|
I think Secret Wars would be a pretty easy solo read. You don't really need to know why the universes are crashing into each other, or have the full context of Black Priests, Beyonders, White Swans and all that.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Yeah I read Secret Wars without having read any Hickman and while some of it was lost on me the basic idea of it was easy to grasp.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
I guess, but SW 1 is basically all the "universes smashing" that you get before it dovetails into a bunch of character work for Reed and Doom (most of which is lost on you unless you understand how important to Hickman Reed and Doom are) and establishing the new ruleset for Battleworld. Especially considering that the whole appeal of SW is that it picks and chooses favorite Marvel events, storylines, and What Ifs from its history and smashes them all together I'm really wondering how any of it works if that's your first event. Especially all the Ultimate universe stuff, considering Miles and Maker are fairly significant to the plot as written.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
SW might not work as baby's first Marvel, but if you have even a passing familiarity with the characters you can pick things up pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
If Secret Wars #1 was anyone's first comic book, I envy them. That's a wild way to get introduced to the universe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Yeah if you literally have never read a marvel comic and have no idea who any of these people are, it's bad. But if you are like me and recently got back into comics so you are familiar with stuff like Inferno or various characters in general it was fine with no lead up beyond the recap page.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Too many responses to the "iconic Marvel arc/run" without a mention of Waid/Wieringo Fantastic Four. I'd honestly say Duggan's Deadpool is getting up there, though it spins its wheels sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Milligan and Allred's X-Force/X-Statix. Gone too soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
If Marvel Unlimited has Fantastic Four #45-53, and Thor #160-169, you'll see Stan and Jack at their best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
SilverSupernova posted:Reader is a great character who was ruined by the writers' misconception that the readers give the slightest poo poo about Johnny Storm's affair with Crystal/Medusa over him. The same writer has always written the book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Also the Johnny Storm/Medusa/Crystal stuff was really good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:So what would you guys consider your personal must read marvel runs/arcs? Trying to expand my awareness. Walt Simonson's THOR. Go loving read Walt Simonson's Thor run if you have not already done so. Do it now. NOW
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Jason Aaron's Ghost Rider is easily the best work ever done with the character. Kurt Busiek's Iron Man run is still my favorite IM era.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
So I mainly read alternate universe stuff like Elseworlds in DC or miniseries from Marvel. I like the "but with a twist" formula, not to mention these series being shorter and contained means there's less time to rot or for incompetent writers to come onboard and ruin everything. I was wondering if any of "The End" series from about a decade ago are worth checking out? I was interested in Hulk: The End 'cuz I like Peter David's work. Also did anyone here ever read JMS' Supreme Power?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:Walt Simonson's THOR. I was going to recommend this. After Kirby, no one else has really captured what an alien place Asgard is. It's very 1970s/early 80s science fantasy which is lost today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Jungle Action Black Panther/ Kirby Black Panther/Priest Black Panther Jim Starlin Warlock saga. Also include the original Thanos stuff Kirby/Steranko/Englehart/Waid/DeMatteis/Bru/Lee/Stern/Gruenwald Captain America
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Also did anyone here ever read JMS' Supreme Power? It had so much potential but it fizzled in less than a year. It's really not very good overall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:It had so much potential but it fizzled in less than a year. It's really not very good overall. Yeah, I read the first volume and thought it was pretty good but everything I heard about what came after was negative.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Yeah, I read the first volume and thought it was pretty good but everything I heard about what came after was negative. It just became edgy for the sake of being edgy and then sales crapped out so they relaunched it as an MK series which went nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:It just became edgy for the sake of being edgy and then sales crapped out so they relaunched it as an MK series which went nowhere. Its almost as if JMS went on a long pointless walk across America that he quit half way through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So I mainly read alternate universe stuff like Elseworlds in DC or miniseries from Marvel. I like the "but with a twist" formula, not to mention these series being shorter and contained means there's less time to rot or for incompetent writers to come onboard and ruin everything. Punisher and Hulk were really good. All of the rest, as I recall, were duds in one way or the other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Fantastic Four: The End has great Alan Davis art.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
I don't know if it's a must read work, but Gerber's Omega the Unknown is short, not overwhelmingly '70s, and interesting as heck. Pair it with his Howard the Duck #16, and you have a good look at a fascinating dude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:I don't know if it's a must read work, but Gerber's Omega the Unknown is short, not overwhelmingly '70s, and interesting as heck. Pair it with his Howard the Duck #16, and you have a good look at a fascinating dude. Jonathan Lethem also did a thing with Omega the Unknown that was pretty out there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Hulk The End is really good. X-Men The End is horrendous. I think those are the only ones I read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:Hulk The End is really good. X-Men The End is horrendous. I think those are the only ones I read. Claremont wrote X-Men The End, right? I never understood him, or rather, I never understood his reputation. It seems many regard him as THE X-Men guy at one point but later on he's just viewed with absolute derision. I see the same thing with Frank Miller. I hear endless praise for his Daredevil but ask anyone about him and they have nothing but scathing comments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Claremont wrote X-Men The End, right? As far as I can tell they both had strong opening runs and then slowly petered out the longer they stayed with the run. They also both have some weird fetishes that people latch on to as a way to criticize them. I don't know if I'd personally call Claremont "good" but he does have the most influence over the X-Men and almost twenty years of storytelling is hard to reverse if you want to do something different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
