When I read any Grant Morrison, I just assume he's written three times as many pages and we get every 3rd one printed in the comic. Using that logic, New X-Men and Final Crisis still did not make sense, but I got to imagine two-thirds of each issue, and frankly my imagination, while very skewed, was better than Grant Morrison. I need to listen to the Final Crisis podcast companion from here, but I need to catch up with about 1095 episodes of CGS before I reach that point.
Mouse Guard gives me a strong "Dark Crystal" vibe, probably because of the understated characters and trying so hard to move above survival to make their little world a better place. It's just a very intimate story.
I think we just have differing definitions of over-rated. So I decided to look it up.
o·ver·rate (vr-rt) tr.v. o·ver·rat·ed, o·ver·rat·ing, o·ver·rates To overestimate the merits of; rate too highly.
So by that definition, I still stand by what I said. I don't think very many people overestimate the merits of mid-late 90s X-Men books.
Sigh. Why are we still having this conversation, man? You brought out a dictionary.
So, Kyle let me get this right. In regards to this opinion statement "I think the X-men were overrated for about a decade" your plan is to invalidate my opinion my arguing I didn't really understand the words that I was using? So, you pulled out a dictionary to demonstrate where you think my error lies. So let me try again.
I think the merits of the X-men were rated too highly for about a decade. Even if YOU think they weren't rated very highly at all. I still think it was too high. I think their merits were overestimated.
I stand by my opinion statement and my understanding of the English language.
What on earth would even prompt you to mince words in that discussion? Why would you tell somebody their subjective opinion is wrong and then go out of your way to demonstrate why?
I went back and re-read Hush (the regular colored trade) and it actually got slotted onto my top 100 shelf next to the unwrapped edition (I'm still counting it as one). I shouldn't keep enjoying it more and more with time but I do. I'm not a big Lee fan, I'm not a big fan of his colorist ever, I'm not a fan of how Catwoman is drawn in a lot of panels, but I think this read-through was the most I ever enjoyed it. I still marvel at some of the backgrounds in the book and they managed to write some characters in a way that I actually dig them when I don't in most other contexts and there are a few times where I genuinely laughed and enjoyed myself. The watercolor pages/flashbacks too I'm a sucker for entirely.
I have a stack of things to re-read from this thread alone now, and I hope a few more surprise me as much as this re-read did. Still probably a bit over-rated in the grand scheme of things but it is a top Batman story for me.
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.
How can you say that about the run that gave us Cap-Wolf? Blasphemy!
And Cap acting broken up over killing a Flag-Smasher mook.
Sin City: Frank Miller's own special brand of violent mysogny doesn't really do it for me. Y the Last Man: I've been trying so hard to like this, but the main character and his stupid monkey throw up their obnoxiousness barrier at every turn. It's a really interesting idea, that I felt floundered around, a lot. Persepolis: This is definitely worth a read, and I like the book a lot. I just don't really see why it was written as a graphic novel, to me at least, the visual aspect did very little to enhance the story. Love and Rockets, and all and any spin offs therein: I have never grasped the appeal of these comics. Jarring use of magic realism, inaccesible characters and boring stories.
i didn't care for the first arc in Brubaker's Winter Soldier. I was excited and really wanted to like it but...just couldn't get into it. I'm calling it over-rated because i swallowed the hype and bought the book up but it tasted kind of bland to me. i won't be picking up the 2nd arc.
Sin City: Frank Miller's own special brand of violent mysogny doesn't really do it for me. Y the Last Man: I've been trying so hard to like this, but the main character and his stupid monkey throw up their obnoxiousness barrier at every turn. It's a really interesting idea, that I felt floundered around, a lot. Persepolis: This is definitely worth a read, and I like the book a lot. I just don't really see why it was written as a graphic novel, to me at least, the visual aspect did very little to enhance the story. Love and Rockets, and all and any spin offs therein: I have never grasped the appeal of these comics. Jarring use of magic realism, inaccesible characters and boring stories.
I loved Sin City comics, but I would have to put the Sin City movie onto my overrated list. And since that was basically a direct adaptation of the comics (to the point where I believe they had no script and just used the comics as storyboards), it caused me to rethink my liking of the comics a bit. I still like the Sin City comics, but maybe not quite as much.
And on a semi-related note, I remember when the Sin City comics were first coming out, I knew a lot of people who didn't like them. In fact, I thought I was in the minority of people that did like them. I think it was basically because he wasn't re-doing Batman and Daredevil but was actually trying something different. Was that opinion widespread or did I just have poor choices of friends?
