• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

Bought/Thought November 25th, 2009

Nothing's off about anyone, really. Dread hates how stupid he considers the Asgardians to be, but they've always been that way. I personally think it has more to do with the complexities of the gods' immortality and familial ties and the absence of a strong, unifying, traditional leader since Odin's death.
 
Nothing's off about anyone, really. Dread hates how stupid he considers the Asgardians to be, but they've always been that way. I personally think it has more to do with the complexities of the gods' immortality and familial ties and the absence of a strong, unifying, traditional leader since Odin's death.

Their beyond stupid, always have been, in Norse Mythology the asgardians new about Ragnarok, they new they would almost all die, hell they new how they would die indvidually and by whos hand. They new all this, and they just went on with their semi-immortal lives until it was time. You see IMO the asgardians are passive clowns, that instead of makeing their own destiny, they think that what is destined to happen is gonna happen, and nothing they do will stop it. Perhaps Thor and the asgardians know whats gonna happen, and they just don't care, because these events are "destined" to happen.
 
I've got to say that I read Beast of Burden #3 today (I totally forgot it came out last week) and I'm really enjoying it. There's only one issue left for the mini but I hope they bring it back as an ongoing. Great stuff!
 
Their beyond stupid, always have been, in Norse Mythology the asgardians new about Ragnarok, they new they would almost all die, hell they new how they would die indvidually and by whos hand. They new all this, and they just went on with their semi-immortal lives until it was time. You see IMO the asgardians are passive clowns, that instead of makeing their own destiny, they think that what is destined to happen is gonna happen, and nothing they do will stop it. Perhaps Thor and the asgardians know whats gonna happen, and they just don't care, because these events are "destined" to happen.
Hardly fair to fault Marvel's portrayal for what was always described as an unavoidable fate in the myths. And Marvel's version of the Asgardians fought pretty hard against Ragnarok anyway. Odin developed a couple schemes to completely avert it. They just never worked because, once again, it's a literally unavoidable fate. Hence the word "fate."

Anyway, they're not destined for anything anymore in the Marvel universe. Ragnarok came and went and this is supposed to be the Asgardians' new lease on life. That's ironically weakened Thor's position as leader; where Odin was comfortably traditional and stuck to the old ways, Thor was far too radical and attempted to introduce too many changes at once. He's inadvertently responsible for a lot of the trouble Asgard's found itself in.
 
I've got to say that I read Beast of Burden #3 today (I totally forgot it came out last week) and I'm really enjoying it. There's only one issue left for the mini but I hope they bring it back as an ongoing. Great stuff!

Yeah, as I said, I'm really enjoying that title, too. Glad to see someone else is also reading it! Gives me hope that it might get a second mini.
 
GIANT SIZE THOR FINALE #1: Or, essentially, THOR #603 A. Considering than next week's issue of THOR technically ships in December, for the life of me I don't know why this couldn't have shipped as an issue of THOR. Was editorial that fearful that it would miss this ship date? Did they seek to avoid another fiasco like issues of WOLVERINE shipping out of order? At any rate, Marvel has risked this finale of the JMS run selling lower than usual because one-shots of ongoings haven't sold as well as regular issues in, oh, about 10 years. But the great thing about the Joe Q era is that simple realities of the business that are obvious to any pedestrian who examines the biz for five minutes are akin to superhuman ephiphanies for editorial. What any layman could figure out usually takes Marvel 2-4 years to execute, at swiftest. And this is a company that would publish comics criticizing slow politicians.

At any rate, this is the 17th issue of the JMS launch of THOR that now concludes, after about two years. I suppose that's fine in terms of Joss Whedon publishing standards, but surely Marvel expected this to be a faster book. JMS only agreed because he wanted at least 8 issues on his own without crossover tie-in's, and by and large Marvel more than doubled his request. When JMS leaves a book, he usually leaves it in three ways: hanging without a conclusion, in utter shambles, or unfinished. While such practices would have gotten him fired in the TV biz, Marvel editorial is a desperate sucker, willing to be endlessly stood up on proms by Allen Heinberg, so JMS has nothing to fear - and to be fair, DC is little better. For THOR, JMS delivers an exciting final issue for his run, which in usual fashion casts Thor as a supporting guest character, and has a lot of action. But it is not a conclusion. It merely sets up the next chap, K. Gillen, to maybe get around to a conclusion. It passes the buck, which for an A-List writer is not the best finale. The art is done by Djurdevic, who has proven slightly more reliable than the old regular artist, Oliver Coipel. He will be drawing SIEGE, and if Marvel editorial seriously believes that they can get 4 monthly issues out of him without one delay, then they either have given him considerable lead in time (like about a quarter of a year) or they're delusional beyond all hope of therapy. Every regular assignment he has had that was beyond one issue has run late after a while, two issues max.

