What Were They Thinking? Worst Comic Ideas.

Holy Bovine said:
....the ill-fated 'New Universe' put out by marvel in the mid-80's. About a dozen titles were launched simutaneously and some many of them were complete crap.
Ah yes, I remember that. Mediocre art and stories at best. And I recall that Marvel kept publishing all titles for a full year before they started to drop them. I believe that DP7 was the most successful, running for almost three years.

A friend of mine still gets devilish pleasure in reminding his brother of what said brother did at the time. On speculation he kept buying up a dozen copies of each issue, predicting that the "New Universe" would be a huge success, and copies of Mark Hazzard, Merc #1 or Kickers Inc. #1 would one day be worth the same as a copy of Fantastic Four #1 or Amazing Fantasy #15. Didn't quite work out that way.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Many of my dark moments have already been listed, but I had forgotten about something till Steve reminded me.

The "rekidification" of Kitty Pride. The girl was 14 or 15 for 20 years then FINALLY Warren Ellis matures her, probably to 18 or 19. She became a confident, funny, mature woman, an interesting character. She told Colossus where to go, FINALLY after all the crap he put her through. (Oh yeah, lemme add in the Colossus/Alien Healer "romance" from Secret Wars...) She met a cynical bitter ex-spy (Pete Wisdom), liked him, and GOT him. After watching her constantly mooning after various folks like some 9 year old with a crush, we saw Kitty in an adult relationship.

Warren Ellis leaves the book and immediately the next team strarts turning Kitty on him. IIRC Claremont came back to an X book and rumors online said he flipped out over the changing of his precious Kitty. He immediately regressed Kitty back to 15 or so, making Wisdom Marvel's 1st Statutory Rapist Superhero. (I dunno if he qualifies as an actual paedophile, but maybe that too. An historic 1st!)

Whee.

Add the "Spawnification" of Dr Strange to my list as well as Rob Liefield, Heroes Reborn, Teen Tony Stark, Secret Wars 2, Any Infinity mini series except the 1st one.

Oh hey, I'm preempitively calling one: The return of Hal Jordan. Like it or not, his story has been told. Let him RIP.
 

Silver Moon said:
Ah yes, I remember that. Mediocre art and stories at best. And I recall that Marvel kept publishing all titles for a full year before they started to drop them. I believe that DP7 was the most successful, running for almost three years.

A friend of mine still gets devilish pleasure in reminding his brother of what said brother did at the time. On speculation he kept buying up a dozen copies of each issue, predicting that the "New Universe" would be a huge success, and copies of Mark Hazzard, Merc #1 or Kickers Inc. #1 would one day be worth the same as a copy of Fantastic Four #1 or Amazing Fantasy #15. Didn't quite work out that way.
I remember Starbrand wasn't too bad...I think the art was by John Romita Jr?
 

Arken said:
Then it got all weird and it collided with the DC universe or something and Robin was dating Jubilee and Peter Parker was asking out Lois Lane and then it got stranger still and Wolverine was fused with the character of Batman as a single entity, and the same happened with Captain america and Superman and others.
I only managed to read the end of the marvel side of whatever was going on and didn't actually get to read any of the crossover stuff (just adverts for what was coming) but it did all seem very strange...
You're probably talking about AMALGAM, where Marvel and DC characters fused into one concept (lots of homages on both sides; we got some pretty cool characters out of it like Spider-Boy (Superboy/Spider-Man)). It's pretty much a stand-alone thing.
 

danzig138 said:
Both children are good readers, but superheroes and the like don't appeal to them. I'm trying to figure out why. . .what's so different in their experience from mine. I loved superheroes. . . :(
I can't remember where my love of them came from, but I'm almost sure that TV was a major factor in exposing me to comics. Batman was on in prime time at the time I was 5, and saturday morning cartoons had all kinds of superheroes. The last ten years or so? Nothing, really; there's not even a Saturday Morning anymore. Nick and Cartoon Network barely have anything, save for Justice League and Teen Titans, and the Batman/Superman reruns. Movies exist, but movies don't have that repetative quality that seeing a show every week does.

