I fall in the middle of this argument.

I've enjoyed a couple of FANTASTIC FOUR runs post-Lee/Kirby, so I know that good comics can happen after the creators depart.

But I generally agree with Joe. I'm more interested in what people are creating this year as compared to reading somebody's run on a comic that was started decades ago and has been reimagined dozens and dozens of times by hundreds of other people. At some point, a comic like BATMAN or FANTASTIC FOUR is like a public toilet. Everyone has had a crack at it, and it's just not that appealing anymore.

Or as Erik Larsen maybe would argue, his claim to fame is creator of SAVAGE DRAGON and co-founder of Image Comics. Whereas Geoff Johns is the 346th person to write GREEN LANTERN and the 2,762nd person to write ACTION COMICS.

You're not agreeing with Joe, you're making a different argument.

I mean, you know my opinion on this subject, Lawson, and you know that I'll take something new and driven by a creative person every time. It's what I buy and what I read and it's what I've ranted about on about eight billion message boards for far too many hours of my life.

But What Shoegaze Is Interested In Isn't the same argument as What Are Good Comics. These are totally different discussions.

Joe's argument amounts to this: Comics A and B are better than X and Y simply by virtue of being creator owned. Not because they're better comics, but simply because they're not corporate comics. That's what you're agreeing with.

It's kind of a garbage argument, though. To say he prefers creator owned comics? Perfect. I'm right there with him on that. I do, too, and that's where my money goes. I'd rather read and support them. That preference, however, is not an evaluation of a comic's quality, nor does it mean a creator owned book is magically better than a corporate book by default -- which is pretty much exactly what his statement boils down to. Millar & Hitch's FF can't be better quality than Indie Book X because it's a corporate book.

Garbage argument, and an argument I don't think you're actually endorsing. I think you're endorsing something else entirely.

No that isn't what I said.

What I'm saying is...

ONE:
The Lee/Kirby FF is always superior to any "versions" that follow. Even when it is as well done as can be. It's still just a copy, at best an homage.

TWO:
You can't compare Savage Dragon to Millar and Hitch's FF. One is an original work the other is just a copy, at best an homage.

THREE:
I'm not against corporate owned work in and of itself. The Lee/Kirby FF WAS a corporate owned work. What makes most current corporate owned works inferior is they are no longer controlled by their creator, AND have been re-interpreted, so many times by so many different people's personal visions that they are at best an homage in an endless series of increasingly diminished homages. Sure there is the occasional good work. But at best it is still JUST A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL. And the more creative teams that get their shot at the same old characters, just dilutes the after Lee/Kirby pile even more.

As a reader I prefer creator controlled works. Which these days usually mean creator owned works. Creator owned works are therefor more likely to be better.



I haven't read any of those particular books, so I'll just say yes, they are very good films. Some of my favorites. But they are still interpretations of the original work by the authors and may have indeed eclipsed the original books in the public eye, but that does not make them better. They are great movies, and in no way any less valid a form of entertainment BUT they are still just an INTERPRETATION of the original.

Yes, it's what you said. You just reinforced it with this post. You've found another way to say that a book by its creator is inherently better than a book by someone who follows the creator, simply by virtue of having been done by the creator.

And that's garbage logic. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and I can throw plenty of examples at you without much thought that contradict it.

(Rather than wait for the invitation, I can start throwing them out there right now. Based on your logic, Frank Miller's Daredevil cannot be better than the Stan Lee-penned Daredevil because it's "just a copy, at best an homage." Same holds true for all Superman stories following Siegel and Schuster's work, and any X-Men books that are not Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, or any Swamp Thing stories that are not written by Len Wein, or Green Lantern stories not written by Bill Finger, and so on and so forth. By your logic these stories can never be better than the originals not by any criteria having to do with quality, but simply by virtue of not having been done by their creator.)

(It's a garbage argument.)

What does this have to do with your implication that Millar & Hitch's FF can't be better than Savage Dragon simply by virtue of the fact that they didn't create the FF? What does this statement have to do with the quality of the book?

If you're talking about "good comics," which is exactly where this began, yes, you can.

Unless you'd like to move the goalposts and make this a different argument. Maybe you want to argue that creator-owned books are morally superior. Fine. Then make that argument instead of pretending that what you're saying has anything to do with a book's quality as a comic books.

What does this have to do with your implication that Millar & Hitch's FF can't be better than Savage Dragon simply by virtue of the fact that they didn't create the FF?