"William the Warrior" becomes "William the Corpse" in a few pages (within the 5-6 page online preview of the issue, in fact), and while it is a powerful sequence and send-off for Bill, it comes with the idea that Balder the Brave needs the help of a half-dead mortal with a magical sword in order to defend himself from three random Asgardians. He also needs Bill to literally tell him what the plot of this series has so obviously been for 12 issues now under his dying breath. Balder, at best, has been a chump in this run, and this issue does nothing to change that. Balder declares that he'll actually, maybe, almost do something, while Kelda grows some stones and declares revenge against Loki for Bill's death. Her fate, which is revealed in the 5 page preview for THOR #604, is hardly pretty (Doom basically kills her in a few pages). There's a nice send-off for Bill, but if you read THOR for Thor and not the adventures of a fry-cook, you might grow impatient.

The climax of the issue are the attack squad of "Anti-Thor Doombots" flying into Oklahoma in Loki's desperate attempt to kill Donald Blake to eliminate any threat of Thor messing with his plans. Because lord knows if I was the God of Lies and was able to easily trick Thor into handing his entire kingdom into my hands, moving it into the lair of the worst villain Midguard has ever had, and successfully walked around in the corpse of his beloved for about a year, I CERTAINLY would reveal my hand in so crude a fashion as to send a fleet of ****ing robots to kill him. And in due fashion, Thor barely shows up in the fight. The man of the hour is Valstagg, who finally does something besides be the butt of fat jokes. It's an epic moment for ol' Valstagg the Mighty and he probably hasn't had a moment that cool in, well, ever. The art for this moment is well paced and it was executed well. It was the highlight of the $4 issue.

The rest, though, is a bit middling. Blake is blasted by the robots before he can summon Thor, and, hey, turns out his mortal form is crippled again and needs the "staff" to walk. Wow, that was worth four bucks. And nothing has been resolved. Thor is still exiled. Asgard in Oklahoma is still empty, and Sif and the Warrior's Three are still working in the diner. Doom and Loki are still laughing it up in Latveria, chopping up Asgardians for experimental purposes. I suppose with SIEGE what it is, there was no way JMS could have done a proper finale, and to be fair this issue was better than some of his last. But a run has to seem like it accomplished something, and outside of the first few issues, it accomplished little besides make Thor a guest star in his own book, make Balder look like a gutless, clueless putz, and make Loki even more invincible and unbeatable than the Joker in THE DARK KNIGHT. There were many solid and even epic moments, but even the worst issue of the Pak & Van Lente HERCULES outdoes this run by a mile. JMS stretched an 8-9 issue story way too far and than has left a proper resolution to the next guy; passing the buck as it were. The fact that Gillen is willing to gracelessly kill off Kelda in his first issue perhaps vents the frustration of being tasked by some hot shot writer to finish HIS story for him. I tear into Joss Whedon a lot for his slow-shipping runs on RUNAWAYS and ASTONISHING X-MEN, but to give credit, he always finished his runs.

THOR's an alright book. Nothing in it is unreadable or horrendous. But it will likely become very overrated, and it proves that the only A-List writer that Marvel has that actually delivers A-grade work on a regular basis is Ed Brubaker. Jeph Loeb has quickly devolved into a clueless hack who seems to care more about a monthly deadline than writing a cohesive, readable story, and monthly produces overpriced work that flat-out insults the intelligence of the fans. Bendis has been an overrated hack for several years now, incapable of writing any character differently from the next and needing 7 issues to make the most mundane event happen, and treating every mundane, no brainer story twist as some Agatha Christy style ****ing masterpiece (all while writing characters poorly and killing off ones he doesn't like for shock value). Mark Millar waxes and wanes between "fun popcorn blockbuster" to "overrated preachy explosive Socialist drivel". Finally, JMS, who is DC's problem now, still has quite a lot of talent and a flair for dialogue and scene writing, but he drags things out too bloody long and then fails to really deliver the goods when it counts. THOR should have been a big event style book, but instead it was an over-budget high school play that took entirely too long to get to a middling conclusion. Not only is INCREDIBLE HERCULES a better Marvel god title, but THOR offers it little competition. I'll be fair and give Gillen a chance to wrap things up, but the writer after him may have to be terrific for me to remain. I've "fallen out of love" with this book a great deal within the last year.

