I don't understand what is so hard about things like this. They aren't your or my creations, they aren't holy texts to not dare be questioned... just talk about them. They "often don't go well" because people are unable to objectively discuss things even if they are near and dear to them or feel that if they disagree it means they have to shout it from the rooftops and get angry. No one here has listed things they hate.
However, instead of going into prolonged detail about each book my approach was to list some of mine, and some brief insight as to why, and then if other's also mention a title, then discuss it at more length which is how I took the OPs question. If anything so far this thread has shown a fair bit of consensus if anything which is the exact opposite of some flame-fest.
The topic might not be for everyone, there are hundreds of others here that are, pass on by. For people that are able to discuss and chat about the topic without any panty twists or anger, I enjoy hearing and discussing things like this. There is no right or wrong and no one to try to sway or convince.
As far as Preacher I have to agree with @LibraryBoy I think it is because I do read a lot of more adult and mature themed stuff (comics and non) that some things seen as adult/mature more in the shocking or mature-for-comics can come off as a bit more contrived or juvenile. (not always for sure). This isn't new for comics where shock value has been a selling point, so again it really isn't controversial but when a story does it really well and seamlessly and with merit it just *is* and works.
I'm good with well-written critiques of work. However, pejoratives bring out the knee-jerk reactionary in me.
I don't understand what is so hard about things like this. They aren't your or my creations, they aren't holy texts to not dare be questioned...
Never said any of that, really- that anything is holy or critically unapproachable. All work can be discussed or questioned. I'm just saying, for me, if people were putting as much effort into deconstructing why a particular, famous work didn't connect for them as you just put into why my forum comment didn't work for you, then it would be a more interesting discussion. That's all.
Just my take-- that I think the challenge is not simply to list highly praised works that aren't to your taste, but rather to delve into why. (Which many people are already doing- I never said that everyone is just making lists). Because without context or criticism, then it does just become hating, and may as well just be a list of ice cream flavors you don't like. (And I mean that not in the "your heart is filled with the emotion of hate" way, but in more of the "the Internet is filled with hating on things" way).
(And that threads about negativity tend to go to negative, personal-attack places fast... but, hey, I will be glad to be proven wrong on that one. Time will tell.)
Take it not as a desire for a thread like this to not exist, but rather a challenge that a thread like this should be one where people go deeper. Especially since comic fans hating comics can easily become Internet self-parody when it doesn't get into reasoning out why. That is why, for me, the standard of discussion is even higher when it comes to rejecting an acclaimed work than praising one-- because that is what keeps the discussion above the knee-jerk.
I'm a slobbering and unapologetic Frank Miller fanboy. If he had a hand in it, I'll check it out. Elektra:Assassin is comic-book excellence.
Having said that, Ronin completely left me dry. I could see where he was going with it and what he was trying to do with it, but there were no characters I found myself investing myself in, which is usually a hallmark of his books for me. I *wanted* to enjoy it, but truthfully, it just never clicked with me.
Crossed never really clicked with me, either. At some point Ennis has become famous for being Ennis, and that started with The Boys and has now moved into this area. He's become the M. Night Shyamalan of comics for me, in that I know something's coming, I expect it, and unfortunately that's become the be-all end-all of his books for me lately. He's never really progressed beyond Preacher. I'm told his Battlefield books are excellent, though. I may have to check those out to see if I need to eat a big plate of crow (which I'd gladly do...I *do* enjoy Ennis, don't get me wrong!)
Maus is a big offender. I've read it three times. I don't see it being high literature, or a well told story.
I don't see Maus as a book for comic readers, and I don't think geeks made it what it is. Maus and Persepolis are the kind of books that get the attention of NPR listeners and professors, and I think those folks are just genuinely surprised that there are comics that effectively deal with serious topics.
My big letdown was Miller's 300. I felt that it was a series of big pretty pictures that told a dinky story.
I know Hush isn't liked among many, so I recently re-read it (Absolute style) and I think the art is is stunning, and the story is great. This was the book that brought me back to comics, so I'm obviously biased. I also think the Hush: Unwrapped version is awesome to see, like a smaller Artist's Edition.
With all the Before Watchmen stuff I re-read the original series (second read ever). While I can appreciate the story and what the creators do in terms of the mirroring of pages, etc, I just felt it drags on forever. I know I'm the minority, but it wouldn't be in my top 10 all time list.
I know I'll get disliked for this one...Arkham Asylum by Morrison. I have tried reading it twice and could not get into it. To me it had elements of Hush where you see tons of his rogues gallery that I thought I would enjoy, but just didn't. Even listening to the CGS episode I was surprised how much everyone really enjoyed it. I wasn't really a huge fan of the art, and I thought the story was pretty bland. Again I know I'm in the 1% that doesn't like this story much.
