|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 1, 2014 0:39:09 GMT
The basics
First of all, let's cover how my rating system works, what the different numbers mean to me. Ratings are on a 10 point scale, and charts are trimmed past the point where there's no more data.
I start by making three piles with the comics I'm about to rate, one for "good" comics, one for "bad" and one "undecided". When I'm done, I do the same with every pile. The good comics from the "bad" pile mix with the bad ones from the "undecided" one. The good comics from the "undecided" pile mix with the bad ones from the "good" one. There's now seven piles. I repeat the operation until I have piles where all the comics seem to be of consistent quality.
Going from "0" to "10" in half point steps provides a total of 21 different ratings. Ideally, I would have clear representatives from one and every rating and every comic I read would unequivocally fall into one or another. That's not going to happen. There's a severe lack of candidates up to 2.5, because I'm not in the habit of torturing myself with such horrible reading. That said, having half a dozen vacant ratings, should give enough room for any masochist out there to fine-comb that material at the lower end of the spectrum. As for every comic finding its home automatically, that depends both on the comic and my interpretation of it at the time. Usually, the will stay put, but occasionally I will revisit this or that assessment, resulting in shifts along the scale as big as a full point.
When I decide that a comic deserves a "4" or a "5", I do it taking into account both art and script. It's a global score, not the result of averaging two independent scores. This introduces the problem of really uneven art, compared to the writing. It happens rarely, but that's what I have the decimals for. A comics where the art is clearly superior to the script, will have 0.1 added. If it's clearly inferior I will deduct 0.1. In some really exceptional cases, the art will add or deduct up to 0.2, but I'm talking about really rare occurrences. For example, out of the 800 comics that will be covered in this thread, only a couple of times did I have to deduct two decimals.
It should be noted that, even though the rating for a comic is "global", the story has more weight when determining what rating to apply. But the dynamics aren't always clear-cut. There're some artists who, mainly trough their storytelling, are able to enhance or sabotage the story.
I mentioned earlier that things are fuzzy at the lower end of the spectrum. They are, however, quite clear at the top. In fact, my rating system is constructed from the top, and dies out around 2.5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 1, 2014 0:41:34 GMT
Amazing Spider-ManHere's the graph for ASM, up to #325. It covers all issues and Annuals, including Amazing Fantasy 15 (first column). The Annuals with original material (1-5, 10, 11, 13-23) have been placed in reading order, between the regular issues. That makes a total of 344 columns. Colors are for each creative team, except doted blue (Annuals not done by the usual suspects) and the red columns towards the end (fill-in regular issues). 
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 1, 2014 0:44:22 GMT
Marvel Team-Up & Web of Spider-ManThis is the graph for Marvel Team-Up 1-150 + Annuals 1, 2, 4-7. Note that only issues containing Spider-Man stories are included, and of those with multiple stories, only the pertaining ones have been rated. I've also included Web of Spider-Man, up to issue 58 + Annuals 1, 2, 4 and 5. That makes a total of 209 comics. Most of the Annuals are either written or drawn (or both) by the regular authors, which left the color black free to mark fill-in issues. In this titles, writers and artists rotated much more than on ASM, which makes it not practical to use the same kind of graph. Considering the lack of creative teams "per se", I've presented the data dividing the columns in two colors: the bottom one represents the artist, the top one the writer. The fact that the art reaches "2" is a purely visual choice, in order to make both parts of the columns equal (on average). 
