What Were They Thinking? Worst Comic Ideas.

[Sherlock]

I always thought that killing off the orginal Captain Marvel was a bad idea. Yeah it might make for one good story but why destroy a beloved superhero just for shock value.

 

[Mistwell]

This all makes me think I haven't missed much since giving up comics 6-7 years ago. I don't think I would have the slightest clue as to what was what if I picked up a title today. I kind of liked The Dark Knight II series, but I only read that becuase I loved DK1 way back when.

So Image Comics broke up? Some good art, some horrible art, and almost universally horrible storytelling.

Is the Legend crew still doing non-mainstream stuff? Or are they all back on Marvel and DC titles? Miller, Byrne, Chadwick, Mignolia, and Adams were the members If I remember. Next Men was a great book and too bad nothing else ever came out of it.

MOST of this thread is about comics FROM 6-7 years ago. It almost seems like a thread of ex-comic-collectors. That's why it sounds like you have not missed much...

The last several years has seen a revolution in comic books. Graphic Novels and Trade Paper Backs now sell so well that there are entire stores devoted just to them. Superheros (which seems to dominate this thread) no longer dominate comic books in general. The Eisner's are now dominated by stuff that, frankly, hasn't even been mentioned in this thread.

 

[Macbeth]

You missed something. Wildstorm used to be a part of Image, before they had various fallouts. DC eventually picked Wildstorm up, but they were originally a part of Image.

Ahhh. Thanks for that catch, sorry I doubted anything.

 

[Klaus]

Worst Comic Book I ever tried to read:

Dark Knight Strikes Again (aka DK2):

Lousy Art, Craptastic writing, totally untrue to the masterpiece it supposedly continues.

Obsidian Age. I enjoyed Grant Morrison's run on JLA, and Mark Waid's was lukewarm at best (although having Bryan Hitch drawing sure does help), but Joe Kelly has simply killed this title for me. And Doug Mahke doesn't help either.

 

[stevelabny]

wanted to jump back in with a few mor comments about other people's comments.

erik larsen: well besides having artwork thats a little too cartoony for me and being responsible for savage dragon, his biggest problem is the infamous "name withheld" letter where he basically says that comic books are about the art and the artists dont need writers because "anyone can write a comic book".
except you apparently. dolt. liefeld and mcfarlane got the most heat, but this is the schmuck who deserve the be slapped first.

giffen's lsh: i liked it. i havent read EVERY old legion story (although its on my things-to-do-list) but he seemed to do a pretty good job of keeping with previous continuity and told some ineresting stories. so its ok by me.

west coast avengers: this was a great series. john byrnes run on this title was amazing and the last good thing he did. force works was an incredibly stupid idea. Killing off Wonderman (again) mere weeks after he found out he was basically immortal and couldnt die because hes an energy being was ridiculous. replacing him with grey-skinned alien with fighting staff Century was even worse. oh well, all good things come to an end.

the ultimate line: without ever spending a dime, ive read the first issue or ultimate spiderman and first six issues of ultimate x-men. theyre awful. a lot of people swear by ultimate spider-man now, but this simple fact remains, if its a good spiderman story, they couldve just used it in the REGULAR series and there was no reasont o create the ultimate line. period.

aging characters: saying that the simpsons or peanuts dont age so its ok that superheroes dont age is easily the least thought out reasoning ive EVER heard.
the reason it doesnt matter for those characters is because they just exist for jokes. there is no DRAMA. in order to have dramatic tension, the characters need to change and grow. if the characters dont evolve, and only exist for "cool superhero battles" then i'm not interested.

wolverine's claws: i've never seen so much outrage about this subject. back in the day, when marvel mutants were only allowed ONE mutant power, wolverine's heightened senses and healing power were grouped together under some sort of "feral" label and fanboys used to wonder if his claws were real or not. it was a natural porgression. having Magneto rip his adamantium out was an amazing visual. popping bone claws was another great visual that revealed more about wolverine that actually MADE SENSE. The story arc of wolvy having to get used to life without the adamantium was actually a character defining moment. which is impressive for a character who is already an icon and usually a bad parody of himself. i really dont understand how anyone coul dhave thought this was lame or stupid.

dkr2: was awful. absolute garbage.

and as for what numion said about being grateful that the movie producers dont stick too true to the material. you couldnt be more wrong.
the reason the spidey and xmen movies are so great is because they are VERY CLOSE to the source material.
and as much bad stuff that has come out of the comics industy in the past 60 years, there has been more good stuff than television, movies, or books have produced. when it comes to best medium, comics wins easy.