Maybe that has something to do with it.
 

Holy Bovine said:
Coming in late on this (and no I haven't read all 6 pages of the thread but I want to play too!) but my least favourite comic book moment was the ill-fated 'New Universe' put out by marvel in the mid-80's. About a dozen titles were launched simutaneously and some many of them were complete crap. Only 2 ever stood out to me as somewhat impressive;

Star Brand (a man is given a powerful weapon in the form of a tattoo from a dying alien - the weapon gives him super strength, flight but now other aliens want it for a great war - actually better than I'm making is sound here)

DP-7 (Stands for Displaced Paranormals - 7) a group of average people suddenly find themselves developing strange abilites after a 'White Event' in which the entire earth is bathed in a white light for a brief moment. The powers were interesting in that they all had real drawbacks. The 'speedster' of the group had to eat constantly as his accelerated metobolism put a tremendous drain on his body. The 'muscle' guy was occasionally wracked by pain as new muscles suddenly grew in. I liked it and it lasted the longest at 36 or so issues.

Some of the crap included;

Kickers Inc - ex-football players go around beating up computer hackers. Bland, boring and poorly drawn & written.

Marc Hazzerd - Merc - ex-football player turned mercenary (actually I'm not sure if he was a football player but everything I said about Kickers goes double for this)

Spitfire & the Troubleshooters - the true dregs. Big, crappy robot designed by a high school cheerleader's dad before he is killed in the first issue is almost stolen but fortunately the 'Troubleshooters' save the day (and the big, clumsy, crappy robot that sinks 2 feet into soft ground when it moves - whoops guess daddy wasn't quite the genius he's made out to be!). The TS are more high school computer geeks (maybe they were the same ones Marc Hazzerd was going after?).

There was also Psi-Froce, the only NU title that I collected. It was about a group of psychics, each possessing a single power (telepathy, telekinesis, pyrokinesis, etc), who were able to merge their powers to manifest a being that resembled their deceased mentor. I was only a kid at the time, but I remeber liking it quite a bit.

Actually, in concept, it was a lot like Captain Planet (only nowhere near as preachy and crappy).

I got a few of the other titles as part of those comic packs they used to sell in supermarkets. I know I got an issue of Kickers, Inc (which was so bad I didn't even read it), Strikeforce: Moruturi (or something like that...the tagline was "We who are about to die"), and one or two others. Wasn't there a title called "Nightmask" or something like that?
 

WizarDru said:
While I respect Scott McCloud, I tend to think of him as something of a idealistic dreamer. That said, I think there are loads of problems with holding comics to the same standard as straight literature.

See, and therein lies your error (as I see it): Who said anything about holding comics to the same standards as literature?

I think McCould was right in his premise that comics are not a subset of an existing medium. Comics are not a subtype of literature, nor radio nor television. They should not be held to those standards. They have their own strengths and weaknesses, their own way of expressing communication. Comics should be held to the standards of comics as art.

For one, it's unfair to do so. How can one hold Brian Michael Bendis' Torso to the same standard as Claremont and Byrne's Dark Phoenix Saga? Which is better: James Kochalka's Little Mister Man, Jeff Smith's Bone, Wolfman and Perez's Teen Titans: Judas Contract, Gruenwald and Starlin's Warlock, Moebius' Blueberry or Dave Sims' Cerebus: Church and State?

So you're saying you can't compare "Call of Cthulhu" to "Catcher in the Rye"?

Just because works in the same medium deal with different genres, that doesn't make them incomparable. And even if it does, there's nothing inherently "unfair" about it. This is not a reason why comics can't be art.

A big part of the problem is that we neither have a standard by which to judge, and no established form of criticism, something that every other medium has in spades.

I disagree with both of these. We have plenty of comics that could be entailed as "high art", its just that they become obscure almost immediately. It's killing me that I can't recall the examples, but they're in McCloud's book.