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 1, 2014 0:47:07 GMT
Peter Parker, The Spectacular Spider-Man & Non-core IssuesHere's the graph that finishes the trilogy, it covers issues 1-157 and Annuals 1-9, placed in reading order (between the regular issues). I've added almost every appearance of the character in other titles, one-shots, graphic novels, etc. That makes a total of 248 columns. There's only a few regular writers and artists, but there's much fill-in work (scripts or pencils) and a lot of combinations involving the regulars. Things being this way, I've opted for the solution used on MTU, instead of limiting the output to creative teams. I've presented the data dividing the columns in two colors: the bottom one represents the artist, the top one the writer. The fact that the art reaches "2" is a purely visual choice, in order to make both parts of the columns equal (on average). Black represents fill-in issues. The red columns at the end are for the following comics (in that order): Strange Tales Annual #2 Tales To Astonish #57 Daredevil #16-17, 27 Marvel Super-Heroes #14 Spectacular Spider-Man #2 Captain America #137-138 Daredevil #77 Sub-Mariner #40 Marvel Feature #4 Daredevil #103 Giant-Size Super-Heroes #1 Giant-Size Spider-Man #1-5 Howard The Duck #1 Marvel Two-In-One #17 Superman Vs Amazing Spider-Man Nova #12 Marvel Two-In-One Annual #2 Fantastic Four #207, 218 Spider-Woman #20 Marvel Treasury Edition #28 Captain America #265-266 Marvel Fanfare #1-2 Defenders #107-109 Marvel Two-In-One #90 Marvel Fanfare #6 Ka-Zar #21-26 Avengers #235-237 Secret Wars #1-12 Marvel Graphic Novel #17 Secret Wars II #1-2 Cloak & Dagger #3 Secret Wars II #3-9 Marvel Fanfare #27 Marvel Graphic Novel #22 Vision & The Scarlet Witch #11 Power Pack #29 Spiderman Vs Wolverine Incredible Hulk #349 Thor #391 Iron Man #234 Marvel Fanfare #42 Marvel Graphic Novel #46 Damage Control #1 Daredevil Annual #4 Marvel Fanfare #47 Not being in the same timeline of "Peter Parker", non-core issues don't belong in this chart, but neither would they really belong in a chart of their own. 
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 8:16:06 GMT
I would say the exact opposite. The Lee/Ditko era would be less likely to be embraced by those with little knowledge of comic history. The run was revolutionary, and that's largely the reason it's held up so well. It set the standard that has been more or less consistent for the past fifty years. The Spider-Man formula works and it was all bred out of the 41 issues. Why? Read on. Reasons Why the Lee/Ditko Run Rocks Out Loud
10. The dialogue. Is it corny? Sure. Is it dated? Probably. But it set the gold standard on how Pete talked. Peter was a moody, awkward kid, but his humor and confidence came out when he put the mask on. His tone has remained consistent to this very day. 9. Mary Jane. She gets her own category. Lee and Ditko's running tease about what MJ was really like was tantalizing. It set up one of the of the most iconic character introductions ever. 8. The supporting cast. Jonah, Betty, Liz, Flash, Gwen, Harry, Aunt May, and Uncle Ben. These are some of the best characters around. Jonah's anti-Spidey schtick may have gotten old after awhile, but it beautifully set up Spidey's role as the untrusted hero. 7. The gamble. Spidey would never have existed if not for a book that was about to be cancelled. Even then, it could had died out with that. At the time, a teenage hero in a solo book was virtually unheard of. Spidey was embraced by the fans and kept alive by the fans. 6. The Green Goblin. The mystery of GG's identity was fantastic. If you look carefully, you can see that Ditko cleverly inserted Norman into issues before his character was introduced. It makes you wonder how the reveal would have played out had Ditko stayed on the book. (The rumor that Ditko left because of a disagreement on Norman's identity has long since been dispelled. 5. The Parker Luck. Often imitated, but never done better. Peter was clearly written as an intellectual, but despite his mental prowess, he could never get ahead. He took a job as a freelance photographer which was way beneath his potential. Despite his brains, he was a social idiot, which often led to things not working out for him. 4. The villains. Virtually every major member of Spidey's rogues gallery originated during the Lee/Ditko area. Their designs were perfect and have, for the most part, remained unchanged. Their motivations have also remained unchanged. All in all, they are arguably the best and most recognizable rogues gallery in comics. 3. The artwork. Steve Ditko set the standard on the funky agility of Spidey. Anatomy took a back seat to dynamic positions. Without Ditko, there would be no precedent for artist like McFarlane, Larsen, and Bagley. 2. The Master Planner. Universally considered one of the best Spidey stories out there. Peter starting college should have been a tremendous progression for a guy of his brains. An outcast bookworm in high school, he should have skyrocketed as a scholarship winning college man. Instead, through his personal troubles and his battle with Doc Ock, his college career got off to a rock start. The Parker Luck strikes again. 1. Great responsibility. One of the most tragic and poignant origins in comics. A guy with awesome powers like Spidey got beaten out by a common, powerless burglar.It even beats out Batman's, as originally told. We are shown that Pete and Uncle Ben are close, rather than Bruce's parents who were faceless dead people. Plus, he died because of Peter. As far as I know, this was a completely new dynamic in comics. It was brilliant. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 20, 2014 17:02:43 GMT
Kevin Nichols, at the old CBR, originally said:
Considering the effort put forth in your comment, I can do no less than to try and synthesize it; so as to better offer my opposing view. I've started by editing the quote and leaving the most relevant arguments. Now let's examine them:
[1] Knowledge of the medium and of it's history are two different things. The first one, which I mentioned, may allow one to better judge any piece of work. The second one, which you mention, may allow one to place said piece of work in it's proper place in regard to any number of categories; including genre relevance, sociological influence or even technique advancement, but not intrinsic quality. I've known critics (I'm thinking about cinema here) who are walking encyclopedias, capable of vomiting dozens of facts about somebody or something, and yet absolutely incapable of articulating the most basic aesthetic commentary.