That is what I'm saying, I just stated that it might be less chaotic to wait to see some consensus and then discuss rather than just post a wall-o-text for each I listed say in my initial reply and others doing the same which won't result in discussion but lists. I'd rather see posts on topic than about the topic or why/why not it has merit which is what devolves these things and that was my point in my last comment, pass by (not you but in general) to other threads if this isn't your thing rather than post how it isn't your thing or whatever which craps it up.
I wish I knew or had read Spider-man Reign to discuss the OPs choice, I am interested in reading it now just because of this thread and what seems like a bizarre tale :) I'll take on some of my thoughts on Batman Year One... The art I have less of an issue with now than in the past and my feelings have evolved a bit on that front, I enjoy it and there are some great panels in there I have come to appreciate more with time. The story though of Batman's origin is not that spectacular or riveting to me in any of the hundreds of retellings. For a character with such a simple origin it always amuses me that it gets retold the most, there are some long-standing characters with very complex origins and they never get touched on to the point entire generations have no idea what the actual origin is, even fans. As for Batman/Bruce's early glimpses of life and trials I actually enjoy the book a fair bit, the Gordon portion and that side of it (which it is more of a tale about) is the weak point. There is just nothing there to make me really care and corrupt police, etc. is just a little too cliche. The love/affair, the little too superhuman skills, and the ending all leave me empty. I never got sucked into things because for every time it does draw me in there is an opposing thing that draws me right back out. Which takes me to my real gripe here, the writing. It is stilted and cliche and an attempt at Noir which just doesn't stack up as far as anything of any real quality. Genders are portrayed very plainly and in Miller fashion, Miller never gets nuance and characterization to any depth for me in almost anything he writes. It lacks a thread or plot line to really tie it together and finish in a satisfying way.
That is where I think my real disappointment comes into play. I like the setup for the story, the elements are all there, but instead of being molded into a really great and gripping tale it is more like a Seinfeld episode where a bunch of things are happening at once but without even a little smirk or payoff at the end when they all, or mostly all, converge. I think it could have been a lot more, a LOT more with some pretty simple and minor additions/changes. I even think it could have been done in the same number of issues.
@Nick I love the Hush Unwrapped edition and it actually changed my mind more on the story overall actually. I'm OK with loving some things more for the art and this is probably one of my more prime examples. I have the Unwrapped edition on my shelf and not the original.
Arkham Asylum is actually my #1 favorite Batman story. I can *completely* understand why it wouldn't be for others though with no problem. I love the art. It is as close to my own style that I have seen in comics aside from a few specific artists and I know that is definitely part of it. I love the writing of it though actually as much as the art (which is huge for me and especially for Morrison) I find it intensely satisfying. I love the trade version with the extras showing the thumbnails and script and I have re-read that trade more than I think any I own. I only wish it had continued on or someone else took the same formula and ran with it, I want to go back to that Batman world and feel more than any other. I've chased numerous Batman books that seemed like they'd be close on an art or writing only side but none have ever left me as satisfied when I flip the last page.
Walking Dead MouseGuard Sandman Fables Any Jeph Loeb book Any DC 'Crisis' BS...including the biggie 'Crisis on Infinite Earths'.
oh...there are lots more for me.
I avoided Sandman more various reasons so I have no opinion on that series to date. Walking Dead, Mouse Guard, Fables & DC "Crisis" titles have been solid for me (except for Final Crisis that will make your head hurt big time). As for Jeph Loeb he is a mixed bag, great at DC & sucks big elephant balls at Marvel. Walking Dead hit its high point at issue #48 & again around #84. You can't have a series last (nearly) 100 issues and it all of them be gangbusters great or in Fables case (nearly) 120+ issues in the same manner with issue #75 bringing the end to the series first overall arc which is almost universally praised by long term readers. Everyone has different things they dislike about this or that series, writer X needs to go away & do something else or artist y needs a different career plan.
I enjoy Bendis on Daredevil & Ultimate Spider-Man (when it was Peter Parker Spider-Man in the tights as for his Avengers titles, I can't wait until he off the books so someone else can take a different direction with them. Grant Morrison on Batman & Tony Daniel's art was the real "RIP" for me for a while but I enjoy him on Action Comics vol. 2. People panned Perez on Superman vol. 3 but I was delighted by it after the WONK to Grounded mess over the years. So if it isn't your bag that is okay, there is something else out there for you, old trades, reread your issues, indies or new relunched titles from the big two that can rekindle your enjoyment of comics.
Matthew
PS Mouse Guard is a delight to read. I just wish the collections would come out sooner.
I think Maus is a bonafide classic. I have never read a more gut-wrenching, emotionally exhausting comic. I think it displays, with brilliance, the power of a cartoon to confer deep ideas.