A reprint of Thor's debut story and a 5 page preview that could easily be found on the internet are needed to pad out the price to $4. The next issue of THOR returns to $3, because apparently Gillen isn't worth the extra buck, or Marvel knows they can't suck an extra dollar from his readers. At any rate, JMS leaves the title he relaunched, and I won't miss him. Or at least, I hope I don't. Don't screw up, Gillen.

Dread, why the need to attack the writers in this fashion? Sure, I may not like a comic, but the personal attacks seem far too harsh. I don't like the direction of Hulk, too...but, I don't think I'd go so far as to label Loeb a "hack." Also, while there have been stories by Bendis that I've hated (my classic example is his take on Secret Wars), again the word "hack" is just taking your reviews a bit too far on a personal level.
 
Eh, I'm sure they can wipe away their tears with their stacks of cash. ;)
 
ok, some more reviews:

Ms. Marvel #47: Now, this issue was a complete surprise. Spidey and Ms. Marvel go on a date, and there's lots of funny stuff in this issue. (I loved the "gotta hit the little Peter room.") Plus, I loved Ms. Marvel trying to explain how she came back to life. I still don't understand that...and, it's clear we might never understand how that exactly worked. My only complaint...and, this might fall under the category of "don't take your comics too seriously," but, why would Peter talk about his spider sense in front of the bad guys while he's not disguised. Really good issue!

Giant-Size Thor #1: Good last issue by Stracyznski. It seems to be a common thing now to leave a cliffhanger for the next writer (Bendis did it to Brubaker, and then Brubaker did it to Diggle). I have no problem with that, as the results have been kind of nice. (I liked the preview for the next issue...it's gonna be Doom as I like him!) My only complaint..I didn't need to see Volstagg's man-boobs, especially a full page of them!!!

New Mutants #7: Another good comic by Marvel! I'm enjoying Necrosha much more than Nation X....and, this might be the best single issue of the new New Mutants comic yet. Lots of great action (the Hellion getting cut in half was awesome), and I hope we get to see the return of Doug Ramsey and Warlock permanently. This is a classic X-team..unlike the next reviewed title, which has just as many characters I can care less about as there are that I like. Of the three books I just reviewed, I would nominate this as the best of the bunch.

Uncanny X-Men #517: I'm a big Fraction fan; but, I'm just not feeling this. This group of X-Men feel as thrown together as Bendis' first New Avengers. I cannot fathom why Namor and Magneto would be in this group. I don't like seeing Emma Frost's powers get greatly reduced...for that matter, also seeing Magneto so drained without hardly being in the battle...plus, one of my biggest comic peeves...having someone introduce a character, like Predator X, being so hard to defeat in the past, only to have that character not be anywhere near as threatening again.

It almost feels like this comic is along the same lines as Hulk...where you are suppose to suspend your disbelief and just go along for the ride. Sure, it's not exactly THAT extreme...but, I have a bit of a tough time wrapping my head around some of the things I mentioned above. It's not my cup of tea..I'd sooner have another helping of Necrosha X!
 
Eh, I'm sure they can wipe away their tears with their stacks of cash. ;)

Yeah, I know they can give a rat's pattootie about our criticisms; but, I find it takes away from a person's review when it resorts to personal attacks. Also, I know in the past I was upset when people would personally attack Dread from the types of reviews he posts...and, I many times felt, "if you can do it better, go ahead." I know my reviews can come nowhere near the style he does..and, while some may not like it, other's do very much. It's all personal preference, just like our reviews.
 
Yeah, I know they can give a rat's pattootie about our criticisms; but, I find it takes away from a person's review when it resorts to personal attacks. Also, I know in the past I was upset when people would personally attack Dread from the types of reviews he posts...and, I many times felt, "if you can do it better, go ahead." I know my reviews can come nowhere near the style he does..and, while some may not like it, other's do very much. It's all personal preference, just like our reviews.
Fair enough. But I've never bought the bolded argument, personally. I don't need to paint like Picasso to have an opinion on his work. In the interest of common courtesy, though, it is nice to stay away from personal attacks and focus on the work.
 