[2] That says less about what came before than it says more about Lee-Ditko's run in it's own. There's a distinction to be made first, between the comics and the "formula" they instated. The comics were successful, they stablished a character and his universe, and "this" is what has been holding it's own, more or less, for over fifty years. The comics are dated, the formula is being constantly updated. But the fact that the formula is successful doesn't mean in and by itself that it's artistically good. If you could quantify it that way, James Cameron would be by far the best director ever. As it is, his name isn't even a runner-up.
[3] While you can safely say that the tone for Peter's dissociative behavior was set there, some writers who came afterwards were able to construct dialogues which neither were corny nor feel dated today.
[4] Again, something that would have been nothing more than an original way of introducing a character, get's instantly raised to the level of "iconic" simply because it's a character in a superhero comic. And they did it twice during their run, both with MJ and the Green Goblin. Talk about maximizing profit.
[5] Not exactly what I have in mind when I think about three-dimensional, realistic, coherently portrayed characters.
[6] An ok villain, specially as portrayed in ASM #26 & 27. The fact that his identity was a mystery didn't set him completely apart from other characters, such as the Big Man, the Crime Master or MJ. It was just a question of how long it would remain a mystery. The introduction of Norman just a few issues before the Goblin's unmasking just screams bad planning to me. Everything and anything good about the GG was later rescued, amplified and refined by Stern.
[7] About that I already replied Charlie512, who wrote "I get that Spiderman is mean to be *relatable* and *average* or what not. It's just a little annoying to see that Spiderman never wins at life. Because Marvel. :/"
My answer: I share your feelings, but in the end it's not even Marvel the one responsible for his "condition", but the fans themselves. When I floated the idea (in another thread) of how ridiculous I found the fact that Peter never sought to bring back Gwen, the majority of replies were also in line with keeping him from gaining anything from his powers. It's like the whole mantra of power and responsibility extends to every aspect of the character. He's like a current day Jesus Christ, here to suffer for us all."
[8] Not only the Green Goblin has had a revised, better version. The Vulture and the Beetle both received the "Stern treatment", the Cat Burglar too, but this one remained unchanged, as it was good to begin with. The Tinkerer was basically retconned by Len Wein, as the rest of his gang was by Stern. Mysterio's goals where largely changed by Wolfman. Kraven was reinvented by DeMatteis. Smythe was gradually altered, first by Lee himself during his run with Romita, and ultimately by Wolfman. The essence of the Sandman was better captured by O'Neil. The rest have remained rather uninteresting characters, except for Octopus and the Molten Man, who was actually worsened by Conway.
[9] You'll notice that all the issues are rated at ".5" or ".0". In my system, that means the art doesn't constitute a plus or a minus. It's just on par with the writing. You can clearly see it make progress as the series advanced. Even so, Ron Frenz was a better Ditko than he ever was, and even he paled compared to JRJR, whom he had the misfortune to substitute on ASM.
[10] For a master planner, his plans sure ended "leaking" all over (pun very much intended). Seriously, at the same time aunt May gets ill, Octopus sets his crosshairs on an isotope which may be her only salvation? When Emmerich does something of the like, everyone goes straight for his jugular.