Likewise...an established form of criticism? What established form? Criticism is people saying what they think and feel. There is no "established form" for that.

The only existing legitimate critical body that exists for comics is the Comics Journal, a biased and fairly flawed magazine that often tries to distance itself from it's own medium as much as possible.

The fact that its flawed and tries to distance itself from its subject matter (which is your opinion), doesn't really mean much. Every other art form has people who are just like that.

That said, we don't need any sort of official body to tell us what art is and is not. I can't imagine some group trying to definitively stating exactly what paintings were actually art and which weren't. They'd be laughed out of existence. Art doesn't require authoritative legitimacy.

This problem is made worse by the fact that comics are rarely the product of one person, so it becomes more difficult to review and judge. Was the comic's failures those of Warren Ellis, or Frank Quitely? That's assuming you can even make those distinctions.

The same could be said for the fact that editors often make large changes to novels. And cinema? Don't even get me started. The actors, the director(s), the producer(s), and on and on. So, the whole multiplicity of people angle doesn't hold up.

Kids aren't reading comics anymore. Readership is down, distribution is a mess and precious few titles are of a sort that I would approve for my kids to read until they're considerably older...and since they're so expensive, few kids can afford them, regardless.

And yet comics still appear in the newspapers, for one. Likewise, graphic novels still sell very well, and they're just comics in a thicker form. And webcomics...well, their time has just begun!

Likewise, I don't exactly see the portrait business as booming. After all, portraits are expensive, and you just don't see as many people doing that nowadays...and yet you never see anyone saying that portraits are on the verge of disappearing forever.

This isn't a transient art form that only appeared recently, and it isn't limited to the 32-page, stapled-together, for-sale-monthly format.

I don't think my kids will ever enjoy comics the way that I did/do...and that's a shame.

I don't think you're giving your kids enough credit. That's like saying they'll never enjoy movies like you do...it's too widely-encompasing of a statement to be taken seriously. Comics are so ubiquitous, and cover such a diverse range of genres, that its impossible to rule them out so completely like that.

Comics are here to stay, in one form or another. I just feel that they deserve the same recognition we give to the rest of art.
 

stevelabny said:
Youre looking at the lack on continuity AFTER the fact and deeming it impossible. There would have been NOTHING difficult about it if it was done from the beginning, or if it was done after "Crisis" or "Zero Hour" or the still-to-come Marvel mega-crossover of the same type.
I cant speak for the Golden Age. Haven't really read anything more than the original stories of supes and bats. I dont know how well Golden Age continuity was kept, so I'll jump straight to the sixties and the Silver Age.

I'm not saying that continuity is impossible, but I'm saying the attention paid to continuity borders on ludicrous. Comic books shouldn't have to explain why Peter Parker took 15 years to get through high school and college. It shouldn't have to explain why Batman never ages, yet Robin got older and became Nightwing. Their first mistake was ever addressing it to begin with it.

There was only an inkling of continuity in the Golden Age. If the Joker was killed in Detective Comics #40 and returned in Detective Comics #58 (and I don't know if Joker appeared in these issues or not, it's just an hypothetical), maybe the writers would come up with a story about how he survived....but maybe not. It wasn't as great a concern at that time.

stevelabny said:
By the time comics got to the 1980s, both universes were fraying.
Marvel retconned a few origins and just kindve ignored their problems.
DC, carrying the extra 20 years and Earth 2 baggage opted for something more severe. Crisis. This was supposed to completely remove all continuity problems BUT in a complete WTF moment, they rebooted some titles but NOT all of them. Some books seemingly started over, some seemingly wiped their past clean but continued normally, some just kep going as if nothing changed at all.
How they thought Crisis would be a good idea WITHOUT every editor and writer onboard,i dont know.
But this failure led to more time-spanning mini-series trying to fix continuity until they got to Zero Hour which actually made a strict 10 year time frame for the DC Universe. From the origins until Zero Hour was ONLY TEN YEARS. All of the original characters are 10 years older, all the rest have aged depending on where their first appearance was in the new official timeline. and the legion of super-heroes future timeline was completely wiped out as a side-effect. oh well.
Since Zero Hour, wonky aging has continued. some characters age, some characters dont, and christmas happens at least 4 times a year.