I still rather enjoyed this -- maybe because, as a newbie, I don't recognize if things are off about our heroes. I am not a purist by any means. I still thought it was a great tale (though I was bummed to see see Bill get killed off) and I am sad to see the creative change. I can only hope that the next arc will as good, or beter yet, come out on time. This book is still better than some of the others I read, including Uncanny X-Men which is currently boring me to tears.

The general consensus on UXM under Fraction is astonishment that a writer who does as well on INVINCIBLE IRON MAN or IMMORTAL IRON FIST, among others, struggles to deliver quality on UNCANNY X-MEN. Some have blamed it on the X-Men always being a task to write; others blame the broken premise since M-Day, which has caused many writers pause; even Brubaker avoided it for a year.

No, THOR GIANT SIZED FINALE isn't dreadful. I just didn't consider it that great. Had some good moments, though. Volstagg stole the issue. JMS' run is definitely one that petered out in the home stretch, like many of his runs have. Only this one didn't take many years.

Nothing's off about anyone, really. Dread hates how stupid he considers the Asgardians to be, but they've always been that way. I personally think it has more to do with the complexities of the gods' immortality and familial ties and the absence of a strong, unifying, traditional leader since Odin's death.

Not really the Asgardians, but Thor and Balder in particular. Thor carries himself as being wise and experienced, but I swear he is dumber than Hercules. Balder is supposed to be a warrior and he can't defend himself against three random Asgardian grunts, he needs a dying Will to save him? And that isn't getting into Loki making him his pawn with as much ease as plugging in a toaster oven. I just don't think JMS wrote them well or figured out how to write his story without making them look dumber than they should.

Matt Fraction, in his few THOR one-shots, wrote a better Thor; heck in THOR: GOD SIZE when something slightly mysterious happens in New Asgard, Thor rightly suspects Loki immediately (even though in that case Loki was innocent); had Fraction even co-wrote these 17 issues, they probably wouldn't have had Thor and Balder look like such chumps. I am sure Greg Pak and Fred Van Lente wouldn't have, too. So the blame falls on JMS' execution.

Hardly fair to fault Marvel's portrayal for what was always described as an unavoidable fate in the myths. And Marvel's version of the Asgardians fought pretty hard against Ragnarok anyway. Odin developed a couple schemes to completely avert it. They just never worked because, once again, it's a literally unavoidable fate. Hence the word "fate."

Anyway, they're not destined for anything anymore in the Marvel universe. Ragnarok came and went and this is supposed to be the Asgardians' new lease on life. That's ironically weakened Thor's position as leader; where Odin was comfortably traditional and stuck to the old ways, Thor was far too radical and attempted to introduce too many changes at once. He's inadvertently responsible for a lot of the trouble Asgard's found itself in.

Which is, again, JMS' handling. Why did Thor think his people would prefer a desert to snow? Like it is hard to find open, snowy, ice covered lands on Earth. Why did Thor sit on his rear doing nothing for his people, yet doing nothing visibly in Oklahoma? Right, JMS again. All we heard is "Thor is out doing his works", but did we see even one? No. Fraction, in his SECRET WAR mini where Donald Blake helps deliver a baby, showed more of it than JMS did. His Thor was quickly a Thor who sat on his rear doing nothing, reacting to things that came up with no attempt to discover a root cause. Akin to a buffalo that grazes in a field, and never moves, no matter how many arrows fly into it. JMS also quickly turned Thor into a guest star in his own book. Johnny Guitar in AVENGERS: THE INITIATIVE did more in half an issue than Thor did in these last two.

Dread, why the need to attack the writers in this fashion? Sure, I may not like a comic, but the personal attacks seem far too harsh. I don't like the direction of Hulk, too...but, I don't think I'd go so far as to label Loeb a "hack." Also, while there have been stories by Bendis that I've hated (my classic example is his take on Secret Wars), again the word "hack" is just taking your reviews a bit too far on a personal level.

I don't see calling someone you feel is a bad writer a "hack" is a "personal attack". For me a personal attack would be, "_____ is stupid, fat, and bald". I don't say anything of the sort there. A hack has long been a slang term for a bad writer. For me, my worship of a writer for past good work ends after 3-5 years if they haven't produced something above mediocrity since.