So it's not about the quality of the books, it's about a rule you've decided to apply to these comics, a rule that amounts to, Comics A and B are better than X and Y simply by virtue of being creator owned. Not because they're better comics, but simply because they're not corporate comics?

Got it.

I want to insult your logic, but I hesitate to call this logic. You know, 'cause it isn't.

Your statement is this: "I prefer creator-controlled works, therefore creator-controlled works are better."

That's an airtight case.

So? Your statement was, "The books are always better" (than the movies based on them. I've cited a few examples that run counter to your argument. Your counter argument is to state the obvious, that the movies are adaptations?

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. They're adaptations .... and?

You made a blanket statement and a broad, sweeping generalization that does not stand up to scrutiny. I suppose we can create another Rule For What Constitutes Quality That Doesn't Actually Have Anything To Do With Quality and call it a day, because that's what you're doing. You're measuring something's quality by a measuring stick that has nothing to do with quality.

<shrug>

Dunno know what to tell you.

Sorry, perhaps I am.

I recognize that new people came along years later on titles like DAREDEVIL and turned in a better job than the original series creators.

I probably would not draw as black-and-white a comparison between new work on DAREDEVIL (for example, the current team is quite impressive) and an entirely new comic at an indie publisher that isn't very good (I won't name names; we're arguing enough), and suggest that DAREDEVIL is inferior because it's basically a retread.

I'm with Shoegaze. Joe seems to be taking notions that may be good generalizations, and applying them as absolutes. I mean, "the books are always better" is just wrong.



Sure you can: compare the writing, plot development, dialogue and art and make a decision as to which is best. Bring Back Zot obviously thought FF was better. When comparing creator owned and work-for-hire, it won't always necessarily be the creator owned work that's better (unless maybe your definition of "better" is limited to "more original").

Yeah. I do the same thing myself in some arguments.

I agree with Joe in the abstract -- new books produced by the original creators are better than a dusty old book now getting reinterpreted by its 285th creative team -- but in the specific, Shoegaze points out a bunch of exceptions.

It's safer to say, all else being equal, I'm more likely to look at a new title than I am to start reading the X-MEN titles at this point. But I guess we can't really declare that one type of comic is always superior to another.

Savage Dragon and Millar/Hitch FF are both fine comics. Joe and I are scoring them a little differently.

For Joe, Savage Dragon gets a few extra points because it's Erik Larsen's original creation, and because Erik is one of the very few writer/artists to have written and drawn every issue of his book.

For me, FF gets extra points because I love these characters, and because and I'm really enjoying Hitch's artistic interpretation of them. Hitch is one of the few FF creators to draw differently from Kirby.

Ultimately, quality is what counts. As fond as Joe is of creator owned comics, even he would probably acknowledge that the Millar/Hitch FF is better that Liefeld's "Youngblood" or Jim Valentino's "Shadowhawk".

I would disagree that it's about spotting works extra points.

I just think we are talking about two different things.

It's apples and oranges, Creator-owned/creator-controlled works are a different thing than working on long-running, pre-existing series.

A Beatles cover band or even a contemporary band doing a really great cover of a Beatles song, isn't the same thing as the actual Beatles.

I'll try to get you to understand one more time. It's not just that they didn't create it. They are the fortieth or fiftieth, or whatever two-hundred and thirteenth guys to work on it that didn't create it. It's also the sheer volume of interpretations. We may all agree that Frank Miller may have done the definitive Daredevil, we may all agree that we think it's higher quality but someday someone else will reinvent the character. And there will be people that prefer that new version, no matter if you think their opinions are "garbage" or not. But we were not talking about Daredevil, we were talking about the Fantastic Four, a creation that has had it's ups and downs to be sure, but most agree it's original run was ground-breaking, original, inventive, great fun. Unlike Daredevil, which has had quite a different publishing history. What started out as a mediocre character was given new life at some point by really inventive writers and artists, like Miracle Man or Supreme.



They ARE morally superior but that's a different argument.

Read the whole of the FF. A long running series that had an original spectacular run and over the last thirty years has had an endless succession of interpretations, some good some bad. Patterns develop, villains and characters die and return endlessly. Everything eventually returns to a status quo established by the creators. It's no longer a single story, it's a pastiche. Or more an anthology series with the Lee/Kirby works as the frame of reference. The FF is now two bodies of work, the original creative run, and the rest, (the Professors and Mary Anns if you will).

A book like Savage Dragon is still evolving and growing. It still could go anywhere that it's creator wants to go. But the FF eventually returns to a status quo established by the creators, each new creative team resurrects their favorite villain and adds their take, only to be erased by the next guys.