Fables is my favorite, hands down.
Sandman got me back into comics after the 90's wasteland... Multi-layered and intelligent. Too intelligent at times, but at least I had to work a little to read them.
My big "over-rated" offender is All Star Superman... I love Superman, Silver age DC, etc. , but I just don't get it... I enjoyed it, every issue, up till the last one, which fell completely flat, in my opinion.
I generally love Alan Moore, but also don't get the praise for Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow... I like the bits at the end, with Supes reflecting on his place in the universe, but leading up to that, it's just a lot of tearing down and ripping apart the Silver and Bronze age Superman myths. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but anyone can kill off and write endings for things, when they know they don't have to find a way to write themselves back out of it.
I also agree with the over-ratedness of Strangers in Paradise... I can understand how people are attracted to the art and even the writing, but I read several collections, and just don't know what it's trying to be.
Yeah... I think it is. Moore's story is so good, but really, it's just a bunch of good ideas, strung together, without much of a real "story"... that giant squid still makes me shake my head.
Now, Gibbons' art is a different story... I think not enough people appreciate the genius of how he told Moore's story... his visual language, pacing, "rhyming', and composition is utterly incredible. Within the context of Watchmen, he's often overlooked.
I'm a slobbering and unapologetic Frank Miller fanboy. If he had a hand in it, I'll check it out. Elektra:Assassin is comic-book excellence.
Having said that, Ronin completely left me dry. I could see where he was going with it and what he was trying to do with it, but there were no characters I found myself investing myself in, which is usually a hallmark of his books for me. I *wanted* to enjoy it, but truthfully, it just never clicked with me.
Crossed never really clicked with me, either. At some point Ennis has become famous for being Ennis, and that started with The Boys and has now moved into this area. He's become the M. Night Shyamalan of comics for me, in that I know something's coming, I expect it, and unfortunately that's become the be-all end-all of his books for me lately. He's never really progressed beyond Preacher. I'm told his Battlefield books are excellent, though. I may have to check those out to see if I need to eat a big plate of crow (which I'd gladly do...I *do* enjoy Ennis, don't get me wrong!)
Ronin to me was a far better experiment than Elektra Assassin... I mean it was so good that Cartoon Network ripped it for Samurai Jack. ;-)
Comparing Ennis to M.Night...
Ennis 'Dan Dare' was excellent and a complete revelation for me. Someone who loves the character and when i first heard that Ennis was writing Dan Dare I had visions of Ennis having gerbils shoved up Mekons arse and Dan buggering Digby. But what Ennis did with Dare was excellent...it had a very old school feel to it with modern sensibilities.
The problem with the Ennis books is that because of Preacher/ The Boys/ Crossed...you expect that. I bought the first trade of the Boys and haven't read anything else since because it was so one-note and I'd seen the concept done better in 'Marsahll law'. But he is capable of writing very moving stories with a lot more depth.
Preacher is an amazing series but...it did wander around for a bit that, for me, threw the story off...like Ennis stretched it. It was the whole Jesse as Sherriff milarkey arc.
Ennis has for me progressed beyond Preacher. His Punisher Max series was absolutely amazing. How he took a one-note character and made you care for what happens in those books is incredible.
His 'War Stories' and 'Battler Briton' are excellent reads.
'Crossed' for me was the book that the soap opera 'Walking Dead' should be. It was genuinely scary...while 'The Walking Dead' was...yeah...we got zombies...yeah buy tell me how you feel about so and so and lets recap etc...oh...and I was watching Watership Down and now i want a 'General Woundwort' type character thrown into the mix.
I think it's a fair comment that if you've read 'Crossed' and 'The Boys' to see Ennis as a one trick pony...but if you read his work as a whole...it's not the case.
Ennis himself for me could be listed here... he has always had a slight flaw IMO, and that is that if he is writing a character I already know, has some back story, and I care about, I enjoy the work. If it is a new character/series they tend to feel too anonymous and distant and I can't get into his work because I just don't care about anything happening usually because little to no development was done. Story-wise they are always perfectly fine, but having a reason to read and care tends to lack for me.
I actually plan to re-read Preacher again since even when I listed it here I realized it has been a while since I have last and I'm interested to see what, if anything, changes. The funny thing is this thread will probably make me read more stuff than the most positive of positive discussions. :)
TheMarvelMan! Glad to know I can form an independent thought. I'm going to assume that is complementary. You definately made me laugh out loud though, so I guess that means I don't have to punch you in the mouth.
Yes, that was a compliment (although it wasn't a complement). I'm glad that you don't have to punch me in the mouth. That would've sucked...
