InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Say hello to your son"

queenursula (queenursula) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-11-03 17:36:00

Entry tags:

char: captain america/steve rogers, char: deadpool/wade wilson, char: lady deadpool, creator: rob liefeld, publisher: marvel comics

Introducing Lady Deadpool!

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

box_in_the_box
2009-11-03 11:02 pm UTC (link)

I would have a much greater esteem for him if he actually took the time to use those criticisms as an opportunity to improve his actual work, which, aside from learning how to draw feet, he hasn't done in any way. If you hear people consistently pointing out the things in your work that DON'T work, and your response is to keep doing those things, then you're basically making a very conscious, ego-driven choice to say "fuck you" to everyone who's pointing out your artistic flaws, which puts you squarely in the territory of Laurell K. Hamilton.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	punishermax 2009-11-03 11:06 pm UTC (link)
	Honestly, his style is bad in general and I don't think he could improve it without a major overhaul. I like his art because of his ridiculous it is, it cracks me up. At least his art makes me smile. Hell I don't hate Loeb either, cause I really like Long Halloween. Everything else he's wrote ehhhh. Except for Spiderman Blue, I liked the idea of that (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	manofbats 2009-11-03 11:13 pm UTC (link)
	I would like to think Mr. Liefeld appreciates fans like you who have incredibly low standards. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

punishermax
2009-11-03 11:17 pm UTC (link)

Oh give me a break. I'm sorry I don't hate Liefeld and Loeb with a fiery passion. I think Long Halloween is a fun little murder mystery. I like Onslaught from nostalgia. I remember thinking it was awesome as a little kid, and I can't fully hate it for that reason.

I like other comics as well, Superman, Detective Comics, Green Lantern, GLC, Spiderman in both forms so don't insult me because I like something you don't

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-11-03 11:29 pm UTC (link)

Conversely, just because you like Long Halloween doesn't mean that you must, or even should, support other examples of Loeb's work. Just because I think Morrison's JLA is awesome doesn't mean that I thought Final Crisis was anything other than dogshit, and likewise, the fact that James Robinson did great work in Starman does not excuse Cry For Justice (which, I'll grant you, is actually even WORSE than Liefeld, because Robinson's portrayal of torture is actually MORALLY offensive to me).

It's possible to appreciate bad things on an ironic level, but the problem with doing so with bad things that are still relatively popular current trends is that those bad things then crowd out the GOOD things in a given genre or medium. In the future, I'm sure that Michael Bay will be hailed as the next Ed Wood, and as much as I'd love to watch his movies in the theater MST3K-style, I CAN'T, because SALES don't take into account whether you purchase something for the LULZ or not - rather, they simply say, "Well, people bought THIS insanely bad piece of shit, so let's churn out 100 more just like it!"

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

punishermax
2009-11-03 11:34 pm UTC (link)

Yes but the amount of people going to shit on a Bay film is infinitesimal compared to the people seeing it for realy entertainment.

People will but Liefeld's stuff anyway, will I buy it? Maybe for the sheer insanity of it but probably not. I don't support Loeb in everything. Ultimatum was awful and Red Hulk is just bad. (I bought the FC hardcover though, on a lark because I was just getting into DC comics and I needed a primer,I didn't hate it, but damn if I could understand half of it).

I guess I just don't get really pissed at comics.

Cause One Piece is always awesome and is my backup hell yeah

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

box_in_the_box
2009-11-03 11:52 pm UTC (link)

Fair enough, especially since you're not financially supporting it. :)

I guess my problem is my own history with this stuff. I first drifted away from comics in the early '80s, when I realized - early in grade school, no less - that all the most annoying aspects of these characters' status quos (Lois not knowing Clark's secret identity, etc.) were never going to change, and I lost interest. By contrast, when I got back into comics in the early 90s, I found Lois and Clark married (not bad), but I also found myself mired in this whole wave of steroid-fueled, saliva-dripping, angry warrior-centric shit, and since I reentered comics through the "back door" of DC Vertigo, I actually believed that comics could combine extravagant outfits with intelligent writing (and, naive as it was, I actually expected superheroes to offer a more optimistic worldview than John Constantine and company).

So, every time I see hoof-feet or constipated clenching teeth or pouches or variant covers, I ALWAYS see it as the potential Michael Myers-esque return of The Worst Of The '90s, the decade so bad that it nearly made me quit comics just as I'd gotten into them again.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

box_in_the_box
2009-11-03 11:13 pm UTC (link)

Honestly, his style is bad in general and I don't think he could improve it without a major overhaul.

And yet, there have been other artists who have managed to do exactly that. Yes, it takes lots of work, and no, there's no guarantee of success, but Rob has never even TRIED to improve, as evidenced by HIS OWN ADMISSION that a lot of his delays can be accounted for by spending too much time playing video games.

