Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Inkwell Awards Voting

JayJay here. I just wanted to let everyone know the Inkwell Awards annual ballot is live and voting is in effect now! From May 1 - May 15 at http://www.inkwellawards.com


Vote for your favorite inkers and vote for two of the industries most outstanding talents to win the Joe Sinnott lifetime achievement award!



301 comments:

1 – 200 of 301   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

anybody who inks Liefeld deserves some kind of award

Sanjiv Purba said...

Where is Jim Shooter? I hope he is making LOTS of money if he is not updating his blog!!

Anonymous said...

I nominate Jim Shooter for Laziest Blogger of April 2012 Award...any challengers? No? It's official.

Chris Hlady said...

Josef Rubenstein has to get my vote for the THE JOE SINNOTT AWARD Part 2. He already got some of my money for inking a drawing of mine. Nothing I've ever done has looked so good.

Go Joe!

Harry said...

I last updated my own blog in November...

David H said...

I don't have any issue with the lack of updates except for the fact that such a large community has built here, yet there's not even one line explaining the change from near daily posts to such a long break?

It's just not great blog etiquette IMO.... There's a lot of love here Jim but it gets frustrating checking in each day and not seeing any explanation....

Anonymous said...

@David

Jim has explained his long absences. The same things happened last month, and when he returned he said he had hard deadline stuff he was working on. That's good enough for me - I don't need him to repeat that over and over every time he is away

@Chris - agreed. Rubenstein will always be one of my favorite inkers, because he inked the DeFalco/Frenz run on Amazing Spider-Man that remains my favorite run on that title

Jeff Z said...

Has anyone checked the shed in Byrne's backyard? He might be holding Jim there until he can be assured that Jim will say nice things about his recent work.

Anonymous said...

I think Jolly John Byrne banished Jim to the Negative Zone

Robert said...

Mr. Shooter is a busy man. Hell, much as I'd love to sit 'round the campfire listening to his stories all night the man's still gotta make a living.

But, if I might make a request? Avengers review. Pretty please. With a cherry on top.

ja said...

@David H: Shooter has stated before that his blog output gets halted when he has to work on paying gigs. I would imagine that life itself dictates his output also.

Is Jim's mother still with us? If so, I would imagine that he devotes a great deal of his time with her, too.

There's nothing wrong Jim's 'blog etiquette'. He's let us all know that he gets to his blog posts when he's not being pressed with other things.

----------

I voted:

Favorite Inker: Rick Magyar. He's not just a linesmith. You can see his considerable drawing skills with the inks he does.

Most Adaptable Inker: Jonathan Glapion.

Props Award: Steve Leialoha. Always the Gold Standard.

The S.P.A.M.I. Todd McFarlane. Of the ones nominated, his inks were the strongest, most distinct. To me, certainly the more interesting.

All-In-One Award: J.H. Williams. Such consistently phenomenal work.

THE JOE SINNOTT AWARD Part 1: Murphy Anderson. He deserves recognition for his lifetime contribution to comics, and all the enjoyment he's given through his work.

THE JOE SINNOTT AWARD Part 2: Tom Palmer. He's much better than Rubinstein and the rest. Even though he's not considered the top hot inker like Scott Williams is, his long-term body of work being able to ink so many different styles so well over so many years has certainly earned my vote.

Anonymous said...

Even though he's not considered the top hot inker like Scott Williams is
....................
I think Tom Palmer is as good as ANY inker at ANY time. He's cream of the crop as far as I'm concerned.

Anonymous said...

Klaus Janson and Scott Hanna are top notch as well

ja said...

Tom Palmer is one of the most underrated inkers of all time. He very well should be considered as popular as Scott Williams, but unfortunately not. All the while, he's still doing amazing work being about the best inker Neal Adams ever had, to making John Buscema look even better than his pencils, and then is able to handle such stylized pencils as John Romita Jr.'s! NOT TO MENTION that he was the best inker - along with Klaus Janson, IMO - that Gene Colan EVER had.

Having said that, my personal favorites are what I consider to be 2 sides of the same coin: Klaus Janson and Steve Leialoha. They both can deliver the most bold and powerful inking techniques, and in the same page give us the most delicate, nuanced textures and tones you've ever seen.

Klaus is certainly more visceral, whereas Steve is much more fluid and smooth with his lines and tones. But when you see either of their inks - over others or their own work - man, it can be a thing of beauty!

This is why I enjoy inkers like Tom Palmer, because of their incredible versatility. I enjoy amazing linesmiths such as Scott Williams and most of the other really good inkers out there. But I really appreciate so much more the versatility of an inker that can adapt to everyone's stylization.

This is a good argument for John Byrne never inking himself. I want to still like Byrne's work, but it has become so plastic and homogenized, it looks like wallpaper to me.

That, and Byrne being an overall malicious asshole turns me off to supporting any of his work.

Scott Hanna is a good inker as well. Speaking of Byrne, I love the story I was told from the best source available about how Byrne hated Hanna's inks over him on Spider-Man. He would tell Scott to just ink over what was there in the pencils, and admonish him to not change or add anything. Then Scott walked away from inking The Great (EGO The Living Planet) Byrne's pencils. Good for Scott Hanna! LOL!

I would pay money to see videos of how people ink their work. I just love to see everyone's process.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it is poor blog etiquette. Putting a quick message in a comments section saying 'I'm working' is not equivalent to a quick post saying the same thing, even if he just had JayJay post it for him. In the nearly month and a half since the last post, he hasn't had 5 minutes to just say 'Hey, I know you're all checking in, but I've been swamped'? That's just rude, especially on a site where you're asking people to donate money to 'keep it alive.' It takes months and months to build a thriving following, but you can lose it in a heartbeat if the people feel ignored, which is exactly what is happening. I used to check it daily. Now.... maybe weekly, if I remember. Why should I bother, if there isn't going to be anything new, anyway?

Arthur Nichols said...

Considering that for a time, Jim Shooter had been regularly posting, giving us great reading material on this blog, and then had to occasionally stop due to paying deadlines, Shooter has built up a very good following. A following I believe will still be here when he returns.

Except for the few self-righteous pricks who wish to characterize Jim as trying to scam everyone here, or to suggest he's purposely being rude by not letting us all know what's going on in his personal life that delays his blog postings (essentially none of our business), I take the silence of the majority of those who haven't hurled accusations and insults at Jim as proof that he has enough equity with everyone here to patiently wait for his return.

That anyone has donated their $10-$20 (or likely no money at all), and feels that gives them the justification to openly be a detrimental petty jerk when they have no reason to be, they really should shut the fuck up.

Shooter has enough equity with me (and I believe the vast majority of everyone else here, whether or not they wish to chime in with their support) to justify my patience.

Anonymous said...

Hey Arthur - create a straw man much? Neither of the people who posted saying it was 'rude' were unreasonable in their tone, nor worthy of pretty much every term you ascribed to them.

Maybe go have a lie down ;)

Anonymous said...

There is something ironic about someone saying "I was not being rude" and then saying "why don't you go lie down"

Anyway, Shooter has checked in and responded to some of the comments over the last month.

Bob Almond said...

To ja: no need to pay money. You can see tutorials of artists inking at our Inkwell Awards website Resources section: http://www.inkwellawards.com/?page_id=107
You can also find Inker Samples (before & after), articles, the only Inker exclusive Database Directory, and links to Articles, Galleries, Forums, and Interviews.

As for Jim, while I admit, he is an Inkwell Awards ambassador leaving me with a bias, I can only say that for over a year he has been prolific with his blogging, rarely having any delays. This is his first lapse, something I see other bloggers do regularly. It sucks because we're all jonesing for more great reads, but I think fans of his will understand, cut him some slack, and keep coming back. The rest may be here simply for the drama and will probably keep visiting for more of that drama;-)

Much thanks for those of you who have placed a vote! The inkers discussion on that subject has been quite entertaining.

Arthur Nichols said...

Anonymous,

If you weren't one of the people being rude and insulting, then I wasn't speaking of you.

There were people who chimed in that have been rude and insulting. I was speaking of them.

----

Bob Almond,

I voted also. Great choices this year. I appreciate your setup with the Inkwell Awards very much. Thank you for that, and for all the fine work you do.

=)

bob Almond said...

Before anyone thinks I'm schizophrenic, that is another Bob Almond who is a Facebook friend of mine. I am not complimenting myself - LOL!

Arthur Nichols said...

Geez, it's like talking to a Bob Almond Doombot.

Whichever Almond weilds a brush, you do great work! I enjoyed sharing inking chores with you on an issue of Warlock and the Infinity Watch a hundred years ago.

Now will the real Bob Almond please stand up? Oh wait. You're both the real Bob Almond...

Bob Almond said...

Ack! Art, you're very kind to say that but you're complimenting me on my earliest stuff when I knew nothing, NOTHING!....thanks, I think;-) I hope I've done better since then after 20 years

I'll blame the early work on my doombot.

Arthur Nichols said...

You didn't suck back then, and you're a helluva lot better now.

=)

Anonymous said...

Could you guys get a room and get it over with

Defiant1 said...

At some point, the credibility of a person's comments become suspect when it is either all praise or all criticism. When the comments start looking like saboteurs vs. sycophants I start skimming past them and ignoring them.

Jim's blog posts are pretty straightforward. If you criticize an industry practice or people's qualifications to do their job, it pulls those with polarized attitudes on the topic out of the shadows. That's essentially what we have here.

Those sabotaging have most likely been offended. I'm not a sycophant or claque, so I try to straddle the centerline of objectivity. My comments tend to have more weight with those who lurk and just read what I write without responding.

Dave James O'Neill said...

I have two possible theories on why Shooter has vanished

-He hated the Avengers movie (if he's even seen it), and is writing a long winded diatribe about how one scene in particular didn't meet his storytelling standards the way he wrote the Avengers back in the 70s.

-He's failed a legal bid to stop New Valiant from publishing, because New XO Manowar is pretty good, but doesn't credit Shooter.

Anonymous said...

Defiant1 said "My comments tend to have more weight with those who lurk and just read what I write without responding."

How do you possibly know what they think if they don't respond? ;)

cesare said...

Tom Palmer best inker ever, with all due respect to the others geniuses that have been mentioned.

ja said...

Sigh. Okay, I'll feed the beast again:

Dave James O'Neill, you're a hateful son of a bitch. It must be nice to sit on your perch and throw complete falsehoods around, just so you can pretend you have something clever to say.

Fox News might want to hire you. You certainly share their 'journalistic' standards.

Van GoghX said...

Huh. I didn't take DJO's comment as hateful, and thought it was kind of amusing. Maybe I'm missing something...

Surprisingly, I thought the new X-O wasn't half bad myself! Definitely not Mr. Shooter writing, but it feels like they at least put an attempt at making something decent out of the title.

ja said...

If Dave James O'Neill was only trying to be clever and humorous, it sure didn't feel like it. So if that was the intent, I have no choice but to apologize.

But it seemed very much like a slam on Shooter.

Dave James O'Neill said...

"Ja" - why don't you stop hiding behind a fake name, unlike me - and say that to my face.

Anonymous said...

Re:

"-He hated the Avengers movie (if he's even seen it), and is writing a long winded diatribe about how one scene in particular didn't meet his storytelling standards the way he wrote the Avengers back in the 70s.

-He's failed a legal bid to stop New Valiant from publishing, because New XO Manowar is pretty good, but doesn't credit Shooter".

@Dave James O'Neill: LOL!!! This comment just about made me choke. Awesome and hilarious.

Anonymous said...

@Ja

I think David was just making a joke

@caesar

I really love Palmer too. But I think one big flaw of his is his inks are a little overpowering. Whether he was inking Frenz in Star Wars, Buscema in Avengers, or even Jr Jr on Kick Ass - they all have a distinct "drawn by Palmer" feel to them. He kind of dominates the penciller at times. Much in the way Bob McLeod's inks do the same to his pencillers

That is why I really tip my hat to people like Scott Hanna or even Scott Williams - because they do wonderful inking jobs but they let the penciller shine as well

This is the only reason I think Palmer may not be the best ever even though he is great

Anonymous said...

... or John Beaty, or Terry Austin

Anonymous said...

Austin, Palmer and Jansen are all masters.

ja said...

Let me be clear. David James O'Neill, if I misread your comments, then I will fully admit to being a complete gun-jumping idiot.