 

[Macbeth]

if its a good spiderman story, they couldve just used it in the REGULAR series and there was no reasont o create the ultimate line. period.

No. They couldn't have. They can't tell these stories in the 'normal' continuity. Why? Because they already have, in a way. The Ultimate line gets to re-do the greatest stories, and use some great characters without the baggage of years of disconitinuous stories. And, obviously, tere was a need to make the ultimate line. I had never picked up Spiderman. Why? Even if I had read it since childhood there would have been a multitude of stories I had missed, and so much background I didn't know. I had no interest in jumping into that and trying to make sense of it. There have been so many revisions and rewrites (take the Spiderclone, for example) that I had no interest in the jumble. But Ultimate Spiderman takes the things that I want, as a new Spiderman reader (the classic Spidey style, good writing, a good jumping on point, conitnuity) and got rid of the years and years of junk. I do not read a single Marvel comic beside the Ultimate series. I think that if the Ultimate series can attract new readers who otherwise wouldn't touch Marvel with a ten foot pole, then they are needed.

 

[buzzard]

While it appears that my submission doesn't hold a candle to much of what has been mentioned, I would submit the Millenium series from DC back in the early 90s. They rather arbitrarily wipe out a whole host of characters in different books my making them agents of the evil androids. Of course nobody had every noticed any of this in teh past. For example, Laurel Kent, a LSH minor character who had been a distance descendent of Superman with invulnerability, is now an evil android. Sure. Why not?

And to think I kept collecting comics for a couple years after that travesty. When they finally screwed Hal Jordan over, I bailed.

buzzard

 

[stevelabny]

No. They couldn't have. They can't tell these stories in the 'normal' continuity. Why? Because they already have, in a way. The Ultimate line gets to re-do the greatest stories, and use some great characters without the baggage of years of disconitinuous stories. And, obviously, tere was a need to make the ultimate line. I had never picked up Spiderman. Why? Even if I had read it since childhood there would have been a multitude of stories I had missed, and so much background I didn't know. I had no interest in jumping into that and trying to make sense of it. There have been so many revisions and rewrites (take the Spiderclone, for example) that I had no interest in the jumble. But Ultimate Spiderman takes the things that I want, as a new Spiderman reader (the classic Spidey style, good writing, a good jumping on point, conitnuity) and got rid of the years and years of junk. I do not read a single Marvel comic beside the Ultimate series. I think that if the Ultimate series can attract new readers who otherwise wouldn't touch Marvel with a ten foot pole, then they are needed.

Can we PLEASE logically think this through. You jumped in with the new Ultimate universe. Its already been around for a few years and has plenty of backstory of its own. But what about in another 5 or 10 years? Should Marvel keep starting new universes? Should they continue to maintain all the old ones? or should they just abandon the original universe/ then the ultimate line after that?

I'm sorry, but thousands of comic fans had no problem jumping into the pre-existing universe in the middle. its not brain surgery, and if millions of kids with comics and housewives with soap operas can jump into a story and figure it out, i'm sure the average potential-geek off the street can too.

The correct way to attract new readers scared by continuity into the mix is simple. If the characters actually aged and evolved, there would be obvious jumping in points and non-offensive renumberings of series when someone new takes over. Plus, there are always new characters or new series being started.

EVen without that, its still ridiculously easy to pick up in the middle. I started reading comincs in the 80s and had no problems understanding what was going on. After a year or two I understood just about every reference or nuance that was a nod to history that I never read.