Sin City: Frank Miller's own special brand of violent mysogny doesn't really do it for me. Y the Last Man: I've been trying so hard to like this, but the main character and his stupid monkey throw up their obnoxiousness barrier at every turn. It's a really interesting idea, that I felt floundered around, a lot. Persepolis: This is definitely worth a read, and I like the book a lot. I just don't really see why it was written as a graphic novel, to me at least, the visual aspect did very little to enhance the story. Love and Rockets, and all and any spin offs therein: I have never grasped the appeal of these comics. Jarring use of magic realism, inaccesible characters and boring stories.
I loved Sin City comics, but I would have to put the Sin City movie onto my overrated list. And since that was basically a direct adaptation of the comics (to the point where I believe they had no script and just used the comics as storyboards), it caused me to rethink my liking of the comics a bit. I still like the Sin City comics, but maybe not quite as much.
And on a semi-related note, I remember when the Sin City comics were first coming out, I knew a lot of people who didn't like them. In fact, I thought I was in the minority of people that did like them. I think it was basically because he wasn't re-doing Batman and Daredevil but was actually trying something different. Was that opinion widespread or did I just have poor choices of friends?
In my circle of comic reading friends,most of them didn't like Sin City. Mainly cause it was black/white. Plus at that time they were all about the Image guys.
But does that hype translate to people over analysing that thing (comic, book, movie, whatever) until they find a concept inside it, whether it is barely there or the hypist is superimposing onto the thing, and that becomes highly rated or pseudo-highly rate?
It also leads to this question. Who hypes and who rates an item? Are hypists only the advertisers and the raters the consumers or is there crossover?
I am not a huge fan of Superman. Really the only Superman stories I have enjoyed are the ones that Alan Moore wrote. But I had so many people telling me that ASS was great. So I got all the issues. Now I do enjoy some of Morrison's work. But ASS was not good.
But does that hype translate to people over analysing that thing (comic, book, movie, whatever) until they find a concept inside it, whether it is barely there or the hypist is superimposing onto the thing, and that becomes highly rated or pseudo-highly rate?
It also leads to this question. Who hypes and who rates an item? Are hypists only the advertisers and the raters the consumers or is there crossover?
Over analysis, probably yes. Hypist (is that a word?) probably yes.
The first thing that comes to mind is Y The Last Man. I enjoyed it quite a bit, but people speak of it as if it was on Sandman's level or something. To me, it's quite a bit inferior to Preacher, even. I just didn't think Y was all that terribly interesting or that it had an awful lot to say. It had a cool opening concept, which... in my opinion... just wasn't as profound as it was "supposed" to be, given how the story was told or how fans reacted to it. Again, I enjoyed Y but I think it is definitely overrated. Maybe people were overly impressed with it if it was the first Vertigo title they read or something?
Secondly, the Byrne-illustrated issues of Uncanny X-Men. Some great stuff in there, but to me there's no reason to single these issues out. Cockrum did ALMOST just as good a job in terms of art, and as far as world-building went Cockrum was more important than Byrne in that Cockrum designed the damn characters before even Claremont got on board. It's also on record that Cockrum had to sit Byrne down and teach him how to draw Wolverine, because early on Byrne had no idea about who the character was, what facial expressions he should have, or how his costume worked. Further, Paul Smith's run was where Uncanny really started its sales jump. Yes, both the Dark Phoenix Saga and Days of Future Past happened under Byrne's tenure, and those are great stories which he contributed to. But his importance is simply overrated. I get the strong impression that people mention him just because it's trendy to diss Claremont.
Secondly, the Byrne-illustrated issues of Uncanny X-Men. Some great stuff in there, but to me there's no reason to single these issues out. Cockrum did ALMOST just as good a job in terms of art, and as far as world-building went Cockrum was more important than Byrne in that Cockrum designed the damn characters before even Claremont got on board. It's also on record that Cockrum had to sit Byrne down and teach him how to draw Wolverine, because early on Byrne had no idea about who the character was, what facial expressions he should have, or how his costume worked. Further, Paul Smith's run was where Uncanny really started its sales jump. Yes, both the Dark Phoenix Saga and Days of Future Past happened under Byrne's tenure, and those are great stories which he contributed to. But his importance is simply overrated. I get the strong impression that people mention him just because it's trendy to diss Claremont.
The story that caused the sales of Uncanny to take off was the Phoenix saga. Shooter has said so on a number of occasions, and Byrne has said more than once that when he left Uncanny, it was climbing sales charts. By #150, it was Marvel's best-selling book, so you can say it topped the charts when Cockrum was on the book.
I think Byrne gets a lot of credit, as the book climbed quickly in the growing direct market, but didn't catch up in the newsstand market until the end of his term. It's also pretty hard for us to understand the sales effect Byrne had in the 80's. He could jump sales on a book just by doing a cover, and if he came onto a book, sales in the direct market would jump around 40k (which is where the phrase "The Byrne 40000" came from.
I think his leaving books in the middle of stories that shook things up is what killed his fanbase. Leaving Superman after he had Superman kill, leaving the Avengers after having the Vision torn apart and the Scarlet Witch a villain created a MASSIVE backlash that I feel continues to this day.