In general, I'm wearing way too much of a frown on my face from shitty people I've been dealing with in person lately. I'm having difficulty decompressing, I think.

My apologies.

Van GoghX said...

@ja: ...that, and we miss Jim! I'm sure he'll be back when he has the free time and the gumption to crank something out for us.

cesare said...

Terry Austin just killed it on his X-men run, I mean, that stuff was unbelievable.

Good point about Palmer, a little strong, but you have to remember, that pencilling back then was different, unless I'm wrong, a penciller back in the day did not turn in work that could just about go straight to colour.....

Anonymous said...

I would have to say Terry Austin is my all time favorite inker. It's hard to pick "favorite" tho.

A while back I saw Terry's inking on the Spider-Man strip. The guy is GREAT! I don't see why he doesn't work more. I wonder how these guys that don't work that much anymore make a living. Did they make enough cash back in the day?

Bob almond said...

FYI, Terry Austin won the Sinnott Hall of Fame award three years ago which is why he's not in the running now.

Greygor said...

The tone of some of the comments on the last two articles feels like the kids have been left too long in the car while dad is inside paying for the petrol.

Hurry back Jim :)

Dave James O'Neill said...

Let me be clear. David James O'Neill, if I misread your comments, then I will fully admit to being a complete gun-jumping idiot.

In general, I'm wearing way too much of a frown on my face from shitty people I've been dealing with in person lately. I'm having difficulty decompressing, I think.

My apologies.



----------------------

Accepted, with the caveat

-I believe Shooter will come out with something negative to say about the Valiant relaunch.

-Much like John Byrne, I can't imagine Shooter being happy with the changes made to the Avengers.

Anonymous said...

to be fair - Jim does not have problems with changes - as long as they are good

He's preached over and over again - anything can be done well - there are no rules

Chris Hlady said...

Inkwell seems to have about 12 Ambassadors, including our revered James C. Shooter. What kind of duties does that entail?

Are people who have received Inkwell Scholarships making an impact on the world of comics?

Anonymous said...

Hope Jim returns soon. I understand though, bills and personal stuff come first. Recently, Avengers Earth's Mightiest Heroes did a episode featuring Korvac, and would love to read his thoughts on that.

Bob Almond said...

Chris: the ambassadors are asked permission to lend their respected names to our cause. Being on the front lines, this assists us in the important areas of credibility and exposure. Beyond that, their 'duties' are optional. They can donate to our fundraising. They can promote us through circulating our announcements or writing about us. And most importantly, they can partake in the nominations of our annual Joe Sinnott Hall of Fame recipients. Jim did the latter when asked after accepting our invitation.

As for your final inquiry, it's too soon to say. The fund is awarded to second year students about to enter their third year and we've only has three recipients so far so no one has graduated yet.

I hope I was able to help with your understanding of some aspects of my organization. Thanks for the interest.
Best,
Bob Almond

Anonymous said...

Avengers Earth's Mightiest Heroes did a episode featuring Korvac, and would love to read his thoughts on that.
....................

I've tried to like this series, but I just can't. I like some of the arcs they're using and smaller details like having the "Kirby Crackle" when energy is shown, but having Ms. Marvel beat Captain Mar-Vell so easily, and then for no reason, I guess out of shear girl power, kick Ronan's ass. Yeah, we get it, when a female character is featured they have to be the bad ass, even if it doesn't follow logic; it has to be done to prove we aren't sexist! The problem is that it destroys the story because you know what is going to happen as soon as Ms. Marvel shows up. Guess what, it does not mean you are sexist if the female character does not kick the crap out of another character that is fifty times more powerful. it's laughable.

Dave James O'Neill said...

Anonymous said...

to be fair - Jim does not have problems with changes - as long as they are good

He's preached over and over again - anything can be done well - there are no rules

May 14, 2012 12:27 PM
------------------------------------

Correction: Jim doesn not have a problem with changes made, as long as they're by creators he knows or approves of.

Ole M. Olsen said...

I'm beginning to think ja had a point...

Van GoghX said...

|Dave James O'Neill said...
|Correction: Jim doesn (sic) not have a problem with changes made, as long as they're by creators he knows or approves of.

Now that was a bit snippy. I'd say that Jim knows a helluva lot of talent in the comics biz, and he also knows which of those truly have talent and which don't meet the high standards he has for those who work in the field that he loves as much as anyone here. He definitely knows more about the industry than 99% (if not an even 100%) of those of us who visit this site, a pretty good chunk of which work in the industry themselves.
He does have his own personal tastes and preferences, but who among us doesn't?

I'd suggest that maybe you have been in a bad mood lately.

Dan said...

BACK TO INKING...

Sadly, this award should be titled: "The Dead Art [in comics] Award."

Inking is dying a slow painful death. It's being replaced by computer effects (darkening, sharpening pencils, etc) and overuse of computer coloring (many comics look like they just have thin outlines).

Inking was a major means of expression, especially in the late 60s into the 90s. It could make or break a book. Many artists' reputation was enhanced this way, such as Byrne and Miller.

Now, it's just a "cost" to be avoided.

And the artform has suffered greatly. Honestly, I don't like looking at comics that don't have quality inking--and that's most of what Marvel and DC are publishing now.

Dave James O'Neill said...

I'd say that Jim knows a helluva lot of talent in the comics biz, and he also knows which of those truly have talent and which don't meet the high standards he has for those who work in the field that he loves as much as anyone here. He definitely knows more about the industry than 99% (if not an even 100%) of those of us who visit this site, a pretty good chunk of which work in the industry themselves.

----------------------------------

Consider the case of young Francis Manapaul, an experienced enough artist (dont snigger, Top Cow is still experience) who had the (mis) fortune to be paired with Shooter on the Legion book.

Now, I don't know what happened there, but Shooter saw fit to publicly abuse Manapaul, on a major comic book website about his art style, complain to his editor, and make public that Manapaul had missed a deadline. Manapaul is now working on one of the top rated new 52 books, (and hasn't missed a deadline, nine issues in), to amazing public acclaim (it's the first Flash book I've bought since Mark Waid was booted off it. The first time), and he's one of Johns and Didio's trusted a-level allies. Manapaul and Buccatello are seen as a mark of quality. What happened there? What did Shooter see that Johns and the Flash readership don't?

Anonymous said...

Well said, Dave James.
Also, I was wondering if the awful and ill-coinceived Dark Horse/Gold Key reboot met the high standard criteria required.

Dave James O'Neill said...

Didn't Shooter get Dennis Calero bumped off the Solar book because of Calero's pesky habit of going outside the lines in his page layout.

ja said...

Dave O'Neill,

So you're flatly suggesting that these things are Shooter's fault? That no matter what, Jim's the one who making the books he writes nowadays low quality?

When you have Manapaul work on Legion, not putting the things into the artwork that was in the script is Jim's fault? Bill Reinhold's bland (yet technically decent) artwork is Shooter's fault, along with the very lackluster promotion by Dark Horse Comics? That the Solar book drawn by Roger Robinson (not as well as Reinhold, but oddly more energetic than the Magnus book overall) was Shooter's fault for not selling gangbusters?

If that's your premise, then I'll allow it to languish there, gasping for any sense of believability. You seem to be saying that Freelance Shooter has editorial quality control to the same level as when he was in EIC Shooter, therefore any failure of those books is Shooter's fault.

If you've read any of his scripts, you'll see how Jim writes a lot more content into his stories than you generally see from many comics today. I wouldn't doubt that Manapaul did his best with Shooter's script, but might have been overwhelmed with it being more complex than what he would normally draw, storytelling-wise. If memory serves, Shooter stated in an earlier post how Manapaul skipped this or that detail, which caused consistency problems in the storytelling, leaving out crucial items important to the story.

It's a Who's Yer Buddy, Who's Yer Pal World out there. If Manapaul is liked by Editorial for whatever reason, he doesn't have to be good at his job to get a job on a "top rated" DC 52 book. Look at Liefeld, or a number of other people's work on The New 52 as evidence of that.

People are late on deadlines all the time in the comics industry. Shooter recounting his Legion experience, with one of the details being that Manapaul was late on his deadline, is not 'public abuse'.

Dave James O'Neill said...

Ja, I'm simply astonished you don't think Manapaul is, in your words "good at his job". Please click on the link, and tell me, why the image included doesn't fit the high standards of a Jim Shooter fan

http://geek-news.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/untitled6.jpg

Dave James O'Neill said...

And as for Liefeld - Wow, an easy dig at Rob Liefeld. Can I just say this, as someone who works in a comic store - I have never heard of the creative team on Grifter before he took over it. Or Hawkman, or Deathstroke. They weren't big names. And if you want three dead in the water books to succeed, you might aswell give them to the guy who WANTS them, see what happens, and if it fails, screw it, at least he tried. Like the new DC is going to live or die based on what Rob Liefeld does with Hawkman. The character sucked before Rob, and will suck after.

Anonymous said...

@Ja, sorry I said anything. @David is a troll after all

@David

I'd love you hear you quote Shooter when making your blind accusations about him. On this blog, when he criticized one Legion artist, he showed samples of the pages in questions, and made clear (and correct) points about the art, and how, many times, it went directly against what he had asked for in the script

On a tangential point, the comics industry is fraught with prima donnas who get mad at any constructive criticism of their work. A true professional would always be wanting to improve, get better at their craft, and would not rest on their laurels.

But back to my first point - give examples and evidence when you bad-mouth Jim, or anybody. Your blanket accusations smack of trolling, or laziness. Maybe you can persuade your comic shop patrons to hate Jim based on your hatred of him, but we're not falling for it

Anonymous said...

clearly working at a comic book store makes one an expert on comic art and storytelling, much as working in a grocery store makes one an authority on nutrition.

Dave James O'Neill said...

I can categorically say I have NEVER used "I don't like this creator", in anyway, to justify recommending one book over another, to suggest otherwise, not knowing me, is extremely unfair, and extraordinarily rude.

Fact is this, hiding behind a tag of "I don't know them, so they suck", Shooter has criticised comics I like. His essays about Wonder Woman are openly mocked on other messageboards, because people know full well Shooter is mocking stuff he doesn't understand, and isn't taking the time to read properly.

And his abuse of Manapaul was digusting. And the funny thing is, I bet we're going to see the same thing again, as DC have given Tom DeFalco the Superboy book, and he's going to pick away at RB Silva's amazing work, until DC cave in and give DeFalco's boyfriend Ron Frenz the gig.

ja said...

Dave O'Neill,

You weren't paying attention to what I said. I referred to Shooter's recounting that Manapaul omitted certain things from Shooter's script, which caused storytelling problems, based upon what Shooter wrote. Based also upon shooter presenting evidence to those examples. I never said that Manapaul's work was bad at all. His drawing is quite terrific.

But as I believe Shooter's account of events (based upon the way he presented them), I believe him (and saw the evidence presented) when he says that Manapaul left out certain parts of the script which caused storytelling inconsistencies to occur. Manapaul can still be a great illustrator while having (intentionally or not) caused storytelling problems.

Saying "[Manapaul] doesn't have to be good at his job to get a job on a "top rated" DC 52 book" is not saying that he's generally bad at his job. That was a general point I was making about how people can either be bad at their jobs, or be someone who can 'interpret' scripts however they choose, thereby causing storytelling problems, and still get work in an environment that favors Who's Yer Buddy over evenly-applied editorial standards. People omit things from scripts all the time, and they feel justified in doing so.

I don't do easy digs at Liefeld. I do true and justified digs at Liefeld, who absolutely chooses to be as bland and as lazy and plaigiarizing as he is, when he can be so much better. The results of which are consistently the same, the same, the same the samethesamethesamTHE SAME low quality crap decade after decade. Even you admit this.

I'm still waiting to count beyond the fingers on both hands, the amount of backgrounds Liefeld has ever drawn. It is the most justified thing to say that Rob Liefeld can't draw the paper bag that he can't draw his way out of, unless Arthur Adams or Jim Lee showed him how to do it in the first place!

"[Hawkman] sucked before Rob [Liefeld], and will suck after." And this is whom you choose to defend? Interesting way to lose all credibility with any criticism of Jim Shooter.

But I must say, you have totally deflated any argument you were trying to make, very effectively. Bravo.

=)

-------------------

@Ole M. Olsen: I do have good instincts. All I have to do is wait to see my instincts about someone become justified by their own actions, like what just happened here.

Dave James O'Neill said...