[11] It was good at the beginning, but it should have ended by #50. Addressed also in point 7.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 8:46:01 GMT
Sorry it's taken me awhile to reply. Busy busy, and then I just forgot.
Anyway, I'm going to tackle your point number seven first because that's the one that I feel is at the root of your complaints.
Pete/Spidey not winning at life is an integral part to the character, maybe THE integral part. Saying that Peter should win at life (in the long-term) is like saying that Wolverine should mellow out. That's just not the character. Every character has their own schtick, and the lovable loser is Pete's. It's important to note though that he's not exactly a loser. Even though life usually deals him a shitty hand, he always manages to rise above it in the end. This is why I've never really liked the term "everyman" for him; it's inaccurate. He's not the everyman, but he displays the traits that the everyman can aspire to. Even in the face of constant adversity (which is pretty typical in real life), Pete manages to overcome it, make constant sacrifices, and still be the hero. The Jesus Christ analogy actually isn't a bad one. He's the perpetual sufferer, but he does it for us.
That's the point that you have to be able to accept in order to accept the rest. If you want a different character, you'll have to look to a different book because that's just the guy Pete is. The groundwork was laid down in the first 41 (the Lee/Ditko issues) and has remained more or less consistent ever since.
In the case of the first 41, I think you need an appreciation of comics history as well as a knowledge of storytelling. The fact of the matter is the the first 41 is the foundation for Spidey. The fact that others have come along since and expanded on it only speaks to the strength of the foundation.
But looking at the basic storytelling components, it's all there. The stories are visually appealing and easy to follow. They introduce and make good work of a variety of villains including spies, mad scientists, aliens, gangsters, monsters, super villains, robots, common thieves, and even a washed-up boxer. This helped to show Spidey's versatility. He can work effectively as a street-level hero or up against far more powerful foes. There was equal emphasis placed on the Peter Parker character which set the tone for the "soap opera" type of stories in later eras.
I'm not sure I follow you here. Part of the artistry was the formula. The Spider-Man formula was pretty unique at the time. That's where the brilliance of the stories stem from. Some of them may have become tropes by this time, but at that time they were original and fresh. More on this in the next section.
Here's the thing about the dialogue feeling corny and dated, it always will be. Fifty years from now, today's dialogue will feel corny and dated. Comics have always been based on exaggerations, and that's exactly what the dialogue in the first 41 was. It was meant to clearly separate Spider-Man from characters like the FF, the Avengers, Superman, and Batman. Spider-Man was a teenage hero starring in his own book, so it was imperative that Stan Lee make him and his cast sound as much like teenagers as possible. Much of the jargon of the day isn't used anymore, but in fifty years do you think kids will be saying things like "epic" or listening to Lady Gaga? These are things in modern comics that won't hold up well over time. It's just one of those things you have to look past.
As far as future writers doing it better, look a bit closer. During the Roger Stern and Peter David runs, there are references to Pete enjoying the music of Elvis Costello and Neil Diamond. Do you really think that holds up with today's kids?
Agreed, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. To quote the recent Bud Light ads, "It's only weird if it doesn't work."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 12:10:48 GMT
This is going to have to be one of those points where we agree to disagree. Jameson in particular was a well-rounded character. That scene where he privately admits his jealousy of Spider-Man is brilliant. There is also some very nice development on Betty, Liz, and Gwen. Even Aunt May, who usually gets downplayed as a flat character during this run, has moments of brilliance. But this is in the eye of the beholder; there's really no way to quantify it.
The difference is that the Green Goblin mystery spanned several arcs while the Big Man and the Crime Master were single-story mysteries. The Green Goblin was unique because he was the one villain that Spidey couldn't seem to beat.
Again, the idea that characters have been bettered or worsened is largely a matter of opinion. I happen to agree, particularly on your points of Kraven and the Vulture; DeMatteis and Stern did amazing things with those characters. However, dismissing Lee and Romita's work simply because someone else built upon it is sort of akin to dismissing Ian Fleming's original James Bond books simply because they've been modernized. If the basic model wasn't there, there would be nothing to add to. Or it wouldn't be worth adding to.
