On Jul 8, 10:42?pm, Shawn H <sh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In rec.arts.comics.dc.universe grinningdemon
<grinningde...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> : I started reading in the 80s...but I started with my older brother's
> : collection which was mainly Silver Age stuff from the 60s and
> : 70s...and, aside from Batman and a very few other things...it all
> : sucked.
>
> Don't know what to say to that. We have different values. Did your
brother
> happen to have any Avengers, Fantastic Four, Defenders, Legion of
> Super-heroes, Deadman, Spectre, Aquaman, Doom Patrol, Showcase, Green
> Lantern or Teen Titans?
--I don't know if you should mix Marvel and DC in the discussion you
guys are having though. It appears you've been talking about the
merits of pre vs post Crisis, which gives a pretty clear cut off point
and also nicely dovetails with a change in storytelling approaches at
DC. Marvel doesn't have such a clear cut split.
Personally, I came into comics around the time of the Crisis (and
instead of being put off by such a sprawling crossover, I was
completely engrossed; so no, I don't think alternate universes and
parallel versions of characters are hard to follow). I've come to
read a crapload of comics from the 60s through today from the Big 2.
At DC, I hands down prefer more of the stories from the post Crisis
era (that's not to say that I don't enjoy some Pre Crisis stuff, but
by and large, they just don't work for my sensibilities the way Post
Crisis material does; the exceptions being LSH and New Teen Titans).
Marvel, however, is a different story. There's material from the 70s,
80s, 90s, and even today that I enjoy equally. Heck, I think Steve
Englehart's run on Avengers or Marv Wolfman's run on Fantastic Four
were better than Bendis on Avengers or McDuffie on FF. So while the
generation gap may play a factor, it's not the sole reason one might
enjoy the more "current" era over those in times past.
>
> : You know, I guess it's a generation gap, but I would say pretty much
> : all of these things about the post crisis DCU...not pre crisis...most
> : of the earlier stuff was just cheesy.
>
> I found the post-crisis artificially dark, not ***y, angst-ridden,
> convoluted, confusing, and with only a few bright spots (Vertigo, which
was
> supposed to be that way; Perez Wonder Woman; Byrne's early Superman
> issues). Batman, Hawkman, Flash, Supergirl, Batgirl, Power Girl, the JSA
> were all completely destroyed by Crisis. As well as the Legion of
> Super-Heroes.
--how were Batman and Flash *destroyed* by Crisis (the latter I can
understand if you're speaking of preferring Barry to Wally)? Oh, and
Batgirl? The Crisis didn't really affect her. I'm assuming (and
could be wrong) that you're speaking of the Killing Joke, and
certainly that didn't need the Crisis occuring to have happened.
> Do we even want to get into Zero Hour, Parallax, Monarch, Millenium,
> Bloodlines ... ?
--Some were good ideas with bad executions (ZH and Armageddon) while
some were pathetic (Millenium).
> : >But see, GD, that's what they're doing: the post-Crisis never, ever
> : >worked, and their FINALLY fixing it.
>
> : What are you talking about? Most of the greatest stories and runs
> : that DC have ever done have been in the last 25 years or so...the
> : Giffen/DeMatteis JLA run...and later the Morrison and Waid JLA
>
> Which petered out on its own, and actually had a Silver Age feel to the
> comedy, just as Morrison's JLA had a Silver Age approach to the science.
> The Waid JLA run was in no way classic, don't know what you're on about
> there. Even Hitch laments his involvement in it publically.
--funny, b/c I think Waid and Hitch's run is hands down one of the
best JLA runs I've ever read (one of the biggest stumbling blocks to
my enjoyment of many 60s and 70s MU and DC comics is the dialogue; JLA
writers rarely had any kind of ear for dialogue, while Waid most
certainly does; combine that with compelling stories, excellent
characterization, and fantastic art, and you've got a winning
combination for me)
> : runs...James Robinson's Starman...Geoff Johns' JSA and Flash...Rucka's
>
> Geoff Johns' JSA is an ongoing missed op****tunity of fumbled plots. Yes,
> Starman was good, but that's one book out of twenty.
>
> : and Brubaker's Batman and Batman-related work...George Perez's Wonder
>
> Haven't been able to stomach Batman except when Englehart and Rogers do
him
> (and now Morrison/Kubert). You're right about Wonder Woman, but there
was a
> lot going on in between Perez and Jiminez that sucked, and after Jiminez
as
> well.
--no argument that Wonder Woman post-Perez sucked. In fact, it didn't
get out of that rut until after Byrne left. However, it's not as if
the pre Crisis WW book was doing that well.
> : Woman and later Phil Jiminez's run...Batman: the Killing Joke...Judd
>
> Batman the Killing Joke wasn't worth the paper it was printed on.
--oh wow.
> : Winick on Green Lantern...the Abnett/Lanning Legion...a ton of great
>
> Winick, the guy who killed Jade, Omen and Donna Troy? Great track
record.
--and who's a fan of heavy handed writing...I don't dislike his work
like some do, but he's certainly got some faults.
> The Abnett/Lanning Legion? What about the Moder/Waid/Moy/et al Reboot?
That
> was what Crisis led them too, ultimately.
--Abnett/Lanning's LSH was one of the best I've ever read (Legion Lost
is probably my 2nd fav LSH story after Great Darkness Saga).
Tony
|