Here's a story about Dan Slott. I'm not a huge fan of Dan Slott, but I had the opportunity to meet him, and I don't turn that sort of thing down. Anyway, in his, incredibly animated way, told our group a story about working with Marcos Martin on Amazing Spider-Man. Slott had written a sequence where Spider-Man argued on the phone with someone, walking, upsidedown around a clocktower. Martin contacted Slott, and told him that while he understood what Slott was trying to do, visually, it would be difficult to pull off, and would be a series of repeating panels. Martin drew an alternate page as a suggestion, and Slott was so impressed thats what they ended up using.

My point is this. Artists suggesting things to the writer is not the crime Jim Shooter suggests it is. Comics are a collaboration, and for Shooter to look at Manapaul, or Dennis Calero and say "My god, they dont use a traditional panel grid, and they stray beyond borders, BAD, BAD". Thats just wrong. And its kind of sad. And its equally sad people here sycophantically bash their work, and say he's only getting work because he's friends with Geoff Johns, is tragic, and a real insult to Francis Manapaul.

By the way, here's a Marcos Martin page. I wonder how much Shooter hates it, given its not traditionally laid out

http://www.comicsbulletin.com/main/sites/default/files/topten/images/111227/03.jpg

Anonymous said...

@David

Still waiting on clear examples of how Shooter was ignorant about WW or how he abused Manpaul. Can you provide ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE?? One??

I won't hold my breath

Dave James O'Neill said...

Jesus wept.

Here's a link (warning Rich Johnston)
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/09/25/jim-shooter-on-amending-legion-of-superheroes/

Just on a point of the whole Roster List/Grid, did it occur to Shooter at all, that a Grid might be more visually interesting than a List?

Anyway, here's some of that abuse
---if he ever really grasps the importance of the story and science of storytelling, he’s going to be a hall-of-famer.---

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18623

If I was an artist, I'd be disgusted to hear that, from a former editor

ja said...

Dave,

So "My god, they dont use a traditional panel grid, and they stray beyond borders, BAD, BAD". is an actual Jim Shooter quote? Of course it isn't. You further lose any credibility with your arguments when you make shit up like that.

Freelance Shooter wrote a script and turned it in. The end result (no matter what fantasy you apply to the process of it) was Manapaul omitting elements from the script, causing storytelling inconsistencies. Shooter didn't apply Evil Intent to this action. He just talked about his experience from his point of view, and how things should have turned out better.

Jim Shooter is a man who is very accomplished. He has a track record of accomplishing record sales and great strides forward for comics creators while trying to maintain a certain standard, all the while being vilified for it. Anything he talks about is based upon this experience, and always will be. So when Jim writes about his experiences, people pay attention because of those accomplishments.

You can think we're all sycophants here if you wish. I for one have been consistent in my defense of Shooter, because of his accomplishments, and because when he writes of his experiences, he backs up his writing with documentation and context.

Funny though how you call all us sycophants, when all you do is keep throwing your own hateful fabricated & unsubstantiated shit at Shooter, as if he's The Big Bad Boogeyman of the comics industry.

Comic books certainly are a collaboration. Just not 100% of those collaborations are done the same way. The vast majority of artists are just handed a script, and not invited to collaborate with the story at all. When the artist is handed a script, he/she should presume that the script has been approved by the editor, and they shouldn't go about leaving things out of the script in the visual storytelling. When Manapaul did just that, he obviously did so with the support of the very editor who approved of Shooter's script in the first place. Not an editor with a lot of integrity, I think.

In all your arguments, you presume falsehoods, and go out of your way to fabricate nonsense you can't back up because you're not paying attention to the details of how things work.

I don't agree with Jim Shooter on a number of things, one of them being the strict adherence of the six-panel grid format for visual storytelling. But that doesn't prevent me from respecting his experience and integrity, just because he has a different point of view than I do.

So Dave O'Neill, I look forward to more of your slip-shod FOX NEWS standard approach to characterizing Jim Shooter as a terrible person who has lost touch with the way comics are done, and with you writing falsehoods about his motivations and recollections.

I love reading ignorant bullshit. Keep it coming, Dave.

=)

Anonymous said...

@ David asked:

"What did Shooter see that Johns and the Flash readership don't?"

Storytelling.

Most current comics artists do not know how to tell a story at all. One example that comes quickly to mind is Dynamite's new Tarzan series. In the first issue, they did a bunch of silent pages. The art on those pages was clumsy, often did not even flow from panel to panel - and all of this stood out even more since the pages were silent

Here is another example (one of many):

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2012/01/22/frantic-as-a-cardiograph-scratching-out-the-lines-day-22-ultimate-x-men-66/

What is Scott's spatial relationship to Professor X? Is he behind him, beside him? When did he get from the door to Professor X? When did they both turn around to leave? This isn't nitpicking -these are basic elements of good storytelling. This page is atrocious - and when a seasoned vet like Shooter says so, people shouldn't cry and whine about it

Storytelling. Shouldn't really be a novel concept to PROS who are getting paid by the big 2 to draw comics

I guess Shooter's a real villain for pointing these things out

Dave James O'Neill said...

If you're going to join JA and criticise Manapaul, at least use a Manapaul page.

For instance "Anonymous" take this page, and tell me whats wrong with it, in your best Jim "If I didn't edit it, it sucks" voice

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.comicsalliance.com/media/2012/01/flash03.jpg

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l5gg5q9oAU1qzb91ho1_500.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ah518XOWhro/S-98gcIZ24I/AAAAAAAAA_s/dxe-PlZEB3c/s1600/francis_manapul_flash1b.jpeg

http://bookhound.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/geoff-johns-flash-03-page-02.jpg

Anonymous said...

If I remember correctly, Jim never said anyone HAD to adhere to the six-panel format. What he said, I think, was stick to that format until you can tell a story effectively and then move on to a more abstract format. And FOX is no worse than MSNBC, BTW. They just kick the living shit out of them in the ratings.

ja said...

Dave, you're conflating things for melodramatic purposes.

The CBR article about Shooter's Legion experience had no abuse in it. He outlined his point of view on how things played out. He even complimented Manapaul's talents. So what if he had problems with the storytelling? Manapaul would leave stuff out of the script, causing storytelling problems which translate to not as good a story as what Shooter wrote (and that was approved by the editor). He has a right to say so, just like Manapaul has a right to complain about Shooter's writing, if he so chooses.

I imagine if you wrote stories that were approved by an editor, and then altered by an illustrator who didn't respect the script you'd turned in (or who made the choice to not work as hard to put in the proper storytelling because he didn't feel like it, or didn't have the chops to do adhere to the script at all), then I would dare say you'd speak out about that yourself.

You keep talking about how Manapaul had been disrespected by Shooter. What about how Manapaul disrespected Shooter by choosing to alter the script at his whim, knowing that the editor wouldn't have the integrity to make him do his job properly? You don't ever consider that, which is why your arguments don't hold water.

Someone earlier in the comments section used the term 'building a straw man'. I believe that's what you're doing here, Dave. You sound completely disingenuous.

Just because other people call Shooter a bad person and you find it fun to jump on that bandwagon, doesn't mean you're making any salient points. By the way, you aren't. You throw accusations and ascribe bad intentions toward Shooter without being able to properly back them up with reason and evidence.

Dave James O'Neill said...

Your definition of abuse definitely differs from mine. A writer who hasn't moved with the times attacking an artist half his age because he doesn't like his storytelling on a comics website is abuse to me. Why didn't Shooter go to the editor?

ja said...

Boy, you sure don't pay attention, Dave. In the CBR article that you posted, Shooter talked about how he did complain.

Way to make more shit up.

"[A] writer who hasn't moved with the times" is a false thing to say, considering that so many good writers of yesteryear are still getting work today.

Your use of 'abuse' is overblown at best, and totally false at worse.

Have fun with your false characterizations.

Dave James O'Neill said...

Here's a question, then. If Shooter is such an industry legend - why isn't he working for the big two today? Marvel actively have legends working for them. Walt Simonsen is on Avengers, Neal Adams is doing an X-Men book. Hell, DC hired HOWARD MACKIE, one of the worst writers I've ever encountered. Hell, even the mean awful Francis Manapaul is writing, and drawing a book (and hitting his deadlines). Could it be GASP, that people have taken note of the things Shooter has said, about Wonder Woman, Batman, and every other book he rails against because they don't fit is decrepit vision of comics, and said "Nah, he hates us all, all he'll do is cause hassle", and hire someone else?

ja said...

Dave, when you ask such a question, you show your ignorance of what's happened in the industry since the 70's, and why Jim Shooter has been the lightning rod of the industry on many occasions.

The more you give flat uninformed theories as to why Jim is this or that, shows how much you have made the choice not to understand the context of anything.

ja said...

Also, Dave... you're being dishonest when you try to characterize me as saying "that awful Francis Manapaul", when I never said such a thing at all.

It shows that you're a hateful child who can't argue his case without flinging falsehoods and exaggerations, all the while not being able to give honest or accurate context.

Bob Almond said...

Dan:and these are some reasons why the Inkwell Awards exists. Our mission is to promote and educate about e art form of inking and to recognize it's artists. And while inking has always been somewhat misunderstood and its artist almost always flying under the radar, a lot of changes took place over a decade ago and not for the better in regards to inking and inkers and we stepped up to be a positive force, an advocacy for these artists.

Anonymous said...

Saying an artist is going to be a Hall-of-Famer when he "grasps the importance of the story and science of storytelling" is abusive? What the hell?

--kgaard

Dave James O'Neill said...

The assumption that he hadn't, simply because he didn't conform to what Shooter wanted in an artist, is the insult, Kgaard

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that's not an insult. It's the opinion of a guy who's been around the block a few times and has some sense of what works and what doesn't. Could he be wrong? Of course. It's just his particular view on Manapaul's work at the time. So what? Manapaul's not a baby. Any artist working in public is going to have to weather criticism a lot harsher than that.

Jim once said, I believe in an interview, "To me, it seems that I say ‘hello’ and people say, ‘What did he mean by that nasty remark?’" (source) I'm beginning to understand what he meant.

--kgaard

Marvelman said...

I would like to add that Jim's comments about Manipaul are really thinly veiled criticism no matter how you try to dress it up. Was Jim wrong to make his grievances public? Yeah, probably. It's certainly not politically wise (or a good way to get future assignments).

Anonymous said...

It wasn't veiled criticism at all - it was straightforward criticism.

Grow up. In life - unless you walk on water - you will be open to criticism

It is this kind of thin-skinned, grown-up-children kind of mentality that keeps comics in the minor leagues. Professional adults won't go running to other publishers when somebody dares gives constructive criticism to them

Marvelman said...

There's nothing wrong with criticism, but it's bad form to criticize your co-workers or employer in public. That's true in any industry.

Anonymous said...

@David

Thanks for providing those 2 links

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/09/25/jim-shooter-on-amending-legion-of-superheroes/



http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18623


They prove once again that Shooter is a ballsy, straightforward, truthful person.

Why you and other despise people who tell the truth is beyond my reckoning

Anonymous said...

There was nothing public about it - it was in-house at DC.

We get it Marvelman - you don't like Shooter

You don't like people who insist on standards, on professionalism, on people doing their job with skill

Let me guess - you played in the leagues where there were no losers and they did not even keep score for fear of hurting one team's feelings

Marvelman said...

You are putting words in my mouth. If you have read any of my other posts on this forum, then you know that is simply untrue. Jim says and does many things I agree with, and some that I don't. This is one of the occassions where I think Jim was out of line. Jim had worked with Francis, so I think any criticisms Jim had ought to have been kept behind closed doors.

Bob Almond said...

LAST CHANCE TO VOTE ON THE INKWELL AWARDS BALLOT WHICH ENDS AT MIDNIGHT EST. PLEASE TAKE AMOMENT FROM THIS DRAMA TO RECOGNIZE THE tALENT OF SOME uNDER-APPRECIATED ARTISTS. THANK YOU.

Dave James O'Neill said...

"They prove once again that Shooter is a ballsy, straightforward, truthful person"

And unemployed

"You don't like people who insist on standards, on professionalism, on people doing their job with skill"

No, I don't like people who force their "standards" of professionalism on other people, and publicly criticise them when they don't get their own way.

"Jim had worked with Francis, so I think any criticisms Jim had ought to have been kept behind closed doors."