Loeb is a good example. He's written some great stuff in the past, albeit a lot of it alongside Tim Sale, who may as well have been a co-plotter (much as John Bryne helped co-plot some Claremont stories back in his UXM days). He's overcome a horrible tragedy. But name me one story he wrote since a Tim Sale collaboration that was above average, or wasn't dire rubbish? HULK and ULTIMATUM in particular have an aura of "this will do for the rubes" that is frankly insulting. For $3.99 an issue? You have got to be kidding me. If simply mailing in scripts by deadline is enough to be a master, then yes, Loeb is in his prime. But if not, then he's been a few years from his prime.

Yeah, I know they can give a rat's pattootie about our criticisms; but, I find it takes away from a person's review when it resorts to personal attacks. Also, I know in the past I was upset when people would personally attack Dread from the types of reviews he posts...and, I many times felt, "if you can do it better, go ahead." I know my reviews can come nowhere near the style he does..and, while some may not like it, other's do very much. It's all personal preference, just like our reviews.

Your short and blunt reviews are cool by me. I always like reading 'em. :up:

THOR GIANT SIZE FINALE just gets me in a sour mood because it didn't end well, and JMS' THOR has been overrated. I've never read Gillen before, but he can easily get in my good graces if he picks up this run well. JMS' runs seem to always end in shambles, a near cliffhanger, or incomplete, and this is simply another example. No, I personally don't think he is as "bad" a writer as Loeb or Bendis can be, but he's no better an executing a finale.

I mean, I have torn into Joss Whedon a lot, but even some of his stuff wasn't as disappointing for me. Pithy dialogue works as good wrapping paper I guess. :p
 
Last edited:
I don't see calling someone you feel is a bad writer a "hack" is a "personal attack". For me a personal attack would be, "_____ is stupid, fat, and bald". I don't say anything of the sort there. A hack has long been a slang term for a bad writer. For me, my worship of a writer for past good work ends after 3-5 years if they haven't produced something above mediocrity since.

Loeb is a good example. He's written some great stuff in the past, albeit a lot of it alongside Tim Sale, who may as well have been a co-plotter (much as John Bryne helped co-plot some Claremont stories back in his UXM days). He's overcome a horrible tragedy. But name me one story he wrote since a Tim Sale collaboration that was above average, or wasn't dire rubbish? HULK and ULTIMATUM in particular have an aura of "this will do for the rubes" that is frankly insulting. For $3.99 an issue? You have got to be kidding me. If simply mailing in scripts by deadline is enough to be a master, then yes, Loeb is in his prime. But if not, then he's been a few years from his prime.

Thing is... when you criticise a writer's skill... when that's his profession... it is a personal attack. But not only that, why is a person a hack if YOU don't like his work? For example, you've made no secret of your disdain for Bendis's writing, while I actually find I like it the majority of the time. And while you and I don't care for Loeb's Hulk, there's obviously a lot of fans out there who do. Their being bad writers are your opinion... that by no means makes them hacks. By your definition... if not for Immortal Iron Fist... to me, Brubaker would be a hack. His writing just does nothing for me, and he seems like he has only two stories. Someone from the past comes back from the dead... and Go! Or Someone dies... and Go! He doesn't do anything for me... what a Hack!

And I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I like your reviews just fine, but I can see what others are talking about.


Oh... and I liked Loeb's Batman: Hush arc and that was without Sale. It was the first time Batman's comic ever caught my attention, and he held it from issue first to issue last... so that's one example. Though I will agree, his Hulk and his Wolverine was horrible.
 
Thing is... when you criticise a writer's skill... when that's his profession... it is a personal attack. But not only that, why is a person a hack if YOU don't like his work? For example, you've made no secret of your disdain for Bendis's writing, while I actually find I like it the majority of the time. And while you and I don't care for Loeb's Hulk, there's obviously a lot of fans out there who do. Their being bad writers are your opinion... that by no means makes them hacks. By your definition... if not for Immortal Iron Fist... to me, Brubaker would be a hack. His writing just does nothing for me, and he seems like he has only two stories. Someone from the past comes back from the dead... and Go! Or Someone dies... and Go! He doesn't do anything for me... what a Hack!

And I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I like your reviews just fine, but I can see what others are talking about.

I don't see what I do as being drastically different than many other posters. Most are far less gracious with criticizing a writer.

Loeb, JMS, Bendis, they're the A-List writers, the ones who are the top stars of the biz right now, and at least for me at best the quality of their work is horribly inconsistent. In fact I see patterns of inept writing cropping up again and again and again and part of me thinks success has ruined them. Too many editors saying, "sir, yes sir" and no one saying, "You're talented, but this bit of draft here, doesn't work at all." Bendis needs to hear more than "No, you can't use Magneto". He needs to hear, "You are in a rut, and you need to rediscover your strengths, because you write everyone from Spider-Man to Galactus exactly the same, and have for five years."