Hush is sort of a mixed bag for me. I think it is definitely over-rated, and it's not a very good mystery (what with only one real suspect and an out-of-left-field red herring that is, in itself, a red herring) but it's a half-decent "let's get out all our toys and make 'em fight" exercise. And I like that Riddler ends up getting quite a big part considering how he's initially dismissed.
Another book that everybody and their brother seemed to like that I didn't: Blankets. Now I fully admit that as an object of art, it is a thing of beauty. Gorgeous artwork that is presented well... yeah, there's always room in life for that. But the story just didn't grab me at all, very much in the same vein as hundreds of YA novels that I felt actually covered the material better.
And, admittedly, there was very little in my own adolescence that reflected the experiences of the characters, so I had a hard time grasping on to anything or anyone. Not that your own life needs to resemble that of the characters in a book to relate to them, but still, their lives were removed enough from my own that nothing looked or felt familiar enough for me to generate interest. The relationships, the traumas, the religious undercurrent running through their lives... that wasn't there for me. Where as in a novel like The Perks of Being a Wallflower, I didn't live that kid's life, either, but but stuff like the quiet observation of (rather than participation in) life, the suburban ennui, the trying to fit in but not knowing how all hit home for me the way Blankets seemed to for a lot of other people.
"Infantile?" Simple, maybe. Steeped in verisimilitude, sure. But "infantile?"
Nope.
Stop embarrassing yourself, Mike.
I'm hardly embarrassing myself. Ripping off old serials isn't great writing. Stevens was hardly a good writer. He wrote something serviceable to fit the art. For the praise it gets, yes, infantile. He could have done a better job. He could have hired someone to write it for him. It is absurd at someone so talented pay so little attention to the book as a whole. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine.
I think part of why these threads often don't go well is that there is a difference between parsing why you might not dig something that is so widely praised. Which is, I would say, an exercise in critical thinking and I think what Cory was asking for in his original post.
As opposed to just listing things you hate, or finding over the top ways to dump on the things you hate but others dared to like. Which is an exercise in joining in on the Internet being the Internet, where even aesthetics have rights and wrongs.
(Not that it is against any rule- comic talk is comic talk even when it is hating. Just my personal two cents, for what it is worth.)
It has been my experience that this thread is a perfect example of what this forum is.
Blankets was a book that I more respected being told than had any attachment to but it is on my personal top 100 shelf. The art and lettering is excellent and I genuinely felt the strongest amount of despair ever with the molestation part than anything I have ever read. It affected me majorly. I am not Christian but I do have family that is heavily into the same stuff and to the same level and while I don't directly relate I see a lot of the same thing around me at times and can. I even once dated a pastor's daughter for a pretty long time, and anyone that knows me knows that is pretty insane, and it was probably around the same age as Craig is there so again maybe it is just some of the parallels that drew me in even tangentially. I love a real story and I love anything done with such style and class as Blankets and I'm more glad that a book like that is made at all than almost anything.
The great thing about this thread and about the forums in general is that I find that I have more in common with some posters that I previously I thought I didn't.
for example, when it comes to the show and here on the forum...I find I have more in common with Mike Gallagher. Something that when Mike started on the show...I didn't think so.
Another book that everybody and their brother seemed to like that I didn't: Blankets. Now I fully admit that as an object of art, it is a thing of beauty. Gorgeous artwork that is presented well... yeah, there's always room in life for that. But the story just didn't grab me at all, very much in the same vein as hundreds of YA novels that I felt actually covered the material better.
And, admittedly, there was very little in my own adolescence that reflected the experiences of the characters, so I had a hard time grasping on to anything or anyone. Not that your own life needs to resemble that of the characters in a book to relate to them, but still, their lives were removed enough from my own that nothing looked or felt familiar enough for me to generate interest. The relationships, the traumas, the religious undercurrent running through their lives... that wasn't there for me. Where as in a novel like The Perks of Being a Wallflower, I didn't live that kid's life, either, but but stuff like the quiet observation of (rather than participation in) life, the suburban ennui, the trying to fit in but not knowing how all hit home for me the way Blankets seemed to for a lot of other people.
I agree on 'Blankets'. This perfectly sums up how i feel about said book...courtesy of Johnny Ryan.
Another book that everybody and their brother seemed to like that I didn't: Blankets. Now I fully admit that as an object of art, it is a thing of beauty. Gorgeous artwork that is presented well... yeah, there's always room in life for that. But the story just didn't grab me at all, very much in the same vein as hundreds of YA novels that I felt actually covered the material better.