My increasing suspicion is that the decent editors at DC were horrified that this old fart thought he could push around a young artist, and leaked it. Thats what I would have done anyway.

Marvelman said...

The more I read, the more I think I may be thinking of a completely separate incident. I think it's probably okay that Jim wrote an article about his experience working on Legion with Francis. The comments I think he ought not to have made are here:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=18623

You don't bite the hand that feeds you. If you call DC editors "didiots," you won't be working at DC. But, I guess Jim figures he's not going to be working for DC anyways. It's too bad though. A lot of what Jim says about the problems with storytelling in comics today are true.

Anonymous said...

Re:

"Jim Shooter is a man who is very accomplished. He has a track record of accomplishing record sales and great strides forward for comics creators while trying to maintain a certain standard".

HA! His only successes as writer and editor are FORTY, THIRTY and nearly TWENTY years in the past and twenty years of uninterrupted failure are enough to think he should be kept away from comics.

Super-Anonymice

Ole M. Olsen said...

My, this sure was a lot of interesting talk about inking! :-)

The biggest problem when Jim is away is that the comments section tends to turn into off topic chaos. This time we managed to behave for quite a while before we fell off the wagon again.

ja said:

"@Ole M. Olsen: I do have good instincts."

I'll give you that! ;-)

I try to always think well of people and give them the benefit of the doubt as long as there is any doubt left. Some times it might be argued that that's a waste of time, but I think I'll go on trying to be positive.

It dawned on me yesterday that the name "Dave James O'Neill" rang a bell. This was the same guy who, during the time of the Wonder Woman reviews back in January, described Jonathan Hickman as something akin to a demigod who didn't "insult his audience", while Jim Shooter was presumed guilty until proven innocent (not that proof of his innocence would be sufficient, probably).

I got a bit involved in that brawl myself at the time - I even unwisely used the word "troll". But like I said at the time:

"It seemed that Dave James O'Neill felt he should be allowed to spew out all derogatory and insulting comments he likes, while Jim Shooter, that boring old fart, is doing the devil's work by reviewing some modern comic books and in a polite way pointing out what he feels are their strengths and weaknesses. After all, it's a well known fact that Jim Shooter hates Marvel. And he's chummy with Mark Waid."

Obviously the situation hasn't changed much since then.

I'll give him one thing, though: He does have the courage to sign his comments with a name (presumably even his real one), and deserves praise for that! I don't even bother to read most anonymice's comments anymore.

But okay, let's take a deep breath and try to look beyond how people choose to express themselves:

One of the main points behind all this is that while many of us here tend to prefer "classic", "old fashioned" comic book storytelling, Dave seems to be among those who prefer more "modern", "cinematic", "decompressed" comics. Nothing wrong with that! People have different tastes and preferences. Some argue their points a little too aggressively with , but still, it's a question of different tastes.

However, I think it's a relevant question to consider whether "modern" comic book storytelling is really very successful or not. Some may think the work being done is successful artistically, but I think most people would agree that the comic business is not very successful commercially and popularly these days.

czeskleba wrote during the Wonder Woman debate in January:

I guess the broader question is, do you think it is a problem that comic readership has sunk to such a low level? Do you think comic publishers ought to be trying to attract new readers? If so, doesn't it stand to reason that the sort of exclusive, "members only" storytelling which you applaud above might be a factor in why Marvel and DC have such difficulty in attracting new readers?

P.S. As for inkers - I miss them. I also miss imaginative and efficient colourists.

ja said...

It's perfectly fine to have opinions, but what a terrible thing to be so hateful with the way you express them.

It's safe to say that if you were in person with Jim Shooter, you wouldn't be such a cowardly asshole as you're being with your keyboard.

ja said...

Oops - Ole M. Olsen snuck a post in there before I retorted to 'Super Anonymice' and his incestuous butt-brother Dave O'Neill.

Ah, timing. =)

Anonymous said...

Marvelman said, "You don't bite the hand that feeds you"

What's the alternative, Marvelman? Do you take anything an employer does to you? For how long? Is there a limit, is there a breaking point for you? Do you have any personal code that says, "I won't let this line be crossed?" Jim does. I know people like Jim, who will sacrifice even their livelihood for his own personal code, are rare. And I've come to realize, after seeing comments about him, and about Alan Moore, online, that people like them are so are that some people, such as yourself, are so unaccustomed to the idea of people having their own personal code of ethics, that they denigrate those who do

Such is life

Anonymous said...

Re:

"HA! His only successes as writer and editor are FORTY, THIRTY and nearly TWENTY years in the past and twenty years of uninterrupted failure are enough to think he should be kept away from comics".

You just hit the jackpot, well said: truth is hurtful.

Matteo Murdocco

Anonymous said...

By the by - I'd love to see a defense of Manpaul ignoring Jim's scripts - even when Jim drew specific thumbnail sketches for him. Where's the professionalism in that?

But I know, it's much easier to make attacks than to logically engage the points Jim brought up in his blog entry on Legion

Anonymous said...

@Marvelman said "You don't bite the hand that feeds you"


Spoken like a good corporate slave

Allan said...

Since John Byrne would never be classy enough to do this I wanted to thank Jim Shooter on his behalf. John wouldn't have made this money without Jim as EiC at Marvel.

"Well, last week I received a royalty check from Marvel. As I opened the envelope, walking up my driveway from the mailbox, I was fully expecting to find one of the $35.76 "mystery checks" that turn up from time to time. I didn't. In fact the check I found was a lot more than that. Like close to a thousand times more!

And what was interesting was this was not an "accumulated" check, like the ones I sometimes get from DarkHorse after they've gone a few years "forgetting" to pay me my HELLBOY royalties. Nope, this check was almost entirely my share of the sales on the FF Omnibus that came out a while back. That big, thumping, $75 hardcover."

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=41760&TPN=3

Anonymous said...

I guess Roy Thomas and Alan Moore must suck, too, since they aren't producing for Marvel or D.C. anymore. Dave James is just trying to defend his shitty taste in comics by attacking creators who point out that what he apparently likes is, in fact, pretty crappy stuff. Dave, I don't give an eff if you think new Flash comics are awesome. Maybe they are, I haven't read 'em. But Wonder Woman written by you idol was sloppy shit. The fact that you are against any and all criticism of what you like merely shows that you have no confidence in your own taste (or you could defend it in ways other than lashing out at the critic) and that you are simultaneously a hypocrite. What an ass!

Your friend,
Baron Zemo

ja said...

I'm not a religious man. But in response to Baron Zemo's post, I must say... *ahem*:

AMEN.

=)

Anonymous said...

ditto

Ole M. Olsen said...

I happened upon John Byrne's site. On his Next Men... oops, sorry, I mean John Byrne's Next Men FAQ page, I found this (originally taken from a forum post, I think):

As I mentioned in another thread, the other day, one of the most destructive phrases that as worked its way into comic reading is "What's a good jumping on point?" Whole "generations" of potential readers have been scared away by the idea that there is no way to simply START READING, as I did lo these many years ago. And it certainly has not helped that far too many writers now THINK in terms of "jumping on points" -- not in the sense that EVERY issue should be one, but that by throwing out a "jumping on point" every once in a while, they are free to ramble on with their lazy, undisciplined, "decompressed" stories.

These guys should be tossed into a time machine and sent back to 1956, where they would be forced to write "jumping on point" stories THREE TIMES PER ISSUE!!! Gun to their heads, I'll bet most of these wankers could not write an eight page, done in one story.


You know, I actually think there are still things that John Byrne and Jim Shooter would find they agree upon! :-)

Dave James O'Neill said...

--It dawned on me yesterday that the name "Dave James O'Neill" rang a bell. This was the same guy who, during the time of the Wonder Woman reviews back in January, described Jonathan Hickman as something akin to a demigod who didn't "insult his audience", while Jim Shooter was presumed guilty until proven innocent (not that proof of his innocence would be sufficient, probably).--

That's Me!

--while Jim Shooter, that boring old fart, is doing the devil's work by reviewing some modern comic books and in a polite way pointing out what he feels are their strengths and weaknesses.--

First of all, it wasn't polite. Its not polite when Shooter is using his "reviews" to attack creators he doesn't like.

--One of the main points behind all this is that while many of us here tend to prefer "classic", "old fashioned" comic book storytelling,--

Thats speculation.

--It's safe to say that if you were in person with Jim Shooter, you wouldn't be such a cowardly asshole as you're being with your keyboard.--

Try me. I'll stand in front of anyone. Hey, I even met Dan Slott, that I wasn't a fan of some of his work and had criticised his work noisily on a messageboard, and we had a good, funny chat, and both left with good grace. The question is, would Shooter be polite to me, if I asked whey he is so determined to shit on young creators.

--By the by - I'd love to see a defense of Manpaul ignoring Jim's scripts - even when Jim drew specific thumbnail sketches for him. Where's the professionalism in that?

But I know, it's much easier to make attacks than to logically engage the points Jim brought up in his blog entry on Legion--

Pop quiz - how many of you sycophants had the decency to read Manapaul's side of the story?

-I guess Roy Thomas and Alan Moore must suck, too, since they aren't producing for Marvel or D.C. anymore-

Well, Roy Thomas does suck, because he famously ? Said he had never read an issue of Justice Society after he left the book, and considered everything done after he left, right up to Johns and Alex Ross on the book disrespectful to his work on the books

Alan Moore? Some people are just crazy. I'll go use my new Watchmen toaster

As for Byrne, sure, you want to waste half an issue re-introducing characters I already know, go ahead, waste my time. I absolutely reject this nonsensical "Every issue of a comic is someone's first". Its not my first, I already know who the characters are, and I don't need to be patronisingly beat around the head with exposition.

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for David to make a sound defense of Manpaul - or of anything that he considers good work. Still waiting... still waiting... until doomsday

As Baron Zemo said - the idget is incapable to articulating his own thoughts on what makes a comic book good

Dave James O'Neill said...

I've posted plenty of examples of what I consider good art, and god storytelling, but because you have your blinkers on, you refuse to accept artists unless they're old gits who worked on Valiant the first time around, utterly disrespectful of anyone who works for the current Big Two.

If Jim Shooter didn't hire them, they don't count - that's your attitude. And it stinks.

But hey, thats why Francis Manapaul is selling 70k a month, and Shooter is selling ....what? How did Doctor Solar do (before or after Shooter got rid of Calero)

Anonymous said...

You think 70,000 sales is GOOD? Dear boy...that's just sad.

That's what happens to sales when you chase away new readers and alienate old ones. You're left with idiots like Dave James who will buy whatever's "hot" this month.

Yer killin' me with your utter ignorance.

Your pal,
Baron Zemo

Dave James O'Neill said...

And you ignore my entire post to focus on one "Gah, comics were better when I was a kid" point.

You really are the lowest form of life.

Luckily, Zemo in the comics is dead.

Anonymous said...

Ha - you did, once again, exactly what Zemo said. Instead of defending your own tastes, you lashed out against Shooter and his fans

By the by, I don't agree with a lot of what Shooter believes is quality work. I think he was too kind to Azzarello's new Wonder Woman. In addition to being confusing and logically flawed, it was also boring and filled with unlikable characters.

But that's just the thing - pick out a book I like, and I can put my finger on exactly what I think is good (and even bad) about it. And what's more, I don't get threatened when someone else dislikes it - because I know quality when I see it

Here's an idea - spend less time trolling blogs of people who you summarily dislike anyway, and more time evolving your ideas on what makes good comics. Hint: just because it sells and it's made by the big 2 does not mean it's good - come up with some of your own reasons

Good luck

Dave James O'Neill said...

Are you dense, or something? Did you fall and hit your head? I have REPEATEDLY named comics I like, and admire, and you have summarily ignored them, because, in your addled little brain, if Jim "Turok" Shooter, didn't have a hand in them, obviously they suck.