This is exactly my point. Crisis was not only a failure in terms of what it was trying to do, it was IMO a poorly thought out, poorly written mess. The fact that they went to all this trouble for the sake of continuity was silly. Marvel may get slammed for its ret-cons and for just ignoring some of the things that have happened before, but it was able to avoid that mess as a result. Also, I don't see the Ultimate line as a attempt to solve the continuity problem. Ultimate came out at a time when interest in the Marvel superhero line was waning considerably. I figure that reboots are less about cleaning up house, as they are providing a starting point for new readers, and to let writers rehash old stories perhaps with a new twist and some new characters.

As for what I'd do, I'd simply ignore age. Nobody cared that Aunt May was 115 years old. You don't ask why James Bond looked about 40 years old in the 1960's, and doesn't look a day older 40 years later. Have the editors maintain a storyline for each comic along with a list of what dangling threads haven't been tied up. The worst problems occur when some little secret is revealed in issue #210 of X-Men and then fails to be discussed again until issue #289. If they take care of these threads, the stories will be better and continuity problems will be minimized or possibly even non-existant.

stevelabny said:
You ask how many tv shows have to deal with continuity this long...and again I point out the obvious answer DAYTIME SOAP OPERAS. And they keep themselves fresh and exciting by letting go of characters when they need to. Holding on to "young" Peter Parker for because "old" Peter Parker isnt interesting is insulting to the writers. How can you predict how exciting Peter's kids will be? They might be more interesting, they might be less interesting... but you work these things out as they come, and each generation will surely pick their own favorites. Just like on daytime soap operas.

Funny...daytime soap operas handle their continuity in a way not unlike comics. Go to IMDB.com and pull up the cast listing of Days of Our Lives or General Hospital. Notice how many characters are listed as Jason Quartermaine #1, Jason Quartermaine #2, #3 and so on. How about Hope Brady #5? They've had no problem keeping several characters the exact same age for 20 or 30 years. Plus a soap opera hardly ever "lets" characters go. There's always an evil twin somewhere. Of course none of this has stopped people from watching these things religiously for years. No cries of messed up continuity from the audience.
 

Alzrius said:
See, and therein lies your error (as I see it): Who said anything about holding comics to the same standards as literature?
I'm responding specifically to this:

Stevelabny said:
People seem to be holding comic books to a lower standard than other forms of storytelling entertainment. Or maybe they hold them to low standards to. And I take all of my televisions shows/movies/comics/ novels VERY seriously.I strive for things to make sense and be dramatic and be exciting. not just be a couple of minutes of mindless action that looks cool.
I think McCould was right in his premise that comics are not a subset of an existing medium. Comics are not a subtype of literature, nor radio nor television. They should not be held to those standards. They have their own strengths and weaknesses, their own way of expressing communication. Comics should be held to the standards of comics as art.
I don't disagree with that. I also believe that, right now, outside of comics fans, most folks don't agree or care. Most people still think of comics in the pop-art form of Lichtenstein and have a idea in their mind what comics are, regardless of how divorced from reality that image is. And with a few noticable exceptions, in the U.S., there is little to dissuade them. Comics is considered an artistic ghetto. "Maus" is considered closer to performance or traditional art than comics, despite Art Spiegelman's desire to the contrary. I'm not saying comics can't be great art. They can, just that so far, they're rarely viewed as such. Will Eisner once said it best: "Comics are just word and pictures. There's nothing you can't do with word and pictures."