In any other profession, anyone who behaved like this would be FIRED, and RIGHTLY SO.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	interrobamf 2009-11-03 11:33 pm UTC (link)
	And yet, there have been other artists who have managed to do exactly that. Mike Deodato, if you want an example. Sure, people rag on him sometimes for drawing his characters like actual celebrities, but his leap from his '90s art (Wonder Woman) to now (Dark Avengers) is nothing short of a goddamn miracle. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	darkknightjrk 2009-11-03 11:57 pm UTC (link)
	I seem to recall Francis Manipold being another example of this improvement--and he was inspired by the 90s Image work, too. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	scottyquick 2009-11-03 11:26 pm UTC (link)
	Aha, yeah, his art's so bad that it's awful that it's awesome to show people it. Horrible tumor muscles for lads, horrible tumor breasts for ladies! Of course I'd never pay money for it, but, y'know. Awesome on awfulness. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	jacobmb 2009-11-03 11:43 pm UTC (link)
	Laurell K. Hamilton? Whew, that's cold. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jupiterrhode
2009-11-04 06:24 am UTC (link)

I happen to enjoy Hamilton's work, and think her stories have progressed logically. But those that disagree will see only a woman having sex with multiple men and not being ashamed of it (even thought Anita has been ashamed of it in the past, and is just now starting to grow out of it). But then again, I've never heard a "critique" of Hamilton's work that didn't bring up the sexual aspect at least once, and didn't sound at least unconsciously misogynist.

But whatever, different strokes.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

va1tyr
2009-11-04 10:41 am UTC (link)

I bailed on the Anita Blake series at Obsidian Butterfly; it was actually a good one, and that motivated me to pack it in, because I wanted to read about a cool, gritty animator who got entangled in supernatural politics, and I wasn't really getting that anymore. I quite liked the Triad, too. But it seemed like she warped the story to pack more and more sex in, and all the men couldn't resist Anita.

Conversely, I don't mind the Merry Gentry series because all the sex and irresistability to men were built into the story from the start.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

box_in_the_box
2009-11-04 10:59 am UTC (link)

Bullshit. Micah is such unrepentant dogshit that it doesn't even work as SIMPLE PORN. LKH uses the phrase "hot, wet and tight" to describe Anita's vagina more frequently than Jackie Collins resorts to describing the muscles of one of her male characters as "rippling." Anita Blake is about as much of a "feminist" role model as Bella Fucking Swan is, so don't even TRY and play that punk card. If the EXACT SAME STORY was written by Chuck Austen, this wouldn't even be a QUESTION - EVERY woman who read it would want to string the author of the later Anita Blake novels up by his nutsack for his demonstrated on-the-page misogynistic characterization of Anita as a woman, and RIGHTLY FUCKING SO.

I'd actually expect better writing from a teenage virgin fanfic author online than what LKH churns out. It's OBJECTIVELY bad.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jupiterrhode 2009-11-04 04:24 pm UTC (link)
	Except for the part where it objectively isn't. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ex_darkblade992 2009-11-04 06:27 pm UTC (link)
	I have issues with any story that uses sex as a deus ex machina regardless of the gender of the main character. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jupiterrhode 2009-11-04 06:55 pm UTC (link)
	Why? As far as deus ex machinas go, at least sex makes sense mythologically. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ex_darkblade992
2009-11-04 09:37 pm UTC (link)

No it doesn't.

The original vampires were purely savage creatures whose attacks were akin to barbarians raping and murdering civilized folks. Bram Stroke's vampires while more cultured and the sexual elements increased only improved themselves as far as date rape. So sex with vampires being used as deus ex machina has no mythological roots.

For the life of me I can't even think of an example of werecreature sex in fiction at all from before the furry fandom became well known so I really don't see any mythological basis for the werecreatures deus sex machina.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jupiterrhode 2009-11-05 03:43 am UTC (link)
	Not with vampires specifically, but sex and love have always been used as deus ex machinas in fiction, and now that vampires have transformed form mindless savage to suave sexual bring it makes sense that the sex deus ex machina follows them over. (Reply to this) (Parent)

jacobmb
2009-11-06 05:39 am UTC (link)

The reason I dropped the series is because Anita stopped kicking ass and she stopped being in danger. Of course a lead protagonist is highly unlikely to die, but by OB it became clear Anita was never going to be placed in serious peril again. Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter, a series that started out as an action-horror fantasy, got boring. That's an unforgivable sin as far as I'm concerned.

One can say the secondary characters can be hurt or killed, but IMO, the secondary characters are barely entities in the series, which makes it hard to care about them. It's all Anita, all the time; there's little to no room for character development for anyone not Anita. When a TV show, movie, comic book, or book series narrows its focus to the holy importance of a single character and their whatever, then that's my jumping off point.

The plot holes and second-rate porn didn't help either.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Read comments) -