Here's a list of EVERYTHING I bought this week. II bet you've never heard of any of the creators either

-Fury, #2 (Marvel,Writer G. Ennis/Arist G. Parlov)
-Saga, #3 (Image, B.K. Vaughn, F. Staples)
-Daredevil, #13 (Marvel, M. Waid, K. Pham)
-Incredible Hulk #7.1 (Marvel, J. Aaron, J. Palo)
-Dorothy And The Wizard In Oz #5 (Marvel, S. Young, E. Shanower)
-Avengers vs. X-Men #4 (Marvel, J. Hickman, J. Romita Jr)
-Avengers #26 (Marvel, B. M. Bendis, W. Simonsen)
-New Mutants #42 (Marvel, D. Abnett & A. Lanning, C. DiGiandemincio)
-Steed And Mrs. Peel #5 (Boom Studios, G. Morrison, I. Gibson)
-Winter Soldier #5 (Marvel, E. Brubaker, J. Guice)
-Invincible Iron Man #517 (Marvel, M. Fraction, S. Larocca)
-Fantastic Four 605.1 (Marvel, J. Hickman, M. Choi)
-The Manhattan Projects #3 (Image, J. Hickman, N. Pitarra)

Anonymous said...

You paid good money for that shit?

Your buddy,
Baron Zemo

P.S. Where did I say comics were better? I just told you that they sold better. Learn to read. Oh wait, if you did that you'd probably demand better comic books.

Dave James O'Neill said...

My point exactly, asshole.

Marvelman said...

Hi. I've been thinking about it, and I'm going to do a flip-flop. Jim wasn't actually working with Francis when he criticized his storytelling abilities. So, I think what he did and said was fine.

Anonymous said...

@David

I applaud you on buying Ennis' Fury. Ennis is one of this generation's greatest comic writers

Shooter himself has already praised Mark Waid repeatedly

We've already went 'round on Hickman. I know you worship him

Bendis is a fucking hack


But, you missed the point of the exercise - which was not for you to list stuff you like, but to articulate WHY you like it


Excelsior!

Anonymous said...

I remember this twit now. He (using the term loosely) is the one that doesn't want his panels cluttered with reference captions for the benefit of new readers. Are you so bitter at the world that you can't have just a little consideration for a kid trying to learn the characters?

I have a small litmus test--I've found that anyone who thinks something--music, movies, comic books--is the best of all time simply because it's the newest, is a small minded moron.

ja said...

"--It's safe to say that if you were in person with Jim Shooter, you wouldn't be such a cowardly asshole as you're being with your keyboard.--

Try me. I'll stand in front of anyone. Hey, I even met Dan Slott, that I wasn't a fan of some of his work and had criticised his work noisily on a messageboard, and we had a good, funny chat, and both left with good grace. The question is, would Shooter be polite to me, if I asked whey he is so determined to shit on young creators."


You just revealed yourself as a hypocrite.

You admitted to being the same asshole to Dan Slott, and when you talked to him in person, you "had a good, funny chat, and both left with good grace." What, when you got to Dan Slott's face, you lost your nerve to be the same shit-spewing, malicious asshole you are being here in this comments section? Hypocrite.

I've met and dealt with Jim Shooter on a number of occasions. I've seen people be the kind of asshole you have been to his face, and he has always remained calm and polite. He's well-practiced at people feeling free to being a jerk to his face.

But like Dan Slott, if you actually conversed with him... communicated with him (here on this comments section) to understand another person's point of view without being the malicious asshole bully that you enjoy being (abuse your wife and kids much?), then maybe you'd actually learn something.

Ken said...

Well, if DJO'N likes Waid's Daredevil but *doesn't* like being told things about a comic book that he already knows, he is perhaps a bit confused. (Some of you already suspect this, but please bear with me. You too, DJ.)

Which is to say, Waid does in fact provide all of the information that a first-time reader would need to make this a "jumping off point" for a new reader. Something that DJ says he detests. Or to quote the sage one himself: "Its not my first [comic], I already know who the characters are, and I don't need to be patronisingly beat around the head with exposition."

But if he'd been paying attention to Jim Shooter, he would have noticed Jim say (repeatedly) that providing necessary information is not about intrusive exposition. You do it so that it's not noticed. This is why writing (anything) is a CRAFT. Any idiot can put together a caption that reads: "This is Daredevil. He has enhanced senses, but otherwise is a mortal human. Also he is blind." Seeing that month after month would in fact get annoying.

Which is why good writers don't do that shit. But they still give you the information. (It's also why bad writers don't bother doing it at all -- i.e., it takes work.) Why DJ can't understand this point -- along with other simple ones about storytelling in art -- is a bit of a mystery.

Here's an illustration using Waid's book.

I just pulled the first issue of DD that I saw out of a stack of unread books in my office. It's #11. It clearly takes place after other events I'm not familiar with, and after reading the letters page I learn that it's the last chapter of a three-part story. I have not read the other parts (which take place in other comics: Spider-Man and Punisher).

But I am not lost. Not for a second. Not just in terms of the story, but the characters.

I've been reading comics for almost 40 years but, trying out Jim's "new reader me" idea, I see that the opening page tells me exactly who the Punisher is. The very first box identifies him as Frank Castle, and in the next couple of panels I learn that he is comfortable executing criminals, and that this point of view is in opposition to Daredevil's.

So I know something important about both characters, something that in fact to an extent defines who they are. And this is a difference that matters to the MEANING of the story that follows, which -- besides the basic plot bits -- is about choices, suffering, redemption, etc. None of which would have made as much sense without the background info that Waid provides about both DD and Punisher. This is information that both I and DJ know already, but it is inserted into the comic very naturally. I at least did not find it annoying; I wonder what DJ thought?

(to be continued)

Ken said...

On the second page of DD#11 we do get a bit of expository stuff, but it's very brief and not too badly done. I would still like to see Waid move away from these "Daily Bugle" crutch pages, but in any case this one very quickly tells me the rest of what I need to know to orient myself in this story. For instance, I learn who the members of "Megacrime" are, and I also learn about the story's MacGuffin, the "Omega Drive." Everyone wants it, Daredevil has it. And I now have all I need to follow the rest of the story.

Third page, narration from Daredevil: "Even blind, I can see tomorrow's headline." So now I know he's blind (this info is also in the page 2 exposition, but this is a great example of how that part of the exposition wasn't needed). The page is drawn weird, in a way that doesn't make sense to "new reader" me. The narration suggests it's from DD's perspective, which further suggests that, if he's blind, he can still "see" somehow. "New reader" me may be unsure how this works, but that's a little mystery I imagine I'll figure out eventually. For now I simply know that DD is able to function with something similar to sight.

And so on and so on. Page seven, DD talks about following Cole's scent. Clearly he has enhanced smell. In other words, the way the story at this point is told provides me with new info about DD, but no exposition is required. And it's not info I needed until now -- i.e., I'm given what I need when I need it.

Later I learn that the Punisher does what he does because "bad guys" murdered his wife and kids, and that (presumably different) "bad guys" also killed DD's father. This is all part of the redemption/etc. theme that Waid works out in the conversation between DD and Cole. So narratively he brings the whole thing (i.e., the beginning and end of the comic) together very nicely, both plot-wise and ideas-wise.

One chapter of a three-part story, told so that someone -- whether new reader or old -- could clearly follow it without having yet read the other two parts. And also told in a way that an old reader would not be annoyed/burdened with unnecessary exposition.

This is exactly the kind of "every issue should be a jumping on point" storytelling that Shooter keeps talking about.

And it's exactly the kind of thing DJ says he hates.

So why is he buying Waid's Daredevil?

Anonymous said...

Re:

"You think 70,000 sales is GOOD? Dear boy...that's just sad."

Doctor Solar Man of The Atom exceptional and world-changing sales:

91 Doctor Solar#1 22,630
144 Doctor Solar#2 13,715
173 Doctor Solar#3 10,115
204 Doctor Solar#4 8,677
197 Doctor Solar#5 7,778
195 Doctor Solar#6 7,046
224 Doctor Solar#7 6,833
247 Doctor Solar#8 6,229

Piotr Parcheri

Anonymous said...

Ken, those were fantastic posts.

And sales of Dr. Solar were lower than Flash, proving what? I didn't buy Dr. Solar, didn't like it. You need to learn how to make your point. You guys can barely complete a thought.

Again, if you think selling 70,000 copies of a comic book is GOOD, you don't know shit about the industry or its history, much less economics in general.

Your best buddy,
Baron Zemo

Anonymous said...

Dave James is buying Daredevil because he was told it's "hot." He doesn't decide these things on his own; that would require critical thinking and all criticism is inherently bad...unless done by Dave James.

Your friend,
Baron Zemo

Dave James O'Neill said...

--Dave James is buying Daredevil because he was told it's "hot." He doesn't decide these things on his own--

I've been reading Daredevil since I was fifteen years, you piece of garbage.

--What, when you got to Dan Slott's face, you lost your nerve to be the same shit-spewing, malicious asshole you are being here in this comments section?--

If Jim Shooter told me, to my face, why he was so determined to ruin Francis Manapaul's career, I'd at least have the decency to hear him out.

Again, have any of you assholes actually listened to Manapaul's side of the story? I met one of the artists who worked on the Dark Horse relaunch (MRF, to be exact), and he showed me the notes Shooter had sent him regarding his art, I was digusted. Everything he did was criticised, nothing was good enough for the almighty Shooter.

Anonymous said...

since you were 15, so that's the past 4 issues?

how does one have a "side" for failure to follow a script? not doing your job is NOT DOING YOUR JOB.

Criticizing someone can hardly ruin a career if one is as talented as you think Manapaul is.

Your entire premise is: no one must crticize what I like. anyone dares do so is an asshole.

Anonymous said...

It never occurred to you that Shooter's notes could have any merit, clearly. You're so full of shit it's coming out your ears. Get off the artist's jock and compare script to art and see if the job was performed. It wasn't. End of story, Dave James. Cry me a river for your depreciating-value collection of shitty Marvel nu-comics.

Dave James O'Neill said...

--It never occurred to you that Shooter's notes could have any merit, clearly. You're so full of shit it's coming out your ears. Get off the artist's jock and compare script to art and see if the job was performed. It wasn't. End of story,--

I can't fault a talented artist for trying to make a boring and rigid script more visually interesting.

ja said...

Dave James O'Neill hypocritically said:

"I've been reading Daredevil since I was fifteen years, you piece of garbage."

"Again, have any of you assholes actually listened to Manapul's side of the story?"

Interesting that you set the standard for being an asshole, and yet when you've been debunked again and again, you come back at us by being even more of an asshole? Awesome.

If you had any points to make, it's been very obvious from the start that you don't have the ability to make them in a civil manner. You show yourself again and again as being the hateful ignorant guy who can't communicate with anyone without being a malicious creep. Beyond that, you show yourself as being incapable of rationally understanding Jim Shooter's point of view. You'd just rather make ignorant presumptions based upon no actual research of Jim's point of view in various places in this blog.

The artwork on Dark Horse's Magnus Robot Fighter wasn't all that great. It just laid there like a narcoleptic collection of linework that had no life to it. Decently drawn, but it didn't really have excitement or dynamic quality to it. I would think that the work deserved to have critical notes applied to it.

Certainly if you ever did any kind of a creative job, you would definitely have to deal with criticism. I'm a freelance guy, and I constantly have to. You do your best, and at the end of a job, you should be humble enough to admit where you might not have done things as well as you'd liked.

Just because you draw pictures for a living, doesn't mean your work shouldn't be criticized. Especially if you choose to unilaterally change things in an approved script that was handed to you, resulting in storytelling glitches. Artists adjust the storytelling from scripts all the time, but the good ones are able to keep all the same information and dialog that was in the script. They shouldn't just omit whatever they wish from the script.

"If Jim Shooter told me, to my face, why he was so determined to ruin Francis Manapul's career, I'd at least have the decency to hear him out."

Actually, you have no decency at all. Any decent person would not automatically presume that Shooter is trying to ruin anyone's career. That's a bullshit premise. Any judicious person would try to understand why Jim Shooter complained about Manapul's work without automatically assuming evil intent. Jim Shooter has a great work standard that certainly seems to fly in the face of what a lot of today's illustrators are used to.

Your automatic presumption of evil intent on Shooter's part is not only ignorant, it's not honest. The funny part is that we all know you don't care that you're dishonest about this. You revel in it.

This is why I'm right about you: you bluster here in a comments section, but just like with Dan Slott, when you're face to face with someone, suddenly you speak to that person in a civil manner. This only bolsters my belief that you're just an abusive asshole to people (girlfriend, wife & kids probably) only when you feel you can get away with it.

You're just another bullying pussy.

It just shows again that you don't have the capacity to express your concerns and ideas without being a malicious asswipe. What a shock.

Dave James O'Neill said...

For the record, and I want this ON THE RECORD: I don't have a girlfriend, wife, or kids, and want none. I'm mortally offended you would think otherwise. :D

Anonymous said...