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...
Ah but you see, the problem is that this is a forum for geeks who are incredibly passionate about the comic books they love. To call into question certain titles is exactly like questioning a holy text. People can be very precious about what they hold dear. It's a red rag to a bull and you cant expect people to 'pass it by', especially when we have the extra security of behing hidden behind a computer where we can say stuff that we wouldnt say in person if we were having the same conversation face to face with a stranger. :)>-
I forgot to throw in Y: The Last Man in my top whatever. That series has terrible artwork even though it has some of the best covers. I miss the days when cover artists were the same as interior artists. Secondly, I think the people that liked Lost like Y because they're kind of the same. Y threw out one question with four possible answers but copped out by not giving an actual answer to the question. There were also weak plots like Amazons, a ninja, pirates. It's a horrible book. Great idea, poor execution.
I would agree with Y the last man. I would not say the art is terrible but it is not mind blowing. The story is interesting and the comic is a fun read but hardly one of the best books ever.
I forgot to throw in Y: The Last Man in my top whatever. That series has terrible artwork even though it has some of the best covers. I miss the days when cover artists were the same as interior artists. Secondly, I think the people that liked Lost like Y because they're kind of the same. Y threw out one question with four possible answers but copped out by not giving an actual answer to the question. There were also weak plots like Amazons, a ninja, pirates. It's a horrible book. Great idea, poor execution.
Actually, Pia Guerra’s artwork was quite strong. You can say she wasn’t flashy, but her anatomy was great, her characters were easy to tell apart (a difficult task with a cast so large made up nearly entirely of one gender), and—most importantly—her storytelling was excellent. Her work reminds me a bit of Steve Dillon’s, but a little looser. You may not like her style, but it was certainly not “terrible.” Also, they did give the actual answer, you just didn’t find out what it was until near the end of the story.
I nearly dropped Y after reading the first issue. And the second issue. And the third issue. And the fourth. There was something about it that kept me hanging on though. Eventually I realized I really liked the book, despite the initial problems I had with it, and it ended up being one of my favorites. I think it was mostly the characters that drew me in. The characters drove the book more than the plot, and it was more about the journey than the destination. But, like I said, I can certainly understand people not liking it.
Actually, Pia Guerra’s artwork was quite strong. You can say she wasn’t flashy, but her anatomy was great, her characters were easy to tell apart (a difficult task with a cast so large made up nearly entirely of one gender), and—most importantly—her storytelling was excellent. Her work reminds me a bit of Steve Dillon’s, but a little looser. You may not like her style, but it was certainly not “terrible.” Also, they did give the actual answer, you just didn’t find out what it was until near the end of the story.
I nearly dropped Y after reading the first issue. And the second issue. And the third issue. And the fourth. There was something about it that kept me hanging on though. Eventually I realized I really liked the book, despite the initial problems I had with it, and it ended up being one of my favorites. I think it was mostly the characters that drew me in. The characters drove the book more than the plot, and it was more about the journey than the destination. But, like I said, I can certainly understand people not liking it.
We must have seen two different things in her artwork. Everyone looked the same. It didn't matter if you were a 50 year old woman, 16 year old, black or Hispanic. They all had that same, thin, tall, white, young look on them where they were like late teens/early 20s and except for 355 they all had the same hair length and style. Even Yorick looked like that. Out of all of the things wrong with that, women would totally have different hair styles. None of them looked older or younger, weathered, short, fat, scarred except for the missing boob, etc. That's why I say the artwork was terrible. Now, because the covers had all those details, they looked how things should have been in the book.
Y explained why Yorick and the monkey lived, but it did not explain the reason for why the men died. I wouldn't have cared if it was like Groundhog Day. But because the entire story revolved around the why with 4(?) plots, it should have ended by explaining why and picking one. That's just bad storytelling because it'll piss off the audience like it pissed me off.
Yes, most of the women were thin. Makes perfect sense to me in a world were there is no longer any fast food, you generally have to walk to get where you want to go, you have to physically work to survive, etc. Perhaps Guerra didn’t vary facial structure as much as she should have, but there are cases of characters with high cheekbones or longer faces, or older, wrinkled faces (Yorick’s mom, a couple of the scientists, etc.) And, yes, most of the women had long, straight hair. Makes perfect sense in a world where you’re not going to the hair salon every two weeks. But there were plenty of exceptions. Here are some of the main cast:
Pissing off readers doesn’t necessarily equate to bad storytelling. In fact, most writers would tell you that if their work didn’t piss at least one person off, they weren’t doing they’re job properly. I can understand you not liking the story because it didn’t give you the answers you were looking for. Personally, I don’t think discovering the cause of deaths was the point of the series. Like I said, I saw the story as being more about the journey than the destination, so the answers that were provided and implied were enough for me.