And, admittedly, there was very little in my own adolescence that reflected the experiences of the characters, so I had a hard time grasping on to anything or anyone. Not that your own life needs to resemble that of the characters in a book to relate to them, but still, their lives were removed enough from my own that nothing looked or felt familiar enough for me to generate interest. The relationships, the traumas, the religious undercurrent running through their lives... that wasn't there for me. Where as in a novel like The Perks of Being a Wallflower, I didn't live that kid's life, either, but but stuff like the quiet observation of (rather than participation in) life, the suburban ennui, the trying to fit in but not knowing how all hit home for me the way Blankets seemed to for a lot of other people.
I also didn't like Blankets. The art was not that appealing to me. And the story felt over dramatized.
I'm hardly embarrassing myself. Ripping off old serials isn't great writing. Stevens was hardly a good writer. He wrote something serviceable to fit the art. For the praise it gets, yes, infantile. He could have done a better job. He could have hired someone to write it for him. It is absurd at someone so talented pay so little attention to the book as a whole. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine.
I agree with flint on walking dead also.
Whew. You had me going. I thought you were evaluating something you had read in its entirety. The first arc, produced on the fly, is certainly flawed (as one would expect, given that it was being made up as Stevens went along).
However, on the second arc, Cliff's New York Adventure, Stevens did just what you suggest, and brought in screenwriters Danny Bilson and Paul DeMeo to co-write the series, which is certainly not "ripping off old serials." It's a fun romp through Cliff's backstory, with portions that play in the same sandbox that prose authors Glenn David Gold (Carter Beats the Devil) and Paul Malmont (The Chinatown Deathcloud Peril) would later explore. The arc also advances the emotional beats of Cliff and Betty's relationship, making Betty much less of a cipher.
Oh, and to join in the bashing, Mark Gruenwald's Captain America run is truly over-rated (and it actually qualifies as infantile). Ugh, what a mess. Gruenwald was a terrific editor, able to coax wonderful work out of his writers and artists, but was an awful writer.
Oh, and to join in the bashing, Mark Gruenwald's Captain America run is truly over-rated (and it actually qualifies as infantile). Ugh, what a mess. Gruenwald was a terrific editor, able to coax wonderful work out of his writers and artists, but was an awful writer.
Get Back To Work Monkey! You have lots of leather catsuits and Derbys to draw! No opinion holding for you! Draw, Ink, draw, ink. Learn to use watercolors. Draw, ink...
Oh, and to join in the bashing, Mark Gruenwald's Captain America run is truly over-rated (and it actually qualifies as infantile). Ugh, what a mess. Gruenwald was a terrific editor, able to coax wonderful work out of his writers and artists, but was an awful writer.
I have to agree...he started his run by doing yet another "Hero is replaced by someone unworthy" which was overused by the time he did it, and I always found his work on the series to be standard :"hero vs villain of the month" at best, and some of it was just plain clumsy. Cap gets rid of the Super Soldier serum because he's SO against drugs?
I keep being told I missed something big, but every story arc I read comes off as a rushed fill-in. Is there something I'm missing?
Over-rated comics? First, thanks for using the hyphen. It's wonderful when people use their educations!
Second, I really believe that there is no such thing. Why? Because art is entirely subjective, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And thus, one should never label a piece of art as "receiving more respect than it deserves" (AKA is over rated) because that would suggest that a particular piece of art has an unequivocally exact and intrinsic value... but no piece of art does... because it's all entirely subjective.
Hence, Random73's confusion about other works of art that:
"...other geeks seem to think are phenomenal that I just don't get..."
is PERFECTLY reasonable and ENTIRELY predictable. Why? Because Random73 has the ability to generate an independent thought. And thus, the "reputation" of a particular piece of art should be, and seems to be, completely irrelevant to Random73. Good! That's the way that it should be! Anyone who "tries to like something" because all the cool kids like it is hopelessly insecure (at best).
But the FUN part in all of this is EXACTLY what SolitaireRose wrote to start this thread: "...to discuss WHY we feel they aren't as good as people believe" or, to put a positive spin of things, to describe why we like something as much as we do. Let's emphasize the positive in art! Isn't it more fun to describe why we love something instead of listing why we dislike something?
Although I disagree strongly with SolyRose in that it is possible to "convince us that we are wrong." There is no such thing as being "wrong" about art. My opinion about my individual likes and dislikes will NEVER be wrong, ever. Nobody will ever "convince" me that the Mona Lisa is priceless. I think it's ugly and boring... and I will always reserve my right to judge art for myself, thanks.
So, no, I have no interest in changing SolyRose's mind about Spider-Man: Reign (which I also disliked immensely), but I would like to suggest that the assumption of the post (i.e., that each piece of art has an undeniable intrinsic value) is in error. Simply stated, Soly and I both dislike "Reign," whereas the folks at "Comics Should Be Good" seem to love it, and nobody is correct, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and no amount of discussion will ever change that reality.