Dave,

Francis Manapaul's response to Jim seems pretty benign. He doesn't say he's offended, or feels abused or insulted. He basically chalks it up to miscommunication in some cases and a creative difference of opinion in others:

"Regarding his storytelling critiques, I guess it’s just creative differences. I’ve worked with many writers, who compliment me on my storytelling as much as the way it looks. I don’t think it’s by accident, that I’m now writing and drawing a book. I guess when we were first paired up, it was probably thought 'traditional stories, visually told in a modern way'. I think that’s how it should have been. But that wasn’t the case. I didn’t mind changing for him, I really do feel that my job is to tell a story first. However I didn’t agree on his method, or his pacing. I was a circle trying to fit in a square.

"I wish no ill will to Jim, and believe he has the right to say what he wants. I just thought I’d temper his voice with a bit of what the experience was like on the other side. And it definitely was quite an experience."

There's no reason to think Jim could or wants to "ruin Francis Manapaul's career," and there's no reason to think Manapaul thinks that either. When a project doesn't go right, usually no one is happy, and that seems to be the case here. It happens, and everyone moves on.

--kgaard

ja said...

That you have no one of significance in your life speaks volumes.

That's probably because you're a bullying pussy. You can choose not to be. If suddenly you were to be a rational, non-abusive person, you'd get a whole lot more constructive communication here.

But again, you're setting the standard.

Dave James O'Neill said...

My belief is that Shooter would have attacked any artist DC gave him, simply because they're not one of his mates. I bet it kills Shooter that Paul Levitz, currently driving the Legion books into the ground, gets Steve Lightle and Keith Giffen, yet poor old Shooter had to deal with the foreigner who didnt understand his scripts

That was a joke, by the way.

Furthermore, my belief in artists is one of the reasons I don't read a lot of DC books, very few of them are visually interesting. I found Shooter's reviews of Batman interesting, mainly because I think the Batman books are awful right now. (You see, sometimes I agree with the almighty Shooter).

In fact, looking at DC's solicitations for August...
http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=38660

I'm down to... one (Flash, ). I'm loathe to pick up Superboy knowing Tom DeFalco is writing it, and I just know there'll be the same Shooter/Manapaul issues with RB Silva, who's an incredibly kinetic artist, and DeFalco's scripts are cringe inducing

Dave James O'Neill said...

--That's probably because you're a bullying pussy. You can choose not to be. If suddenly you were to be a rational, non-abusive person, you'd get a whole lot more constructive communication here. ---

You mean, if I became a sycophant demanding Marvel made all their comics patronising and suitable for brats, while praising Jim Shooter and the old fart crew out the yin yang?, while all the while criticising any artist who dared draw a visually interesting script?

--That you have no one of significance in your life speaks volumes.--

No it doesnt, it has no bearing on my life at all. I was in a relationship for three years and I was miserable, for a good portion of that. Being single, I've been able to travel, which is my great passion, I've pursued job opportunities my ex was against (as it would move me away from her sphere of influence), and, crucially, it kept me away from the housing market (what ended out relationship was my girlfriend's over eagerness to move in together, which I resisted)

ja said...

Oh, a new approach by Dave O'Neill.

Be an asshole, say maliciously dishonest things, and then follow up by saying, "That was a joke, by the way."

You're the joke, buddy.

Dave James O'Neill said...

--Francis Manapaul's response to Jim seems pretty benign. He doesn't say he's offended, or feels abused or insulted. He basically chalks it up to miscommunication in some cases and a creative difference of opinion in others: --

Maybe thats the difference between me and Manapaul. If I got a giant letter from Shooter listing my perceived flaws, I'd be pretty bloody offended. Personally, if I was in Manapaul's shoes, I'd have withheld my work until Shooter apologised, and I'm curious how DC would have dealt with it.

Ole M. Olsen said...

All right - multipart. It's remarkably easy to hit 4,096 characters...

I think Dave James O'Neill - who again should be commended for writing under his full name, at least - is not consciously being a troll. I think he's genuinely upset about Jim Shooter and what he perceives as Jim's unwarranted criticism of some of his favourite creators. However, the ways he goes about "arguing" his points makes his posts little more constructive than those of the anonymous trolls. As long as his posts continue to mainly consist of insults, accusations, presumptions, rash conclusions and basically doing everything he accuses his "opposition" of doing, I personally will be awarding him the same amount of attention that I have given the anonymice pests over the past few months, mainly noticing that they're still here as I scroll past.

Just a couple of things I'd like to get off my chest first:

I said: "One of the main points behind all this is that while many of us here tend to prefer "classic", "old fashioned" comic book storytelling,", to which DJO'N replied: "Thats [sic] speculation."

Uh. Yeah. I guess. Sort of. However, I must admit that I considered it a fairly safe bet that the preferances of "many" both active, semi-active and just lurking participants on a Jim Shooter blog will tend to lean somewhat towards Jim Shooter's style of storytelling. Sure thing, some will be here just to pick a fight. Some will disagree with Shooter, I'm sure, but still enjoy intelligent debates with, and around, a comic industry veteran. Some will like both "classic" and "modern" types of comics with no clear personal preferance. And finally, I speculate that "many" will tend to prefer Jim Shooter's style of "classic" comic book storytelling.

Frankly, I didn't expect to be attacked because of THAT remark... But never mind!

Regarding Jim Shooter's reviews here on his blog and his other comments here and elsewhere:

I think Jim Shooter has earned his right to be honest and speak his mind. That said, his reviews here have always been respectful of the creators and based on constructive criticism - his "editor mode", I suspect. It points out problems in the storytelling aspect of the comics he reviews, as well as pointing it out when it's being done right. Rather than trying to "wreck young creators' careers", young creators would be advised to pay attention - they could learn a lot.

The only case I can remember when it might be argued that Shooter strayed from simply professional constructive criticism is when he added a comment that Brian Michael Bendis had "phoned in" the script to Ultimate Comics Spider-Man #1. He apologised for that.

I think Jim Shooter should also be allowed to speak his mind about problems with artists he's worked with. When you write a script, the script is approved by your editor, and the artwork strays considerably from the approved script, I think you have a right to be a bit annoyed.

Ole M. Olsen said...

Regarding Francis Mannapul in particular, Jim has spoken favourably about him earlier too, despite the problems. Previously quoted in this thread, but I'll do it again:

“I must add that Francis Manapul is going to be great someday – maybe one of the best of all time. He already shows flashes of brilliance. He works very hard and seems to care a lot – but that and a $1.85 gets you a cup of coffee. As soon as Francis groks what business he’s in – storytelling – as soon as he realizes that conveying the story and information clearly, at a glance, is first priority, he’ll be a contender. It’s not just about making cool shots that vaguely relate to what was asked for in the script. It’s about thinking things through until you can come up with just-as-cool shots that effectively deliver all the content required; about making the visual storytelling ‘read’ effortlessly. Francis is incapable of drawing a dull picture, so if he ever really grasps the importance of the story and science of storytelling, he’s going to be a hall-of-famer.

“That’s not easy, by the way. Even Frank Miller struggled with storytelling for a while – but once he grokked -- wow.”


That article was followed by another, in which Shooter is quoted as follows:

“I am, of course, famous for my lack of ‘people skills,’” Shooter said. “Things I say, apparently, are sometimes taken more harshly than intended. To me, it seems that I say ‘hello’ and people say, ‘What did he mean by that nasty remark?’ But, at this point in my life, I'm willing to believe that I sound upset when I’m not.

“Anyway, upon reading the interview, I wonder now if people will focus on the things I said regarding Francis like he’s ‘going to be great someday, maybe one of the best of all time,’ ‘great designer,’ ‘incapable of drawing a dull picture,’ etc. or just think that I’m blaming him for the book’s demise. Read it again. I blame me.

“My run on ‘Legion’ wasn’t everything that I had hoped for, but I probably got better than I deserved from Francis. Francis is already very, very good — outstanding, in fact — and as editor Mike Marts and I have both observed, he gets better and better as he goes. He will soon hurdle the few remaining barriers in his way and become an all-pro/MVP. Maybe working with someone else, maybe with better scripts to work from, he’ll get there faster.”


Francis Mannapul, in his answers to the criticism, definitely says that he wasn't having much fun during the experience, but he also says:

There really was a breakdown in communication on the book which I think is the main culprit for these problems. I definitely feel for Jim on this. I know how frustrating it must be to have your intent misinterpreted, or overlooked.

Regarding his storytelling critiques, I guess it’s just creative differences. I’ve worked with many writers, who compliment me on my storytelling as much as the way it looks. I don’t think it’s by accident, that I’m now writing and drawing a book. I guess when we were first paired up, it was probably thought “traditional stories, visually told in a modern way”. I think that’s how it should have been. But that wasn’t the case. I didn’t mind changing for him, I really do feel that my job is to tell a story first. However I didn’t agree on his method, or his pacing. I was a circle trying to fit in a square.

I wish no ill will to Jim, and believe he has the right to say what he wants. I just thought I’d temper his voice with a bit of what the experience was like on the other side. And it definitely was quite an experience.

Ole M. Olsen said...

Mannapul's attitude is quite a bit different from Dave James O'Neill's tone of voice:

Anyway, here's some of [Shooter's] abuse [of Mannapul]
---if he ever really grasps the importance of the story and science of storytelling, he’s going to be a hall-of-famer.--- (...)

If I was an artist, I'd be disgusted to hear that, from a former editor


I'm very glad that DJO'N is not an artist. Being told that with a bit more work you'll be a hall-of-famer, and your reaction is disgust? But, as DJO'N admits, "Your definition of abuse definitely differs from mine." Uh, yes, it differs from most people's, obviously.

Dave James O'Neill certianly does not lead by example. He does everything he tells Shooter and others not to, concentrating on insulting anyone who doesn't share his views, leaping to unlikely conclusions and is unable or unwilling to back up his statements with any actual arguments. And then he says that some comments directed towards him are "extremely unfair, and extraordinarily rude." Funny.

Fact is this, hiding behind a tag of "I don't know them, so they suck", Shooter has criticised comics I like. His essays about Wonder Woman are openly mocked on other messageboards, because people know full well Shooter is mocking stuff he doesn't understand, and isn't taking the time to read properly.

I wonder who it is that don't understand? No, I don't really.

And his abuse of Manapaul was digusting. And the funny thing is, I bet we're going to see the same thing again, as DC have given Tom DeFalco the Superboy book, and he's going to pick away at RB Silva's amazing work, until DC cave in and give DeFalco's boyfriend Ron Frenz the gig.

Hm. "Extremely unfair, and extraordinarily rude"?

My increasing suspicion is that the decent editors at DC were horrified that this old fart thought he could push around a young artist, and leaked it. Thats what I would have done anyway.

That's good to know.

The question is, would Shooter be polite to me, if I asked whey he is so determined to shit on young creators.

You know, I think he probably would! Would you deserve it?

Alan Moore? Some people are just crazy.

I can name some people who are a lot more crazy than Alan Moore.

Eventually we get full circle, back to what ja wrote initially:

Dave James O'Neill, you're a hateful son of a bitch. It must be nice to sit on your perch and throw complete falsehoods around, just so you can pretend you have something clever to say.

...which happens to seem very fitting.

P.S. Comparing "The Flash"'s dismal sales in the 70,000 copies region with even more laughable sales of a special interest title from Dark Horse Comics does little but indicate that you (both DJO'N and Anonymous) have missed the point completely. An illustration: Sales of 70,000 copies of a comic book would be quite good here in Norway. Not the top selling title, but decent sales. We are a population of five million people. That's about 14,000 copies per million people. The USA has a population of about 313.5 million. Guess how I arrived at the figure "4,389,000"...?

Dave James O'Neill said...

Ole, I'm having difficulty reading your posts, I have one on my phone that isn't coming up here, I'll try and reply later, which, I would like to, because it was rather polite.

Ole M. Olsen said...

Hm. It seems the introductory first part of my three-part post disappeared. Malfunctioning spam filter again? I guess it doesn't make that much of a difference. Still... :-)

Good night, everyone!

ja said...

Ole M. Olsen,

See? In the accounts from both Jim Shooter and Francis Manapul have no malice in them whatsoever.

Yet Dave O'Neill shows up with his dishonest characterizations. What a fraud Dave O'Neill is.

Dave James O'Neill said...