So you're saying you can't compare "Call of Cthulhu" to "Catcher in the Rye"?
I'm saying you can't fairly compare them with the same criteria...any more than I'd compare a New Jedi Order book against "For whom the Bell Tolls". They have different goals, not just different genres. To paraphrase Homer Simpson: "Barney's film is deeply moving, but Moe's film has a man getting hit by a football in the crotch."
To me, it's nonsensical to claim that the first issue of Justice Society of America, from 1940, should be held to the exact same critical criteria that Maus should.

Alzirus said:
That said, we don't need any sort of official body to tell us what art is and is not. I can't imagine some group trying to definitively stating exactly what paintings were actually art and which weren't. They'd be laughed out of existence. Art doesn't require authoritative legitimacy.
I didn't say that. Critics don't get to determine what art is, but they get to recommend what they think is, in their opinions, good art. And even then, it's just opinion. The Cat in the Hat movie has gotten horrible reviews...but it still debuted to a strong opening. People take critical commentary with a grain of salt...but they do take it. Critical review beyond "I don't like it." is non-existent in the comics world.



The same could be said for the fact that editors often make large changes to novels. And cinema? Don't even get me started. The actors, the director(s), the producer(s), and on and on. So, the whole multiplicity of people angle doesn't hold up.
It's not the mulitplicity of people...it's the lack of unified involvement. When a novelist is edited, the author is still the author. The editor does not usually rewrite the work without the author's knowledge and consent (however grudging). It's not a question of reviewing 'Superman: The Movie' versus a run of Wolverine....it's a question of reviewing all four Superman movies (and future ones) as one piece versus every Superman issue ever written. Stevelabny seems to imply that DC, 60 years ago, should have been writing with an eye toward continuity...something that seems to ignore a great deal of real world history.



And yet comics still appear in the newspapers, for one. Likewise, graphic novels still sell very well, and they're just comics in a thicker form. And webcomics...well, their time has just begun!
Strip comics are another argument, entirely, IMHO. Graphic novels are selling well...often to the same folks who bought the original issues. Total circulation is still way down. In the mid-80s, Uncanny X-men was selling close to 450,000 issues a month....now they're lucky if they're clearing 100,000. The only reason comics are still keeping their heads above water (and some years only barely) is because the cheapest comics are now $2.25, instead of .50. And so far, I've only seen two webcomics that are supporting their creators full-time with any sort of real income...so I'd say they've got a while to go, yet.

Likewise, I don't exactly see the portrait business as booming. After all, portraits are expensive, and you just don't see as many people doing that nowadays...and yet you never see anyone saying that portraits are on the verge of disappearing forever.
But that's not really an apples-to-apples, is it? A professional oil painter doesn't just do portraits exclusively, he does other artwork, as well. I've never met or seen anyone who exists exclusively on portrait painting...not even the caricature artist at the local mall. I don't think comics will disappear, but I think the comics I enjoyed when I was younger are rapidly disappearing...and that the industry is due for another implosion.

I don't think you're giving your kids enough credit. That's like saying they'll never enjoy movies like you do...it's too widely-encompasing of a statement to be taken seriously. Comics are so ubiquitous, and cover such a diverse range of genres, that its impossible to rule them out so completely like that.
I don't think you got my point, because I don't think I made it clear. My kids will never enjoy comics like I do because I can't share them with them. When the Hulk kills people without thinking, the Ultimates have wife-beating rapists on their team, the X-men have psionic adultresses blurbing more sexual innuendo than a Jeremy Bruckheimer TV show, the Avengers have death camps, and Superman's greatest enemy becomes president, it's just not appropriate for younger readers. You may feel differently. I appluad that comics are now written for an older audience...but I wish that there were titles for a younger one.

My son loves Superman and Batman...and yet I can't let him see their current incarnations. The Joker gunning down Commisioner Gordon's fiancee in No Man's Land is fine for me...but I'm not letting a 3.5 year old even see the pictures. Comics decided to mature with it's audience...but left no provision for growing a new one.
 

Wizardru, you might want to check out the comic-book versions of the Superman, Batman and Justice League cartoons (the "Adventures" comics). Those would be comics I'd let a child read (or read for them).
 

Remove ads

Top