I think a thread like this should have the disagree button turned off. If you're saying that a book is over-rated, it means you think it's not as good as the majority thinks it is. Obviously, people are going to disagree with you. What's the point of stating it?
It's also worth pointing out that the words "over-rated" and "bad" are two very different words. I think Alan Moore is over-rated. Does that mean I think he's a bad writer? Not by any stretch of the imagination. I think he's a great writer and a very intelligent person with a lot of integrity (even if I don't always agree with him, I have a huge amount of respect for his ability to take a stance that can often cost him money and stick to it). I just don't think he's AS good as the majority think he is.
Anyway, back to the point of this post. I don't agree that there is no such thing. Mostly because I don't think "over-rated" is an objective term. If I read something and state that it's "great" and "fun," other people might read the same thing and think it's garbage. Does that mean that the concept of a book that's great and fun doesn't exist? No, it means that I think it's great and fun, but somebody else thinks it's toilet paper. Over-rated is a subjective term and as such has the same amount of meaning as any other subjective terms like good, bad, great, horrible, attractive, ugly, too hot, too cold, too big, too small, etc. The only real problem comes from people who don't realize that things like this are subjective and get offended when someone criticizes something that means a lot to them or look down on someone for liking something that they consider to be garbage. Yes, there are objectives. Objectively speaking, Rob Liefeld has significant anatomy problems (not to pick on him, but he's the best example of something that you can objectively consider to have deficiencies). Does that mean there's nothing appealing about his art? To most of us, the answer is yes, judging by the posts on here, but he has his fans. And if there was a thread on here for most under-rated comics, somebody could mention him and they wouldn't be wrong. That person would be making a subjective statement, which by definition can't be wrong. If one was to argue that Liefeld has great anatomy or that Moore does not know how to structure a story, you could objectively argue against them, but if someone says that Youngblood #1 is more entertaining than all of Watchmen, you can't. You can think they're crazy, but you can't think they're wrong.
That may have gotten way off from the point that I was trying to make. I'm not sure, but I hope it at least made sense anyway.
Comments
Just my take-- that I think the challenge is not simply to list highly praised works that aren't to your taste, but rather to delve into why. (Which many people are already doing- I never said that everyone is just making lists). Because without context or criticism, then it does just become hating, and may as well just be a list of ice cream flavors you don't like. (And I mean that not in the "your heart is filled with the emotion of hate" way, but in more of the "the Internet is filled with hating on things" way).
(And that threads about negativity tend to go to negative, personal-attack places fast... but, hey, I will be glad to be proven wrong on that one. Time will tell.)
Take it not as a desire for a thread like this to not exist, but rather a challenge that a thread like this should be one where people go deeper. Especially since comic fans hating comics can easily become Internet self-parody when it doesn't get into reasoning out why. That is why, for me, the standard of discussion is even higher when it comes to rejecting an acclaimed work than praising one-- because that is what keeps the discussion above the knee-jerk.
Otherwise, is it not just a list of "meh"s?
Having said that, Ronin completely left me dry. I could see where he was going with it and what he was trying to do with it, but there were no characters I found myself investing myself in, which is usually a hallmark of his books for me. I *wanted* to enjoy it, but truthfully, it just never clicked with me.
Crossed never really clicked with me, either. At some point Ennis has become famous for being Ennis, and that started with The Boys and has now moved into this area. He's become the M. Night Shyamalan of comics for me, in that I know something's coming, I expect it, and unfortunately that's become the be-all end-all of his books for me lately. He's never really progressed beyond Preacher. I'm told his Battlefield books are excellent, though. I may have to check those out to see if I need to eat a big plate of crow (which I'd gladly do...I *do* enjoy Ennis, don't get me wrong!)
My big letdown was Miller's 300. I felt that it was a series of big pretty pictures that told a dinky story.
With all the Before Watchmen stuff I re-read the original series (second read ever). While I can appreciate the story and what the creators do in terms of the mirroring of pages, etc, I just felt it drags on forever. I know I'm the minority, but it wouldn't be in my top 10 all time list.
I know I'll get disliked for this one...Arkham Asylum by Morrison. I have tried reading it twice and could not get into it. To me it had elements of Hush where you see tons of his rogues gallery that I thought I would enjoy, but just didn't. Even listening to the CGS episode I was surprised how much everyone really enjoyed it. I wasn't really a huge fan of the art, and I thought the story was pretty bland. Again I know I'm in the 1% that doesn't like this story much.