JRJR is one of my favorite Spidey artists and Ron Frenz is certainly no slouch either, but I don't know that it's fair to say that either is "better" than Ditko. Again, to a point, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but even on a technical level, it was Ditko who established the weird body positions and the dramatic angles that we associate with Spidey today.
This is no more of a coincidence than the burglar whom Spidey failed to stop going on to kill Uncle Ben. Crazy coincidences are one of those things that we often have to overlook in fiction.
There are lots of people who share your view, and it's certainly not invalid. For myself, I'm happy it did continue because it gave us so many great stories later on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 21, 2014 21:07:01 GMT
Peter as a loser.
What I wanted to convey with my analogy, were the limits I was willing to accept for his misfortunes. I get the fact that him being a loser is part of the character, and I'm not even trying to minimize it's dimension because it's a circumstance. As Ortega said, "I am me and my circumstances". And yet, we want to change our circumstances and, with them, ourselves. It would make for an interesting plot to see the character succeed, but Spider-Man stopped being a character long ago to become a brand, it won't happen unless the vast majority of it's target audience is in favor.
Aesthetics.
Being quite versed in both comic history as well as storytelling, I can safely say that the Lee-Ditko run was ahead of it's domestic competition (even the early Lee-Kirby), but at least one step behind the best, if we take into account comics from abroad. Subsequent Spider-Man authors taking this run as the solid foundation for their work means nothing more, and nothing less. As for the traits you cite as strong points, I see them in a different light. The mixed rogues gallery could more easily mean that it's far more complex to differentiate villains who are alike than it is to do with those who are clearly different. As for the soap opera ingredient to the formula, while a welcome addition, it was still a "sub-culture" one. By the way, I hope I have made myself clear this time about the formula not being brilliant, merely popular. You didn't need brilliance to rise above the rest, back then.
The dialogues.
Only bad dialogue will feel out of time in the future. If you want an example of well written dialogue from 50 years ago I would point you to Mort Cinder, an Argentinian comic which started in 1962. Of course, it wasn't addressed to kids, but then again, I never rated thinking about what kids might like. I rate the material as an adult, and some of it does ok by that standard, it just isn't the case with most of the Lee-Ditko run.
The characters.
It's all depends on whether they fell real or fabricated. With the first kind you can practically anticipate their actions and understand their development, with the second kind… it's up to the writer (or editors) in charge what he'll do or if his personality will even remain congruent. Jameson is a very good example, at some point, they drove him to the mad house and it was eventually necessary for an explanation to be offered after-the-fact. He didn't suffer such maltreatment at the beginning, but the scene you reference has little to do with the behavior of the character in the other issues, were he wasn't more than a comic relief.
Updating.
The Spider-Man universe keeps being updated in the hopes of continuing making a profit. Sometimes they change things for the better, sometimes not so much. In any case, the original material was certainly prone to upgrades, because it was relatively easy to do so. It may seem contradictory that something which wasn't very good to begin with would merit the effort of improving it, but only if you merely think in terms of artistic quality, and leave out economics.
Steve Ditko.
Over time, he developed enough drawing skills to be considered a technically correct artist. His grasping of human anatomy as well as perspective were good enough, but even at his peak there were still minor flaws in both departments. Nothing outlandish, but they were there for the trained eye. Ron Frenz only exhibited some anatomy problems when he was mimicking Ditko's "weird body positions". Curiously enough, JRJR also went on to pursue some sort of freakish anatomy in the 21st century, but at least in the mid 80's he was still drawing in a more academic way.
Suspension of disbelief.
From the wikipedia: "if a writer could infuse a "human interest and a semblance of truth" into a fantastic tale, the reader would suspend judgment concerning the implausibility of the narrative". Crazy coincidences don't help with the "semblance of truth" bit. Unless you were referring to something even more lenient, but in any case, that's as far as I go as a reader.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2014 16:13:50 GMT
An interesting read.
