the-fact, and figured I'd respond.

Nice atrtempt at spin, though, Promod.

Re-creating? All he's doing to repeating his same shit over and over again.

As opposed to the same shit I'm responding to?

Literally. The only reason I reply is that I'm so completely and utterly right that it comes out without any effort. I don't have to, say, sit and think of a reply for ten months.



Wondy, I found convoluted quickly enough in a dictionary, but try as I might I can't seem to locate the word "atrtempt". Please help me out; I know you're not capable of misspelling anything, otherwise you wouldn't be boasting about your mastery of the English language.

(The word English is capitalized, btw.)

Again, a weak, convoluted and completely bogus argument on your part.

What I actually said:

All that said, if I were to recommend to someone some of the best written and illustrated comic series of the last 40 years, I would name at the top of the list Moore's SWAMP THING, MIRACLEMAN, V FOR VENDETTA, WATCHMEN, and SUPERMAN: WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE MAN OF TOMORROW.

Yes holden, you keep responding to your own shit. Its really sad.

Again, a weak, convoluted and completely bogus argument on your part.

Yes! You said all that! No need to quote it. We've all seen that post ten times by now. We know you said it. But you also said:



You want me to keep looking, Wondee? Because I weill, and I guarantee you won't be able to rationalize what I'll find.

I think it's time to re-state my point, because I can smell a misdirection coming and I'll have to explain it all over again anyway. 'sokay, I've dealt with senile people before.

So here it is: You've conceded that some comics with fucked up shit in them are great, despite the fact that there's fucked up shit in them. However, you refuse to see past the fucked up shit in modern comics and judge them solely based on that. You claim the fucked up shit in Watchmen and others (back when you were still defending them, I mean) is balanced out in the end by moments of genuine emotion and such. However, geniune emotion also exists in comics like Preacher, believe it or not. The only reason you can't get that through your head is because you are old and very, very stupid. I mean, EXTREMELY stupid, Dave. I am amazed you have managed to stay alive for such a long time (and I do mean a LONG time) being as moronic and oblivious as you are.

The End.

I described the movie when it came out as the most mature movie portrayal of a superhero possible. But despite that I mostly liked it, it ultimately came across as pretentious and silly.
I also described it as typical of comics as (despite running two-plus hours) was unrelentingly serious and had absolutely no comic relief. And in that respect reprtesentative of the current pretentious/overly-serious comic book market.
But again, the basic conccepts remain the same as 40-50 years ago, with some modern conventions added on. Hower dark, he's still the hero, and remains an essentially pure counterweight to the purely evil joker. I found myself wishing Osama Bin Ladin and other Al Qaida members saw the movie, so they could see in themselves the archetype of pure evil in their wanton slaughter of innocents and their total lack of regard for human life. However you try to spin it, this movie is a far cry from the anti-heroes of Garth Ennis, Warren Ellis and other modern writers.
For all the dark elements, Batman remains an uncorruptable heroic icon, in the classic mold, with only superficial modern add-ons to the concept.

I WILL CONTINUE TO SAY THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL YOU SEE MY POINT AND VALIDATE MY OPINION!

Yes! You said all that! No need to quote it. We've all seen that post ten times by now. We know you said it. But you also said:



You want me to keep looking, Wondee? Because I weill, and I guarantee you won't be able to rationalize what I'll find.

I think it's time to re-state my point, because I can smell a misdirection coming and I'll have to explain it all over again anyway. 'sokay, I've dealt with senile people before.

So here it is: You've conceded that some comics with fucked up shit in them are great, despite the fact that there's fucked up shit in them. However, you refuse to see past the fucked up shit in modern comics and judge them solely based on that. You claim the fucked up shit in Watchmen and others (back when you were still defending them, I mean) is balanced out in the end by moments of genuine emotion and such. However, geniune emotion also exists in comics like Preacher, believe it or not. The only reason you can't get that through your head is because you are old and very, very stupid. I mean, EXTREMELY stupid, Dave. I am amazed you have managed to stay alive for such a long time (and I do mean a LONG time) being as moronic and oblivious as you are.

The End.

I see it as well written

Total B.S. on your part, and misrepresentation of what I actually said.

English is capitalized when it names the nation England. When it describes the language, it is not capitalized.

Minutia, and pure silliness on your part.

Uh, no. Languages are capitalized too. Go check. I'll wait.



Irrelevant? Oh yes, it would be, if you hadn't tried to gloat about your English skills. You have a knack for setting yourself up for ridicule. It's why I love you so much.

I wasn't discussing good or bad english.

I was disputing your deliberate misrepresentation of the opinion of Moore/Miller material that I clearly stated.

It's funny: you accuse me of distorting your words, but you never say how. You don't say "I tried to say XXX but you took it as YYY". You simply cry about it, as if that constituted a refutal in itself. It doesn't. It just makes you look like a whiny bitch.

I quoted chapter and verse what I said initially.

You're lying again. Clearly and proven.


You keep trying to imply otherwise, in tea-leaf reading abstractions, against things I clearly stated and repeatedly quoted.

Sounds to me like you were trying to imply my English is inferior to yours (it is, by the way) and it backfired. If that wasn't your intention and I made you look like an idiot for nothing, I apologize.

You mean the part where you said they rock and then you said they didn't?