You all seem to be done mentioning your favorite arcs, but no one said the original Age of Apocalypse and that's a drat shame. 90s edge done right, and one of the only 90s X-Men arcs to go that dark and not turn out a mess. I feel like if it and Onslaught had been written at the opposite points in time, the overall story that that created would redeem Onslaught a bit and make more sense altogether. First you get Professor X and gently caress him up beyond reproach, then once the dust settles from that you show why the world still needed him. They could have even tied it together with Franklin Richards' world in a bubble being the AoA universe because he in his childlike way of thinking created a world more or less like 616 but without the guy that just ruined everything. And it may be alternate universe and not count, but Marvel 1602 is ART. Gay for Gaiman, film at 11.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
I don't like how Cap is portrayed at the end of 1602 but otherwise it is good stuff. Every single follow up is bad though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Claremont wrote X-Men The End, right? Miller went batfuck crazy and that's why people hate him now. Claremont just sort of petered out in quality, plus he has a very "of the time style": while I love the story beats and character development he did, I can't stand reading his dialogue so he's hard to go back to for me, and I imagine reading hella 1980s comic dialogue in 2003 or whatever was jarring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
Miller's body of work went from iconic character-defining stuff to Batman calling Robin retarded and Not-Batman killing all the muslims. His batting average has lowered over time due to all the horrible things he keeps making. Almost every creator gets lovely over time. Some of them are just dicks about it. The smart ones just retire.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
I used to love Jim Lee's art in the 90's, but not so much anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
John Yossarian posted:I used to love Jim Lee's art in the 90's, but not so much anymore. There swirling rumors that he has some serious issues with his drawing hand in recent years. Compare Hush to his Justice League issues and there is a noticeable drop in quality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:There swirling rumors that he has some serious issues with his drawing hand in recent years. Compare Hush to his Justice League issues and there is a noticeable drop in quality. I dunno, the recent costume designs he did for Rebirth were of widely varying quality in terms of design but they were all drawn well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:I dunno, the recent costume designs he did for Rebirth were of widely varying quality in terms of design but they were all drawn well. Drawing a single design is one thing, 22 pages of dynamic action is another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Claremont wrote X-Men The End, right? He made the x-men into an actual franchise. He made x-men into one of the biggest things in the 80s when before it was just reprints.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:He made the x-men into an actual franchise. He made x-men into one of the biggest things in the 80s when before it was just reprints. Yeah, that's what I've always heard. Hard to imagine X-Men used to be one of Marvel's lesser titles. I've never read older X stuff, though. Maybe I should correct this. On a related note though, a couple questions. 1. The earlier post mentioned Jim Lee X-Men? I've heard that was the X-Men that inspired the 90s toon? Well he was an artist and not a writer I think. I actually, when checking on Claremont, found a list of the best and worst X-writers according to some guy and he had this 90s writer listed as one of the worst. I guess we can kind of blame that guy for X-Men TAS as well as the actual comics? Assuming they are as bad as I've heard. 2. Should I read Days of Future Past? I've seen it enough, what with TAS kind of doing it and also the film. I'm curious about the original. Not particularly relevant but I post on a forum that absolutely hates comic X-Men or rather, comic mutants. They say the entire concept doesn't make sense because, unlike the various adaptations where it's just humans vs. mutants, they are merely one group of superpowered individuals in a whole planet full of said people, yet they constantly get persecuted. I kind of always wondered about this myself. Is there any real explanation for why they are singled out? NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
The main thing to get used to reading any comics from before the mid-90s or so is the compressed storytelling that was common then. Whereas now every comic is "cinematic" and so has panels of silence, facial expressions, etc, back then it was much more densely packed dialogue and basically no empty panels. As a result WAY more stuff happens in a single issue, to the point where it seems rushed or cramped sometimes but that's just how comics worked. The upside of that is it often is less of a time commitment to say oh hey I'll go read Days of Future Past or Dark Phoenix or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
The sad thing about Jim Lee is finding out he tried a different style for a second in the early 2000s, and I guess nobody wanted that from him. http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2014/08/23/year-of-the-artist-day-235-jim-lee-part-4-flinch-1/ 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I never understood him, or rather, I never understood his reputation. It seems many regard him as THE X-Men guy at one point but later on he's just viewed with absolute derision. I see the same thing with Frank Miller. I hear endless praise for his Daredevil but ask anyone about him and they have nothing but scathing comments. To some extent, you have to have been reading Claremont at the time, or at least you have to read some of the contemporary Marvel books. When he was at his peak, he was doing work that was much more densely textured and complex than virtually anyone else at Marvel, with the occasional exception of stuff like the "Demon in the Bottle" arc. His later work gets increasingly fetish-laden and prone to inadvertent self-parody, which is the reason for the modern reaction to him, but like I said in the "poo poo That Actually Happened" thread, Claremont has had a tremendous ripple effect on the entirety of Western superhero comics. If Lee and Kirby are modern comics' grandfathers, Claremont is the weird uncle who's in and out of the assisted living facility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 03:13
|
|