The Lee ASM stuff is easy to put on a pedestal, quite clearly iconic and heads and shoulders above the vast majority of Silver Age comics of the time, but if I were to rate them fairly, most of them would be around the *** start range. The prose is often very poor, the plots overstuffed, the character development minimal, the characterizations never terribly complex or more than two dimensions, the sequential storytelling or modelling rarely formally impressive or inventive(often time the captions or dialog has to explain what's happening/about to happen). The plotting often felt like it was really in place; outside a stretch of Romita issues here or Ditko issues there, I'm not convinced it was a satisfying soap opera narrative issue-in, issue-out. Aunt May in particular is a hilarious terrible character, outside 1 or 2 particular moments, the first 100 issues she seems more like a doddering albatross around Peter's neck that seems to get knocked off by a breeze than a flesh-and-blood human.
IDK, maybe my rating system is all wrong, but if I give half these Lee/Ditko issues *****, then what the heck do I give something like "Born Again" which, for me, is lightyears ahead of it in terms of sequential storytelling, its prose, characters, ideas, etc. Its about as densely packed and visually compelling and emotionally involving as any superhero book I've ever read.
Perhaps its all a fool's errand trying to compare all these different comic books from different eras and you should put yourself into the time and place to appreciate them, but I all I can do is just at them honestly and think, "So, this is it huh?" I mean, I like Gwen, but sees seems to have 3 different modes: insufferably sweet, irrationally angry, and crying, always crying. Her relationship with Peter never felt as convincing and moving as the one between Cliff Steele and Crazy Jane in Morrison's Doom Patrol, or even developed as well as the one between Jean and Scott during the early Claremont X-Men years.
IDK, I'm rambling, but I've come to terms I just don't like the Lee ASM books as much as, hell, the Stern/JRJR ASM ones. And for that matter, I much prefer Byrne/Simonson/Waid FF comics to the Lee/Kirby ones, which is equally sacrilege, but the heart wants what the heart wants and I fully admit to being an idiot and a simpleton for my taste.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 22, 2014 21:26:10 GMT
ViewtifulJC, at the old CBR, originally said:It's not and you shouldn't.
As for "sacrilege", I leave that for religious matters. In aesthetics, nothing similar should apply.
Note: I'm taking advantage of this fake user, to transcript posts from the original thread. So far, I've repeated posts from Kevin Nichols and my replies. Now, ViewtifulJC enters the conversation. His posts are being used with his consent. I can't say the same for Kevin, who still hasn't resurfaced after the reboot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2014 16:04:55 GMT
I think Revelations and Untold Tales of Spider-Man are the only Spidey stories from the 90s I'd give 4/5, too. That was just a wasteland of bad soap opera writing, dodgy artwork, crossovers, and Michelinie/Mackie terribleness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2014 16:05:11 GMT
I include AF #16-18 as Untold Tales of Spider-Man, its included in the omnibus. I really do NOT like Buscema's artwork during his SSM period, I'm not sure what happened between Mantlo's Hulk/Engelhart's Avengers and late Simonson's Thor/JMD's SSM, but I didn't like it.
Torment though is like...every bad stereotype of 90s superhero books rolled into one. A padded out five issue fight sequence with awful melodramatic narrative captions and clumsy dialog, giant splash panels and pages taking up space for a paper-thin plot, not much in the way of sub-plots or good characterization, and then an anticlimactic conclusion after all that as the villain just throws up her arms and disappears under a pile of debris.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 23, 2014 19:47:33 GMT
ViewtifulJC, at the old CBR, originally said:Well, we almost agree there. Upon re-reading Untold (the only Spider-Man title I actually bought during the 90's) I'd give it a 4.5/10 . Revelations (Spider-Man 75) deserves a 5/10.
On a total side note, the 90's were the industry's attempt at emulating Moore and Miller's seminar work of the 80's. The fact than it can even be perceived as "bad soap opera", only proves the extent of the failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 23, 2014 19:51:02 GMT
ViewtifulJC, at the old CBR, originally said:Sal Buscema relied a lot on the inker. On Hulk, he was lucky to get Talaoc towards the end of his run. He suited him very well, infinitely better than he did his replacement (Mignola) just before the creative team went to Alpha Flight. Inking himself, I also liked him better over at Thor. But… you're just describing McFarlane's idea of a good comic.  Note: that was the old thread, the best part, at least. Thomas Mets also contributed, but I guess he's ok with his posts having been lost. Let's pick up from here. |
|