Oh... and I liked Loeb's Batman: Hush arc and that was without Sale. It was the first time Batman's comic ever caught my attention, and he held it from issue first to issue last... so that's one example. Though I will agree, his Hulk and his Wolverine was horrible.

I tried the first issue or so of HUSH, and it wasn't bad. It wasn't very good, though. Loeb, if anything, tries to play to the strength of his artist, which usually means "story in which _____ can draw cool stuff", and HUSH was basically an excuse to have Jim Lee draw everyone related to Batman, from villains to allies. Considering that Red Hood would come in later, the whole Jason Todd tease proved to be horribly short sighted, at least editorially. HUSH also was suddenly a long time ago. After ULTIMATUM (which, I might add, Mark Millar and Bendis are virtually ignoring beyond minor details for their Ultimate relaunches) and HULK, Loeb would have to work his way back UP to HUSH level. Remember; HUSH under Loeb and Lee ended in 2003. That was SIX YEARS AGO, and it proves my point.

Too many people in the biz replace nostalgia for quality. Fans, retailers, and editors. Just because someone was awesome ten or six or five years ago doesn't mean they still are on that level. And it can be sad realizing that, and it can be easier just to shrug and go, "they'll come back, this is just trying new things." And than the stretch of mediocrity goes on, and on, and on. There is a fear of change, of new, of innovation, and that includes hailing someone for things they did a half decade ago or more. That isn't how the real world works. In the real world, you have to keep up production, or someone else will. Comics are a cottage industry, and I do fear how long that can last. The manga ONE PIECE vol. 56 sold almost 3-4 million copies in Japan; no comic of anything in North America has sold that well in years, nor will anything sell that well again.

Not every writer has that lapse, though. Which is what separates the average from the good, and the good from the great, and the great from the legendary.

Plus...I have to write rather vanilla for EXAMINER. Half the fun of typing reviews here when I don't have to is so I can use first person, and cuss sometimes. ;)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I guess slang-wise it has been, but that's a pretty bad double use of the word :csad:

What if I was calling them cab drivers? :o

On the plus side, it does warm my heart seeing a line from the "TURTLES FOREVER" animated movie in TheCorpulent's signature. :up:
 
If memory serves, "hack" as applied to professional creative-types refers to someone who's given up doing whatever they do for artistic reasons and does it solely for a paycheck.
 
If memory serves, a hack as applied to professional creative-types refers to someone who's given up pursuing their art and creates solely for a paycheck.

Yeah, that's pretty much the modern meaning of the word. I think the original meaning was a writer who was paid specifically to produce low quality work at an incredible rate (like the pulp writers who managed to pump out 3-4 full novels a year). Though I've heard some zoom it even more to refer to works by well known artists which they did solely for the paycheck even though that work is pretty much exceptional, for example, most of Poe's prose work
 
[cultural ******]Or like Vince doing Aquaman on Entourage to gain enough money and fame to pursue the smaller projects he was really passionate about![/cultural ******] :awesome:
 
I honestly have no idea what the **** you are talking about, but sounds about right :awesome:
 
I didnt get that Kelda was necc dead from that preview..maybe so, but not for certain.
 
Thing is... when you criticise a writer's skill... when that's his profession... it is a personal attack. But not only that, why is a person a hack if YOU don't like his work? For example, you've made no secret of your disdain for Bendis's writing, while I actually find I like it the majority of the time. And while you and I don't care for Loeb's Hulk, there's obviously a lot of fans out there who do. Their being bad writers are your opinion... that by no means makes them hacks. By your definition... if not for Immortal Iron Fist... to me, Brubaker would be a hack. His writing just does nothing for me, and he seems like he has only two stories. Someone from the past comes back from the dead... and Go! Or Someone dies... and Go! He doesn't do anything for me... what a Hack!

And I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I like your reviews just fine, but I can see what others are talking about.


Oh... and I liked Loeb's Batman: Hush arc and that was without Sale. It was the first time Batman's comic ever caught my attention, and he held it from issue first to issue last... so that's one example. Though I will agree, his Hulk and his Wolverine was horrible.

Yeah, JH kind of summed it up for me with his response. I do find the use of the word "hack" as a personal attack. If you came into my job, giving a review of my work, and used the word "hack," I would be rather hacked off.