I wish I knew or had read Spider-man Reign to discuss the OPs choice, I am interested in reading it now just because of this thread and what seems like a bizarre tale :) I'll take on some of my thoughts on Batman Year One... The art I have less of an issue with now than in the past and my feelings have evolved a bit on that front, I enjoy it and there are some great panels in there I have come to appreciate more with time. The story though of Batman's origin is not that spectacular or riveting to me in any of the hundreds of retellings. For a character with such a simple origin it always amuses me that it gets retold the most, there are some long-standing characters with very complex origins and they never get touched on to the point entire generations have no idea what the actual origin is, even fans. As for Batman/Bruce's early glimpses of life and trials I actually enjoy the book a fair bit, the Gordon portion and that side of it (which it is more of a tale about) is the weak point. There is just nothing there to make me really care and corrupt police, etc. is just a little too cliche. The love/affair, the little too superhuman skills, and the ending all leave me empty. I never got sucked into things because for every time it does draw me in there is an opposing thing that draws me right back out. Which takes me to my real gripe here, the writing. It is stilted and cliche and an attempt at Noir which just doesn't stack up as far as anything of any real quality. Genders are portrayed very plainly and in Miller fashion, Miller never gets nuance and characterization to any depth for me in almost anything he writes. It lacks a thread or plot line to really tie it together and finish in a satisfying way.
That is where I think my real disappointment comes into play. I like the setup for the story, the elements are all there, but instead of being molded into a really great and gripping tale it is more like a Seinfeld episode where a bunch of things are happening at once but without even a little smirk or payoff at the end when they all, or mostly all, converge. I think it could have been a lot more, a LOT more with some pretty simple and minor additions/changes. I even think it could have been done in the same number of issues.
Arkham Asylum is actually my #1 favorite Batman story. I can *completely* understand why it wouldn't be for others though with no problem. I love the art. It is as close to my own style that I have seen in comics aside from a few specific artists and I know that is definitely part of it. I love the writing of it though actually as much as the art (which is huge for me and especially for Morrison) I find it intensely satisfying. I love the trade version with the extras showing the thumbnails and script and I have re-read that trade more than I think any I own. I only wish it had continued on or someone else took the same formula and ran with it, I want to go back to that Batman world and feel more than any other. I've chased numerous Batman books that seemed like they'd be close on an art or writing only side but none have ever left me as satisfied when I flip the last page.
I enjoy Bendis on Daredevil & Ultimate Spider-Man (when it was Peter Parker Spider-Man in the tights as for his Avengers titles, I can't wait until he off the books so someone else can take a different direction with them. Grant Morrison on Batman & Tony Daniel's art was the real "RIP" for me for a while but I enjoy him on Action Comics vol. 2. People panned Perez on Superman vol. 3 but I was delighted by it after the WONK to Grounded mess over the years. So if it isn't your bag that is okay, there is something else out there for you, old trades, reread your issues, indies or new relunched titles from the big two that can rekindle your enjoyment of comics.
Matthew
PS
Mouse Guard is a delight to read. I just wish the collections would come out sooner.
^:)^
Fables is my favorite, hands down.
Sandman got me back into comics after the 90's wasteland... Multi-layered and intelligent. Too intelligent at times, but at least I had to work a little to read them.
My big "over-rated" offender is All Star Superman... I love Superman, Silver age DC, etc. , but I just don't get it... I enjoyed it, every issue, up till the last one, which fell completely flat, in my opinion.
I generally love Alan Moore, but also don't get the praise for Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow... I like the bits at the end, with Supes reflecting on his place in the universe, but leading up to that, it's just a lot of tearing down and ripping apart the Silver and Bronze age Superman myths. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but anyone can kill off and write endings for things, when they know they don't have to find a way to write themselves back out of it.
I also agree with the over-ratedness of Strangers in Paradise... I can understand how people are attracted to the art and even the writing, but I read several collections, and just don't know what it's trying to be.
Yeah... I think it is. Moore's story is so good, but really, it's just a bunch of good ideas, strung together, without much of a real "story"... that giant squid still makes me shake my head.
Now, Gibbons' art is a different story... I think not enough people appreciate the genius of how he told Moore's story... his visual language, pacing, "rhyming', and composition is utterly incredible. Within the context of Watchmen, he's often overlooked.
Comparing Ennis to M.Night...
Ennis 'Dan Dare' was excellent and a complete revelation for me. Someone who loves the character and when i first heard that Ennis was writing Dan Dare I had visions of Ennis having gerbils shoved up Mekons arse and Dan buggering Digby. But what Ennis did with Dare was excellent...it had a very old school feel to it with modern sensibilities.
The problem with the Ennis books is that because of Preacher/ The Boys/ Crossed...you expect that. I bought the first trade of the Boys and haven't read anything else since because it was so one-note and I'd seen the concept done better in 'Marsahll law'. But he is capable of writing very moving stories with a lot more depth.
Preacher is an amazing series but...it did wander around for a bit that, for me, threw the story off...like Ennis stretched it. It was the whole Jesse as Sherriff milarkey arc.