Comments
o·ver·rate (vr-rt)
tr.v. o·ver·rat·ed, o·ver·rat·ing, o·ver·rates
To overestimate the merits of; rate too highly.
So by that definition, I still stand by what I said. I don't think very many people overestimate the merits of mid-late 90s X-Men books.
So, Kyle let me get this right. In regards to this opinion statement "I think the X-men were overrated for about a decade" your plan is to invalidate my opinion my arguing I didn't really understand the words that I was using? So, you pulled out a dictionary to demonstrate where you think my error lies. So let me try again.
I think the merits of the X-men were rated too highly for about a decade. Even if YOU think they weren't rated very highly at all. I still think it was too high. I think their merits were overestimated.
I stand by my opinion statement and my understanding of the English language.
What on earth would even prompt you to mince words in that discussion? Why would you tell somebody their subjective opinion is wrong and then go out of your way to demonstrate why?
I might have said, "huh, guy isnt an x-men fan."
And seen no further reason to comment on it.
I have a stack of things to re-read from this thread alone now, and I hope a few more surprise me as much as this re-read did. Still probably a bit over-rated in the grand scheme of things but it is a top Batman story for me.
Since he never killed anyone before.
Y the Last Man: I've been trying so hard to like this, but the main character and his stupid monkey throw up their obnoxiousness barrier at every turn. It's a really interesting idea, that I felt floundered around, a lot.
Persepolis: This is definitely worth a read, and I like the book a lot. I just don't really see why it was written as a graphic novel, to me at least, the visual aspect did very little to enhance the story.
Love and Rockets, and all and any spin offs therein: I have never grasped the appeal of these comics. Jarring use of magic realism, inaccesible characters and boring stories.
And on a semi-related note, I remember when the Sin City comics were first coming out, I knew a lot of people who didn't like them. In fact, I thought I was in the minority of people that did like them. I think it was basically because he wasn't re-doing Batman and Daredevil but was actually trying something different. Was that opinion widespread or did I just have poor choices of friends?
It also leads to this question. Who hypes and who rates an item? Are hypists only the advertisers and the raters the consumers or is there crossover?
I am not a huge fan of Superman. Really the only Superman stories I have enjoyed are the ones that Alan Moore wrote. But I had so many people telling me that ASS was great. So I got all the issues. Now I do enjoy some of Morrison's work. But ASS was not good.
Secondly, the Byrne-illustrated issues of Uncanny X-Men. Some great stuff in there, but to me there's no reason to single these issues out. Cockrum did ALMOST just as good a job in terms of art, and as far as world-building went Cockrum was more important than Byrne in that Cockrum designed the damn characters before even Claremont got on board. It's also on record that Cockrum had to sit Byrne down and teach him how to draw Wolverine, because early on Byrne had no idea about who the character was, what facial expressions he should have, or how his costume worked. Further, Paul Smith's run was where Uncanny really started its sales jump. Yes, both the Dark Phoenix Saga and Days of Future Past happened under Byrne's tenure, and those are great stories which he contributed to. But his importance is simply overrated. I get the strong impression that people mention him just because it's trendy to diss Claremont.
I think Byrne gets a lot of credit, as the book climbed quickly in the growing direct market, but didn't catch up in the newsstand market until the end of his term. It's also pretty hard for us to understand the sales effect Byrne had in the 80's. He could jump sales on a book just by doing a cover, and if he came onto a book, sales in the direct market would jump around 40k (which is where the phrase "The Byrne 40000" came from.
I think his leaving books in the middle of stories that shook things up is what killed his fanbase. Leaving Superman after he had Superman kill, leaving the Avengers after having the Vision torn apart and the Scarlet Witch a villain created a MASSIVE backlash that I feel continues to this day.
I nearly dropped Y after reading the first issue. And the second issue. And the third issue. And the fourth. There was something about it that kept me hanging on though. Eventually I realized I really liked the book, despite the initial problems I had with it, and it ended up being one of my favorites. I think it was mostly the characters that drew me in. The characters drove the book more than the plot, and it was more about the journey than the destination. But, like I said, I can certainly understand people not liking it.
Y explained why Yorick and the monkey lived, but it did not explain the reason for why the men died. I wouldn't have cared if it was like Groundhog Day. But because the entire story revolved around the why with 4(?) plots, it should have ended by explaining why and picking one. That's just bad storytelling because it'll piss off the audience like it pissed me off.
Pissing off readers doesn’t necessarily equate to bad storytelling. In fact, most writers would tell you that if their work didn’t piss at least one person off, they weren’t doing they’re job properly. I can understand you not liking the story because it didn’t give you the answers you were looking for. Personally, I don’t think discovering the cause of deaths was the point of the series. Like I said, I saw the story as being more about the journey than the destination, so the answers that were provided and implied were enough for me.