Loeb's last few major works for Marvel haven't been something I might have particularily enjoyed; but, if I go back a bit farther, I liked very much what he did with the 5-issue mini, Fallen Son. Plus, I'm still eagerly awaiting his Captain America White to eventually come out.

As for Bendis, there is still quite a few things by him that I've enjoyed. Powers just came out again, and while the first issue of that storyline wasn't great, it was still pretty good. (And, it usually takes me a couple issues of a Powers storyline for me to get into it.) Also, his current Spider-Woman is very, very good.


I think artists have it so much easier than writers. If you are a good artist, you can keep that going pretty much forever. But, as a writer, you have to constantly come up with fresh new ideas. Imagine if our jobs required us to be somewhat original in all our approaches to everything? For that matter, name a writer who's been around for a long time and still produces stuff of the quality for which he became famous?

I can go through my years of comic reading and see how my favorite writers during the years just don't produce like they used to. Byrne on Fantastic Four...my favorite F4 stories ever. Frank Miller on so many things, especially Daredevil, was fantastic. Claremont is a classic example. His X-Men stories is what I tend to compare all new ones with.

This isn't even with comics. Stephen King used to chug out great novel after great novel...then, sometime after Rose Madder, it just seemed to change. His books can still entertain; but, will we ever see something like It, Christine, or The Stand?

I'm not sure if I got off on a tangent...but, it's just to say calling someone a hack could be applied to most comic writers...especially the ones who have had such an amazing past...as a bit harsh.
 
If memory serves, "hack" as applied to professional creative-types refers to someone who's given up doing whatever they do for artistic reasons and does it solely for a paycheck.

Yeah. There are far worse things that I have seen posters call writers they didn't care for on SHH and they got far less flack than I seem to have gotten this week. I'll concede that bringing up Bendis, Loeb, and Millar in a review about something JMS wrote was a bit of a tangent, but at this point I am looping him in with them; A-List writers that, at least for me, don't deliver in the end, and haven't since Bush was re-elected, at least.

I didn't think we had to apologize for opinions. ;)

I didnt get that Kelda was necc dead from that preview..maybe so, but not for certain.

That's true; she may be alive. Asgardians are hearty, after all. It was an assumption based on the preview. Dr. Doom was a bit rough.

Yeah, JH kind of summed it up for me with his response. I do find the use of the word "hack" as a personal attack. If you came into my job, giving a review of my work, and used the word "hack," I would be rather hacked off.

Loeb's last few major works for Marvel haven't been something I might have particularily enjoyed; but, if I go back a bit farther, I liked very much what he did with the 5-issue mini, Fallen Son. Plus, I'm still eagerly awaiting his Captain America White to eventually come out.

As for Bendis, there is still quite a few things by him that I've enjoyed. Powers just came out again, and while the first issue of that storyline wasn't great, it was still pretty good. (And, it usually takes me a couple issues of a Powers storyline for me to get into it.) Also, his current Spider-Woman is very, very good.


I think artists have it so much easier than writers. If you are a good artist, you can keep that going pretty much forever. But, as a writer, you have to constantly come up with fresh new ideas. Imagine if our jobs required us to be somewhat original in all our approaches to everything? For that matter, name a writer who's been around for a long time and still produces stuff of the quality for which he became famous?

I can go through my years of comic reading and see how my favorite writers during the years just don't produce like they used to. Byrne on Fantastic Four...my favorite F4 stories ever. Frank Miller on so many things, especially Daredevil, was fantastic. Claremont is a classic example. His X-Men stories is what I tend to compare all new ones with.

This isn't even with comics. Stephen King used to chug out great novel after great novel...then, sometime after Rose Madder, it just seemed to change. His books can still entertain; but, will we ever see something like It, Christine, or The Stand?

I'm not sure if I got off on a tangent...but, it's just to say calling someone a hack could be applied to most comic writers...especially the ones who have had such an amazing past...as a bit harsh.

At the very least, you've defended Loeb by picking something he has written in 2007, as opposed to 5-6 years ago like most people do.