Ennis has for me progressed beyond Preacher. His Punisher Max series was absolutely amazing. How he took a one-note character and made you care for what happens in those books is incredible.
His 'War Stories' and 'Battler Briton' are excellent reads.
'Crossed' for me was the book that the soap opera 'Walking Dead' should be. It was genuinely scary...while 'The Walking Dead' was...yeah...we got zombies...yeah buy tell me how you feel about so and so and lets recap etc...oh...and I was watching Watership Down and now i want a 'General Woundwort' type character thrown into the mix.
I think it's a fair comment that if you've read 'Crossed' and 'The Boys' to see Ennis as a one trick pony...but if you read his work as a whole...it's not the case.
Now...don't get me started on Loeb and Bendis!!!
Have to agree with Steve.
I actually plan to re-read Preacher again since even when I listed it here I realized it has been a while since I have last and I'm interested to see what, if anything, changes. The funny thing is this thread will probably make me read more stuff than the most positive of positive discussions. :)
And, admittedly, there was very little in my own adolescence that reflected the experiences of the characters, so I had a hard time grasping on to anything or anyone. Not that your own life needs to resemble that of the characters in a book to relate to them, but still, their lives were removed enough from my own that nothing looked or felt familiar enough for me to generate interest. The relationships, the traumas, the religious undercurrent running through their lives... that wasn't there for me. Where as in a novel like The Perks of Being a Wallflower, I didn't live that kid's life, either, but but stuff like the quiet observation of (rather than participation in) life, the suburban ennui, the trying to fit in but not knowing how all hit home for me the way Blankets seemed to for a lot of other people.
For the praise it gets, yes, infantile. He could have done a better job. He could have hired someone to write it for him. It is absurd at someone so talented pay so little attention to the book as a whole.
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine.
I agree with flint on walking dead also.
for example, when it comes to the show and here on the forum...I find I have more in common with Mike Gallagher. Something that when Mike started on the show...I didn't think so.
Make sense? or am I talking the usually bullshit?
Oh...And I've always loved The David.
I also didn't like Blankets. The art was not that appealing to me. And the story felt over dramatized.
However, on the second arc, Cliff's New York Adventure, Stevens did just what you suggest, and brought in screenwriters Danny Bilson and Paul DeMeo to co-write the series, which is certainly not "ripping off old serials." It's a fun romp through Cliff's backstory, with portions that play in the same sandbox that prose authors Glenn David Gold (Carter Beats the Devil) and Paul Malmont (The Chinatown Deathcloud Peril) would later explore. The arc also advances the emotional beats of Cliff and Betty's relationship, making Betty much less of a cipher.
Give it a try. It's a very fun read. :)
Starman
Fables
All over-rated but still enjoyable. I'm not saying they are bad but I'm not sure they deserve the level of praise they get.
I keep being told I missed something big, but every story arc I read comes off as a rushed fill-in. Is there something I'm missing?
It's also worth pointing out that the words "over-rated" and "bad" are two very different words. I think Alan Moore is over-rated. Does that mean I think he's a bad writer? Not by any stretch of the imagination. I think he's a great writer and a very intelligent person with a lot of integrity (even if I don't always agree with him, I have a huge amount of respect for his ability to take a stance that can often cost him money and stick to it). I just don't think he's AS good as the majority think he is.
Anyway, back to the point of this post. I don't agree that there is no such thing. Mostly because I don't think "over-rated" is an objective term. If I read something and state that it's "great" and "fun," other people might read the same thing and think it's garbage. Does that mean that the concept of a book that's great and fun doesn't exist? No, it means that I think it's great and fun, but somebody else thinks it's toilet paper. Over-rated is a subjective term and as such has the same amount of meaning as any other subjective terms like good, bad, great, horrible, attractive, ugly, too hot, too cold, too big, too small, etc. The only real problem comes from people who don't realize that things like this are subjective and get offended when someone criticizes something that means a lot to them or look down on someone for liking something that they consider to be garbage. Yes, there are objectives. Objectively speaking, Rob Liefeld has significant anatomy problems (not to pick on him, but he's the best example of something that you can objectively consider to have deficiencies). Does that mean there's nothing appealing about his art? To most of us, the answer is yes, judging by the posts on here, but he has his fans. And if there was a thread on here for most under-rated comics, somebody could mention him and they wouldn't be wrong. That person would be making a subjective statement, which by definition can't be wrong. If one was to argue that Liefeld has great anatomy or that Moore does not know how to structure a story, you could objectively argue against them, but if someone says that Youngblood #1 is more entertaining than all of Watchmen, you can't. You can think they're crazy, but you can't think they're wrong.
That may have gotten way off from the point that I was trying to make. I'm not sure, but I hope it at least made sense anyway.