For the record, what Ole said was this

--I think Dave James O'Neill - who again should be commended for writing under his full name, at least - is not consciously being a troll. I think he's genuinely upset about Jim Shooter and what he perceives as Jim's unwarranted criticism of some of his favourite creators.--


I thought that was quite civil and well written.

--Regarding Francis Mannapul in particular, Jim has spoken favourably about him earlier too, despite the problems. Previously quoted in this thread, but I'll do it again:

“I must add that Francis Manapul is going to be great someday – maybe one of the best of all time. He already shows flashes of brilliance. He works very hard and seems to care a lot – but that and a $1.85 gets you a cup of coffee. As soon as Francis groks what business he’s in – storytelling – as soon as he realizes that conveying the story and information clearly, at a glance, is first priority, he’ll be a contender. It’s not just about making cool shots that vaguely relate to what was asked for in the script. It’s about thinking things through until you can come up with just-as-cool shots that effectively deliver all the content required; about making the visual storytelling ‘read’ effortlessly. Francis is incapable of drawing a dull picture, so if he ever really grasps the importance of the story and science of storytelling, he’s going to be a hall-of-famer. --

You see, you call that favourable, but where does ANYONE, ex-editor, old school writer, whatever, get off, saying that an artist, who had been working in the biz for a few years now (look, Top Cow is crap, but its still experience) hadn't "grasped the importance of story and the science of storytelling". How dare he.

--“Anyway, upon reading the interview, I wonder now if people will focus on the things I said regarding Francis like he’s ‘going to be great someday, maybe one of the best of all time,’ --

Ok, look, Jim, you don't like the guy, but you're trying to promote a book! You want people to read it! Why aren't you more enthusiastic about it. I don't care who you're working with, any collaboration , you have to praise the other guy, not say he'll be great " some day"

--And his abuse of Manapaul was digusting. And the funny thing is, I bet we're going to see the same thing again, as DC have given Tom DeFalco the Superboy book, and he's going to pick away at RB Silva's amazing work, until DC cave in and give DeFalco's boyfriend Ron Frenz the gig.

Hm. "Extremely unfair, and extraordinarily rude"?--

What I think of Shooter is polite compared to what I think of Tommy DeFalco

Anonymous said...

"How dare he?". Once again we come back to Dave's premise: no criticism of my idols allowed, for any reason, and criticism is always an insult, never constructive. What a childish view.

As for the answer: he dares because he has nearly 50 years of storytelling experience. I guess Dave would call Will Eisner an asshole for tesching storytelling to artists with his books.

Dave James O'Neill said...

Uh, no. Will Eisner write it in a book, as a teaching tool. Jim Shooter ranted on a website because he was working with an artist he didn't approve of.

Anonymous said...

Again, a liar you be, sir. Wasn't a rant and wasn't disapproval. Constructive criticism. Look it up. If your poor reading comprehension skills allow you. and you obvious prejudice and immaturity let you learn anything, since clearly you know all.

Dave James O'Neill said...

Here's a sentence.

-I think this latest issue of Daredevil is a step backwards, Khoi Pham is not an artist at the level of Marcos Martin, Paulo Rivera and Chris Samnee, and his inexperience and lack of talent, comparative to the other guys currently on Daredevil rotation comes through, comes through in this week's issue, compared to the high watermark of Chris Samnee on the last issue, which I really loved.--

Thats an OPINION. Mine, as it happens. Jim Shooter similarily took apart Francis Manapaul's work (as a sidenote, I think we've done all we can with Manapaul since its obvious none of you actually like him, let's not forget Shooter had Dennis Calero booted off the Solar relaunch aswell). Now, the difference is, that one of us used a blog read by a few people, and the other used a website with a global reach. One of us is a professional writer.

If there was "constructive criticism" to be laid at Manapaul's feet, that is a job for his EDITOR. For instance, Steve Wacker took on early criticism of Khoi Pham's pervious Marvell work, and Pham, at Wacker's request, taken on Tom Palmer as his inker and embellisher. Thats because that's an editor's job. Jim Shooter, is not an editor, and it is not his job to try and wreck a young artists career.

Marvelman said...

David,

Whether anyone here agrees with you or not...

Jim is persona non grata at both Marvel and DC. I doubt there is anything he could say that would impact any creator's career one way or the other. I'm not saying this to mean to Jim, but it is probably the truth.

Anonymous said...

The twit continues...if you altered my script because you were lazy or self-indulgent, you're not a storyteller, you're just drawing pictures to please yourself.

yes we all hate Manapaul is the correct conclusion to draw, you double-dumb ass.

You couldn't make a bigger fool of yourself if you tried, Dave James. You have to be a maroon of unique maroonishness not to be able to parse words at all, which you clearly cannot do. All your conclusions are utterly unfounded, you have yet to provide any support for your nutty, muddy misinterpretations. You are living under a veil of miscomprehension that you believe to be insight, and it would be laughable if not for the fact that it's really quite sad. You have nothing better to do than spew venomous lies about and at Jim Shooter based solely on your bizarre misunderstanding of what criticism is and what it is for. I can only assume you were equally disgusted in school when you received your deluge of Fs and your teachers dared to imply you did not know all.

If you hate Jim so much, why read his blog? Clearly you're not interested in learning anything or getting honest opinions and, good Lord!, criticism. I've met you under other names but you're always the same: rude, misinformed, quick to take offense, hypocritical, and unable to support your positions. Please go away. Take your 70,000 (what a joke) Flash comics with you.

Your best bud,
Baron Zemo

Anonymous said...

I can summarize things like this: David has criticized Jim, and his sycophants - yet has not been able to provide one logical reason or piece of evidence for his beliefs.


By the by - thanks for providing the Manpaul quotes. A guy ignores specific details (such as the size of rocks) and even thumbnails that Jim drew for him - then he chalks it up to miscommunication - what a bullshitter

Dave James O'Neill said...

And yet, he's employed by DC, while no major company will touch Shooter.

And by the way, if you're a writer and you're obsessing over the size of a rock a guy has drawn, find a new hobby. No wonder most right thinking people think Shooter is nuts.

Dave James O'Neill said...

--If you hate Jim so much, why read his blog?--

It turned out to be useful when I was criticizing Greg Capullo's work on Batman, since I'm apparently the only person going who thinks the current Batman book is garbage.

Anonymous said...

@David

If you don't understand the importance of the size of those rocks in that story - then you are operating from a point of ignorance

But, we already knew you were an obstinate moron. This is just one more piece of evidence

Anonymous said...

@David said

"no major company will touch Shooter"

Nope. The big 2 won't touch Shooter because there are still people working there that will cry a river and sit in a corner, intentionally soiling themselves in dismay, daily, if the guys in charge hire Shooter

Study your facts Dave

Dave James O'Neill said...

Maybe people in the Big Two wouldn't be in dismay if Shooter didnt try bullying the younger talent, and accepted his role as writer, not art critic.

Anonymous said...

so Jim's criticism is valid when you agree with it, but invalid when you don't. confirmation bias at its worst. what an idiot. the saddest part is you probably think you're smart. dumb asses usually do.

and what a hardon you have for manapaul. the artist who could never under any circumstances be wrong or learn or improve in any way. i bet manapaul would agree that he's still learning his craft and hopes to get better in time. any artist who isn't a total ass (like you are) knows there's always room for improvement.

Dave James O'Neill said...

I just think its sad you refuse to recognise his talent, simply to be seen agreeing with the Almighty Shooter.

Anonymous said...

Baron Zemo ftw

Anonymous said...

another lie from Dave James. No one has refused to recognize Manapaul's talent, not Jim Shooter nor anyone posting. I seriously believe you need a remedial course in reading comprehension.

Can you refrain from lying and please make a point with convincing evidence? Too hard, huh? Easier by far to spew venom for perceived slights that even the person you think was slighted apparently had no problem with.

Man, you are really operating at a kneejerk emotional level like I would expect from my 2-year-old. Except he's better at communicating than you are.

Your buddy,
Baron Zemo

Defiant1 said...

Manapul draws in a cartoon Manga style. Most of it is horrid. Some panels he did for Legion are drawn in a cartoon style that could have been plugged into a "For Better or Worse" newspaper cartoon. It's completelt beneath the standards of what I want to see. I'm not familiar with all the Legion characters, so Manapul drawing so many of them alike required me to flip pages back and forth to see who was talking. I found his art to be annoying. Since most of the art spit out by Marvel & DC is shit these days, having his name on a top DC book means nothing to me. I seriously doubt Manapul was following the script or even had a clue as to why the details were so specific. At one point in the legion run, the difference between a desolate palace and a lavish one was throw pillows and lit torches. I'll steer clear of any comic with Manapul's art. On the other hand, I saw some panels that looked very nice. They were few and far between.

Calero was reportedly on vacation while one of his issues was being drawn. A noir style of art is entirely inadequate for panels that require the illustration of a nuclear reactor and 3D projected images. His art would've been fine if the story had been suited for a noir art style.

The Dark Horse material just looked like they produced the cheapest art they could. rather than hire capable inkers to clean things up, they left it all looking very sketchy and rough. Solar looked like it was inked with a sharpie and finished in photoshop. Again, none of it meets my standards.

Defiant1 said...

BTW, I have a slightly different account of the collaboration Jim had with Francis Manapul. They story I've been told hasn't really surfaced and I'll leave it that way. Jim's online comments in no way contradict the "rest of the story". I think Jim did the best he could with the cards he was handed.

Anonymous said...

@David said

"Ja, I'm simply astonished you don't think Manapaul is, in your words "good at his job". Please click on the link, and tell me, why the image included doesn't fit the high standards of a Jim Shooter fan

http://geek-news.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/untitled6.jpg"


There is great irony in David posting this as a good example of Manpaul's artwork. For one, it is exactly symptomatic of today's artists drawing posters instead of comic covers that convey information about the STORY inside. Furthermore, it's just plain confusing as an image. Is Flash supposed to be running on water? And pulling those ships?? It looks like he might be on water - but there are also some rocks and a building in the near background. I suppose those letters at the bottom could be some kind of icebergs?? I suppose he could be in the arctic, pulling tub boats?? Who knows - as long as it is kewl, right??

Thanks for providing exhibit A for what is wrong with a lot of current comic book artists

Dave James O'Neill said...

Alright then, wind the clock back a few years, who would you have on art on Legion. With the caveat being they have to be a current artist, who would have met Shooter's impossibly high standards?

Christ, I had a decent weekend and its still "Shit on Manapaul because he's young" week here with the bigots.

Anonymous said...

Kitson's work on Legion, a couple years before Shooter was on the book, was great stuff

But... you really don't care do you.


I also like how you think an artist drawing what is carefully detailed in the script is an "impossibly high standard"

Anonymous said...

... or that making a character look the same from one issue to the next is an "impossibly high standard"

ja said...

Boy, this conversation has been so convoluted.

It's not a good example of good or bad storytelling when you show a single double-page spread illustration like Anonymous just did, using Dave James O'Neill's link.

Manapul's drawing is fine, in my opinion. Very dynamic, quite well drawn. Very attractive work! It makes me like Manapul's work, and I want to see more.

The subject at hand has always been about Manapul's work in regards to how an artist should reflect the script written, not how well he can draw. My initial memory of Jim's complaints about Manapul's work had to do with details Manapul left out, that Jim indicated in his Legion script(s). That's what I choose to focus on.

I don't have a problem with someone not adhering to the rigid 6-panel comic book page grid, so long as their storytelling is still readable. 'Readable' is certainly a subjective thing. I for one have enjoyed people like Walt Simonson, Neal Adams, Joe Quesada, Jim Lee & many other artists' work who tend to deviate from the plain 6-panel grid format. These are all people who have no problems using the 6-panel grid format, either. SO LONG AS IT'S READABLE should be the standard for visual storytelling and pacing.

'Readable' is also maintaining important details that were written into the script. When the script is handed to the artist, that means that the script was approved by the Editor. Manapul leaving out details of Shooter's script is not the same thing as Manapul deciding on his own course of visually pacing the script while keeping to the details in the script. This is a very important distinction.

ja said...

I take each illustrator individually when it comes to their work. Some people work very well within the 6-panel grid format. Others wish to make things more kinetic with how they draw panel frames. There's such a broad spectrum of good storytelling, and I love being entertained by good storytelling, no matter how it's delivered to me.