I wasn't aware that "hack" was now considered a personal attack on a creator. I thought that was limited to mocking their physical appearance or whatnot, which I never do. Heck, I have heard some low class insults about Loeb's personal tragedy on some anti-ULTIMATUM forums online that I would never even whisper. That said, some writers at least for me just always seem to turn in the same type of work every month, that suffers from the same flaws. I feel they have become insulated by Marvel's yes-man editors and thus feel they are akin to many reptiles - have no reason to evolve. JMS has ended stories as he has ended his THOR run before - unresolved, almost on a cliffhanger, and in a corner. Several times. JMS still gets rep for BABYLON 5, a TV show that ended 11 years ago. After a time, I feel any creator can't simply sit on their fame from past successes. I feel it is wrong to endlessly forgive flawed, poorly thought out, arrogant, and/or downright shoddy new work simply because they rocked the house 5-25 years ago. No other medium in the history of existence works that way.

John Byrne hasn't written comics in years and he was being pushed out to pasture by Marvel and DC about 5-7 years ago. Chris Claremont has been shoved onto little side projects that sell so low, I honestly believe Marvel would be better off simply paying him royalties for his X-Men work and letting him retire with dignity. When was the last time anyone mentioned new work by Frank Miller without mocking it for how much of self-parody it has become? Did anyone really cheer for DARK KNIGHT RETURNS 2? Stephen King is at this point where he has to be thankful that Hollywood is so stifled for imagination that they'd make a movie around notes for something he wrote on a diner napkin somewhere. "WHERE IS THE CATSUP?, based on a short story by Stephen King", coming to IMAX near you. :o

In no way are their past works diminished. That said, all of those aforementioned writers haven't produced anything remotely decent or popular in a good, long while, and the comic industry, at least the big two, has essentially tried to push them to pasture. Few fans have objected. And if either writes something new, should I or other fans not judge that work for what it is, or should we go, "Well, this can't be rubbish, because it was written by the guy who wrote FF/X-MEN/DAREDEVIL before I was even born".

I understand the power of nostalgia, and I respect history. Even if I would argue that endlessly trying to emulate Claremont's run on the X-Men has doomed them as a franchise for a good, long time now, especially since Grant Morrison's run has all but been erased from continuity. Stories in any medium need to grow, need to change. New ideas, and sometimes new blood, must be encouraged, and those who are successes in quality need to be embraced no matter how well or poorly they sell. Much as I won't call a story by an A-List writer gold unless it is gold, and if I see endless stories from them not five, ten, twenty years ago, but here and now that I believe stink and stink for the same reasons every time, then I'll call it as I see it. Period. I didn't think "hack" had become the F word.

Not every writer can write things for twenty years and always deliver the same high quality. That is why there are more than one or two writers in existence, and why there are many places where their talents may be refreshed and renewed with vigor if they enter a rut in one area or with one medium. No one ever cut me a break judging my recent work because of how I graduated from college two years ago, or what I did in junior high. I have to actually not stink at my job NOW. I judge writers I pay $3-$5 a month to read about on equal terms.

At any rate, now that "hack" is considered a personal slur word on Hype, what new words are considered taboo now? Do I have to apologize for not liking some A-List writer's story? Do I have to ignore trends I see? Man, it's not like I dissed PET AVENGERS again or something. :whatever:
 
I wasn't aware that "hack" was now considered a personal attack on a creator. I thought that was limited to mocking their physical appearance or whatnot

Personal attacks definitely are not limited to just physical appearance and personal life. If someone goes up to a writer and flatout says, 'Your work is **** and you couldn't write yourself out of a paper bag if God Almighty himself possessed your hand', that's a personal attack.

Not to say I think you're saying that at all, just using that as an example. I mostly disagree with the context you're using hack, since I think it's entirely possible for a person to be a complete hack and still produce decent-good work. But I know the meaning of the word has shifted for internet and 'urban' slang, so whatever

This isn't even with comics. Stephen King used to chug out great novel after great novel...then, sometime after Rose Madder, it just seemed to change. His books can still entertain; but, will we ever see something like It, Christine, or The Stand?.

Heh, my favorite King books came out well after those.:p
 
Last edited:
I didnt get that Kelda was necc dead from that preview..maybe so, but not for certain.
I suppose she could still be alive. Wishful thinking on my part that she bit the dust.

Oh, I finally bought the rest of my comics yesterday. Dark Avengers: Ares was great. I like the undertone of camaraderie, and it was cool to see Kyknos return. The "teeth of the HYDRA" was especially badass. :hehe:
 
Heh, my favorite King books came out well after those.:p

I know I liked the Dark Tower books, especially Wizards and Glass. As for his other novels after Rose Madder, probably my favorite was Desperation. (I did not like the companion novel, The Regulators, though.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"