So I dont buy the "So much has happened already" excuse. there are back issues, trade paperbacks, other fans to talk to, and this new invention called the internet if you absolutely need to know everything. Nobody wanders into a comic book store by accident and is afraid to pick up a book because of its history. They are brought their by family or friends and givien recommendations and EVERY recommendation comes with an open-ended invitation to show off our geek knowledge. On the ocacasions that my GF reads any of my comics, you can be SURE that I will gladly rant endlessly about "what has gone before" People read the ultimate series because they are curious and believe or are told that it will be EASIER for them.

it cant be argued that having two seperate versions of the same characters is eating away at your own profits. its ridiculous. and having to explain the difference between trhe regular MU and the ultimate MU is even harder and more confusing than explaining any necessary backstory in the first place.

and if the ultimate universe has really stooped to re-telling the old stories thats even more abominable than i could have imagined.

 

[Aaron L]

wolverine's claws: i've never seen so much outrage about this subject. back in the day, when marvel mutants were only allowed ONE mutant power, wolverine's heightened senses and healing power were grouped together under some sort of "feral" label and fanboys used to wonder if his claws were real or not. it was a natural porgression. having Magneto rip his adamantium out was an amazing visual. popping bone claws was another great visual that revealed more about wolverine that actually MADE SENSE. The story arc of wolvy having to get used to life without the adamantium was actually a character defining moment. which is impressive for a character who is already an icon and usually a bad parody of himself. i really dont understand how anyone coul dhave thought this was lame or stupid.

Because having the adamantium removed somehow made him lose control of his rage and go feral? Becuase he should have been darn happy to have the traumatic and painful junk removed, instead of mopy and depressed about it? Because it had been well established that the blades were artifical and he had washers and various things to keep the skin seperated when they were retracted?

And greatest of all, because arbitrary drastic changes to popular characters solely to drive up sales is the worst type of writing?

 

[stevelabny]

Because having the adamantium removed somehow made him lose control of his rage and go feral? Becuase he should have been darn happy to have the traumatic and painful junk removed, instead of mopy and depressed about it? Because it had been well established that the blades were artifical and he had washers and various things to keep the skin seperated when they were retracted?

i dont pretend to have read every comic wolverine has appeared in (just a lot of them) or remember every detail of the ones i read. But I do know for sure that NOTHING about his past was "well-established". NOTHING. that's why there were always so many discussions about him. Whether the bone claws were always there or grafted on was still unknown. i dont recall the washers or how they work, but they would probably simply cause him less pain as the blades go in or out. As for any odd reaction to the loss of adamantium, hed still be upset because he just discovered he still is an animalistic beast WITHOUT the adamantium. He used to blame the adamantium and the guys who did "it" to him for a lot of his probelms but that clearly isnt the case. Plus, his life is different now, as an x-man/hero/person with lots of enemires he has become used to having the adamantium to help him fight and proect him. he had grown to depend on it. and now its gone.

And greatest of all, because arbitrary drastic changes to popular characters solely to drive up sales is the worst type of writing?

hmm, this seems to be the root of the problem. Either you were aginst them changing your favorite character or you are one of those that rebels against anything that is financially sucessful on some silly principle.

there was NOTHING arbitrary about it. Magneto is MASTER OF MAGNETISM. he controls metal. Wolverine's entire skeleton is made of metal. It makes PERFECT LOGICAL SENSE for Magneto to rip the greatest advantage out of one of his most dangerous foes. The only flaw is ...why didnt he do it SOONER?

From dictionary.com:
arbitrary: adjetermined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

Magneto had a reason and a need to do what he did.
There was no strange plot twist. There was no new power.
And since the story made sense and was exciting, the writer did his job too.

Arguing EVERY big story is just done to sell comics is pointless. EVERY comic (and book) is written with SALES in mind. Without sales there will be no book. As long as they dont betray the characters as they do it, there is no way that sales should ever enter the arguement.