Again: you say "things I clearly stated" but don't specify what. That Moore and Miller's 80's work is flawed? I already addressed that. Yes, you said it was flawed, but you also said it was good despite those flaws and, in fact, better written than anything else in the past 40 years.

Yoy also say that my lies are "proven"... but you don't prove anything. You limit yourself to declaring them exposed and leave it that, never bothering to post any actual refutations.

I'm a troll and an idiot.

Sounds to me like you were trying to imply my English is inferior to yours (it is, by the way) and it backfired. If that wasn't your intention and I made you look like an idiot for nothing, I apologize.



You mean the part where you said they rock and then you said they didn't?

You're a troll and an idiot.

You didn't make me look like an idiot. You made yourself look like an idiot, in your inability to understand clear and plainly spoken words.

Where I said they were well written but tainted by dark elements, and that I prefer other material. Other material that I clearly listed.

I'm sorry that your inability to undertand what I clearly said is making you look like an idiot. It's not my fault. You keep not getting the obvious.

I think the work of Moore, Morrison, Gaiman and Miller, even from the 80's, are pretty dark.





The stories of Moore and Miller are multi-layered, and have bright moments, and redeem themselves beyond their darkness by having something meaningful to say, but are still unmistakeably dark.

Rorschach in the WATCHMEN "The Abyss Gazes Also" chapter... I don't think there's a bright way to interpret that.
Alan Moore in a COMICS JOURNAL interview (issue 138) said it depressed him deeply to crawl inside the mind of Rorschach to fully flesh out the character in this chapter.




And as I said on the previous page, Moore said in a COMIC BOOK ARTIST interview that himself and others had unwittingly brought about a Dark Age in comics with their 1980's work, and that he was attempting to bring back an optimism and upbeat heroism that had been lost, when he created new titles like TOM STRONG and other ABC titles.

[ COMIC BOOK ARTIST # 9, August 2000, in an issue on Charleton characters and creators, pages 108-109.
http://twomorrows.com/comicbookartist/articles/09moore.html

• CBA: But you were able to purge yourself pretty quick, right? You didn't write that many, maybe four or five Superman stories?
  Alan: And that was enough. Those were ones I wanted to write, but since then, most characters have changed so much that they no longer feel to me like the characters I knew. So, I wouldn't have that kind of nostalgic interest in those sort of characters anymore. At the time, I was also saying I didn't feel that if there was some strong political message I wanted to get over, probably super-hero comics were not the best place to do it. If I wanted to do stuff about the environment, that there didn't need to be a swamp monster there, for instance. When I did Brought to Light, about the CIA activities in World War II, that story would not have been greatly enhanced by a guy with his underwear outside his trousers, you know. And also, there did seem to be a rash of quite heavy, frankly depressing and overtly pretentious super-hero comics that came out in the wake of Watchmen, and I felt to some degree responsible for bringing in a fairly morbid Dark Age...

]



Miller's work, from RONIN forward, is deeply cynical, and arguably paranoid in its portrayal of government. DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, DARK KNIGHT STRIKES BACK, GIVE ME LIBERTY, SIN CITY, ELECKTRA:ASSASSIN and HARD BOILED being prime examples.





I could find a few stories in Gaiman's SANDMAN that are upbeat (issue 50 in particular) but mostly I just found it very somber and morose. I read the first four trades and scattered issues after, and fail to see what people rave about. It's not horrible, but it's far from the best I've seen in comics.




I personally despise Morrison's works, although there are a few Morrison stories I somewhat like conceptually, although I find his work likewise pretentious, and (Gaiman-like ) full of quickie references to literature characters without really fleshing them out in his stories beyond the slightest cameo-reference, so I constantly envision Morrison musing to himself (and Gaiman as well) : Ah, look how clever I am to know this !
I'm not impressed.





All that said, if I were to recommend to someone some of the best written and illustrated comic series of the last 40 years, I would name at the top of the list Moore's SWAMP THING, MIRACLEMAN, V FOR VENDETTA, WATCHMEN, and SUPERMAN: WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THE MAN OF TOMORROW.

And also Miller's DAREDEVIL, BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, and BATMAN: YEAR ONE.

Nothing by Morrison or Gaiman, despite some decent stories, would make my list though.

But because these above series are dark works, I have a much greater fondness for:

• Wein/Wrightson SWAMP THING 1-10 (DARK GENESIS trade)
• Joe Kubert's TARZAN 207-235
• Goodwin/Simonson MANHUNTER
• Jack Kirby's FOREVER PEOPLE, NEW GODS, MISTER MIRACLE, JIMMY OLSEN, KAMANDI, and O.M.A.C.
• O'Neil/Adams DETECTIVE (just out in hardcover) and BATMAN
• O'Neil/Kaluta THE SHADOW
• Englehart/Perez and Shooter/Perez AVENGERS 141-178, and Michelinie/Byrne AVENGERS 181-191
• Englehart/Rogers Batman in DETECTIVE 471-476 (reprinted in the BATMAN:STRANGE APPARITIONS trade)
• Michelinie/Romita Jr/Layton IRON MAN 115-156
• McGregor/Russell/etc.'s AMAZING ADVENTURES/Killraven 18-39
• Bruce Jones/Brent Anderson/Ron Frenz KA-ZAR 1-27
• Levitz/Giffen LEGION 285-306
• Stern/Romita Jr AMAZING SPIDERMAN 224-250

And many other series.