So beyond Defiant1's dislike for anything 'anime'-looking, or Dave James O'Neill being a malicious bullying lying asshole who gets things totally wrong by ascribing false motivations onto Shooter when he knows better, the subject at hand is Manapul deciding what he can do with Shooter's script. Whether or not he can unilaterally edit out details that were written in.

There seems to be several possibilities: Manapul did this on his own, and the Editor supported him by not making him adhere to storytelling details; or the Editor told Manapul to edit the script any way he wished. Either way, it was the Editor who is at fault. The Editor should have managed Manapul to keep to the details, because he's the one who approved the script in the first place.

Dave James O'Neill has finally admitted that Jim Shooter's standards are high ones! One small step for Dave James O'Neill, one big step for repentant assholes everywhere.

Anonymous said...

If I have to look at an image 3 or 4 times to try to figure out what is happening in it - then it is a fail. Doesn't matter if that image is a single splash page, or a small panel among many on a page

But otherwise I agree with pretty much everything that Ja said just above

Dave James O'Neill said...

--I also like how you think an artist drawing what is carefully detailed in the script is an "impossibly high standard"--

If you're going to quibble over the size of a rock on a page, then you have ridiculously high standards, and in Shooters case, wanted the artist to fail so you could complain about him.

--The subject at hand has always been about Manapul's work in regards to how an artist should reflect the script written, not how well he can draw. My initial memory of Jim's complaints about Manapul's work had to do with details Manapul left out, that Jim indicated in his Legion script(s)--

Thats the EDITORS problem, not Shooters.

--There seems to be several possibilities: Manapul did this on his own, and the Editor supported him by not making him adhere to storytelling details; or the Editor told Manapul to edit the script any way he wished. Either way, it was the Editor who is at fault. The Editor should have managed Manapul to keep to the details, because he's the one who approved the script in the first place.--

So why did Shooter not attack the editor, and instead tried to kill Manapaul's career?

Dave James O'Neill said...

--One small step for Dave James O'Neill, one big step for repentant assholes everywhere.--

I think the lying, bullying assholes are the sycophants who parrott everything the almighty Shooter says in a bid to suck up to him.

ja said...

Dave James O'Neill, you're so silly.

"That's the EDITOR[']S problem, not Shooter[']s." Actually, it's everyone's responsibility. The writer goes back and forth with the editor to work out a story, the script is written, then the approved script is sent to the artist. Copies of the artwork is usually sent back to the writer. EVERY WRITER checks the artwork for inconsistencies to the script.

If Jim (or any writer) specifically indicates the size of an object to be placed into the visuals, it is for a reason. So if the rock in question was indicated to be big, then it should have been big.

The people who comment on this blog aren't sycophants. Many of us disagree with certain things that Shooter does, and we've stated so.

But, you're not here for any kind of intelligent exchange of ideas. The only reason you've been here from the start is to bash Shooter relentlessly with your false premise that he's a Big Old Meanie. You being the biggest sycophant of all with your Manapul-fellatio just goes to show how much of a hypocrite you truly are.

Anonymous said...

Y'know, this is getting kind of boring. What, with one side throwing insults at the other and then receiving other insults (or,more likely, the same insults) back again.

First off, as has been said in other places, why don't the readers of this blog just ignore the unsubstantiated, screeds and use your time more profitably? He'll go away soon enough.

So saying, I will ignore my own advice.

Dave, we all get it that you don't like Jim Shooter. My comment to you is why bother? Is this such an important issue in your life that you wish to spew diatribe after diatribe at the readers of this blog over it? I happen to agree with some of your points - that Shooter should ideally take up his issues with the editor, not with the artist. However, if a writer is stuck with an artist who serially fails to tell the story but rather continues to follow his own agenda by ignoring key elements of the script, and who latterly (as he admitted) just did what felt good to him, this is damaging to the writer in two ways. The writer then has to work around the inconsistencies in the script, taking up time and effort that he may not be able to afford. Also, the writer may gain a reputation for poor storytelling from the public who do not know the background to the situation.

The size of a rock (among other factors) has been cited here as being one point of contention. Dave, you would agree that the amount of damage done by a small rock and a large boulder would be considerable. If a key plot point is sabotaged by the incorrect depiction of said rock/boulder, then the artist is at least partially to blame, but I reiterate my earlier comment, it should have been the editor who solved the problem.

Dave, if you want a reasoned discussion, tone down your language. If you reply to this comment with a barrage of slurs and innuendos, etc., you will just be ignored. See my usual policy above.

QW

Dan said...

Manapul isn't good at storytelling. And his rendering is VERY beneath my standards.

But I my devotion to the Barry Allen character compels me to buy this crap anyway.

Dan said...

Dave James O'Neill said: "And yet, [Manapul]'s employed by DC...".

Considering DC's current talent pool, that's no accomplishment.

Dave James O'Neill said...

--Manapul isn't good at storytelling. And his rendering is VERY beneath my standards.--

Rob Liefeld has control over three books at DC, but is Manapaul's storytelling that bothers you? Get a new hobby.

-Dave, you would agree that the amount of damage done by a small rock and a large boulder would be considerable.--

It's a comic. Set in outer space.

--"Dave, we all get it that you don't like Jim Shooter"--

I've never actually said that. I, like, most right thinking comic fans, own, and love Secret Wars (I actually own two copies), and some of the Valiant stuff is tolerable, during a time when I wasn't really into Marvel.

What I don't like, especially as someone with my own creative ideas, is someone who WAS a name, completely shutting down and bashing a talent, for what? The size of a rock? He drew a screen differently? Get real. Manapaul is light years ahead of most of the guys in DC, doesn't even NEED comics, because of the tv gig, but LOVE comics, loves DC, pours his heart into Flash, but no, the sycophant brigade here decides to bash the run into the ground because he didn't draw the right rocks for Big Jim. Why do it? Because I can. Because its a moderatly fun diversion from my jobs (I work two), in fact if anyone is offended by stuff I say, its probably because I tend to write when I'm exhausted. I only got half into it when Shooter took Batman apart, because I think Snyder is overrated, and Capullo is a terrible artist anyway. As for Wonder Woman, I could care less, because most of the critics of the run are either
a)offended by Brain Azzrello doing a superhero book
b)too stupid to understand the story
I got into it here, because Manapaul is a genuine talent, and if none of you can accept that, just because the Almighty Shooter hates him and tried to ruin his career, well, I feel sad.

In fact, the problem with this blog is, unlike a messageboard, I can't be banned. I'd LOVE for someone to threaten me with a ban, because it proves you're not interested in discussion, or Free Speech.

I did get banned from John Byrne's board, actually (not difficult)

If you want a DISCUSSION, I'm you're guy, As long as you're not Zemo, and remember you're speaking to an adult here, who works in a comic store.

Dave James O'Neill said...

YOUR GUY.

Jesus wept, I am tired.

Anonymous said...

You know, if Jim posts a new blog entry, it's going to be a shock to click on here and see a new entry at the top of his home page.

Anonymous said...

@Dave admits he likes it when Jim criticizes Batman - and thereby Dave proves once again what a pea-brained hypocrite he is

Dave, I think Jesus would weep if you ever had one original thought in your life. You suck the air out of this blog. Many people who post here actually have something intelligent to say, which sets this blog apart from every message board and comic book site I have ever been to. But your "contributions" to the discussions here remind me of what it is like to try to have an informed discussion on Internet message boards

There are hoards of you out there Dave - people who are incapable of putting their thumb on what makes good comics and what doesn't, and who are baffled by those who can

Your responses are the same as all of those other clueless comic-readers, you want to argue until the sun burns out with people who actually make cogent points when they post things online - probably why you hate Shooter too

Anonymous said...

@dave, are you a personal acquaintance of manapul? Otherwise, I think I see who the real sycophant here is

Anonymous said...

Cannot be bothered reading the tedious conversation, but I'm taking Dave's side since he seems to be less inclined to stooping to personal insults. Hey, I like Shooter and his opinions when he decides to post them. I also think Manapul is one of the most talented comic book artists working, and his work on Legion was beautiful, though perhaps he did employ too much artistic license. In other words, you're all right, you just can't manage to express that without looking like jerks.

If I was Jim, I'd just delete this whole comments section altogether.

--Ash

Anonymous said...

He's afraid of me. I guess responding to actual points was too hard. Just keep distorting facts and issues under discussion, Dave. That's right, because a rock was too small Jim Shooter tried to destroy a career. Are you just pretending to be this stupid or are you really that moronic? Well, we're still waiting on your argument and supporting evidence. Kneejerk emotional responses don't count, sad to say.

Your hero,
Baron Zemo

ja said...

Ash,

I agree with you about the quality of Manapul's work, and that he perhaps did employ too much 'artistic license'. No evil going on here, but Dave O'Neill does nothing but characterize Shooter as being evil.

If you had bothered to actually read the tedious conversation, you'd see that Dave is the one who came into this comments section in a hateful insulting way, and has refused to calm down and simply have a conversation, even and especially when people here have gone out of their way to make cogent points to him in hopes of an exchange of ideas.

He wouldn't be bothered with having an actual conversation. He would just blast Shooter in an openly demeaning way, falsely ascribing motivations onto Shooter based solely upon assumption and conjecture.

He's been asked to calm down and just have an actual reasonable conversation instead of being openly hostile, but he would ultimately respond by writing, "Why do it? Because I can. ...if anyone is offended by stuff I say, its probably because I tend to write when I'm exhausted."

So he admits that he's being a hostile jerk because 'he can', and then adds the lame excuse that "if anyone is offended by stuff I say, it[']s probably because I tend to write when I'm exhausted." He was being a purposeful asshole because it suits him. His bullshit excuse for his behavior shows how dishonest he is.

If Dave showed up to speak to you and immediately started spewing false accusations and aspersions about something you said (when you didn't say it), then you would see him as an aggressive jerk. And you'd be right to push back on him, and you know it.

That is what people here have been reacting to.

Chris Hlady said...

Can't wait for Jim's Memorial Day Meanderings, or as I like to think of it: Him throwing us a bone. Pant, pant.

Anonymous said...

Just looking at some preview pages for Flash #9. Manapul is a solid artist, but he definitely has some glaring flaws

I'll point a few out if David wants me to. Or we could leave it at Manapul is a good artist, but not hardly one of the tops in comics right now

Anonymous said...

oh you are going to drive Dave James to frenzy,,, hes already proven that manapaul is the best artist of all history & has nothing left to learn or improve on!!!!!

Anonymous said...

How 'bout them Mets?

Baron Zemo

P.S. I hope Jim's not posting because he's too busy with paying work. His pro bono stuff here is cool, but bills gotta get paid.

Dave James O'Neill said...

--Or we could leave it at Manapul is a good artist, but not hardly one of the tops in comics right now--

Is that you saying that, or the Jim Shooter Sycophant.

In fact, go one further - name five guys doing better work, at Marvel or DC. I can do it myself (Chris Bachalo, Paolo Rivera, Chris Samnee, Jerome Opena and Nick Bradshaw, sole DC vote for Cliff Wu Chiang on Wonder Woman), but I'm curious. And do you pick the old farts, or are some of you actually fans of newer guys, you know, who draw backgrounds, ink/colour their own stuff

-I also think Manapul is one of the most talented comic book artists working, and his work on Legion was beautiful, though perhaps he did employ too much artistic license.--

And as I've said, and, is infact, the crux of the point I'm trying to argue, that would be fine, but, it does not give the writer the right to go bleating off to a website about how little he thinks of the artist. Shooter, and this the point that none of you sycophants can accept - came off as a bullying scumbag, for going public like that, when the issue, should have been kept between Shooter, and his editor. Its not the 80s anymore. Shooter is not an editor.

Here's a funny story that I read recently. Years ago, Warren Ellis, a writer known for his exceptional levels of collaboration, who turns down/accepts work based on wether or not he can pick his artist, told the story of his first Marvel work, the DOOM 2099 book, or some other fluff. He was working with an artist named Pat Broderick, and Ellis wrote his first script, and sent it off, and Ellis got the art back to review, and whet he wrote, and what Broderick drew, were two different things. This isn't the size of rocks, or going outside a grid layout, this was, the script being one thing, and the art being another. Ellis contacted Broderick, who, allegedly, told Ellis, he didn't like the script, and drew what he felt was better, and if he didn't like it, he could quit. This being before CBR, and Jim Shooter proclaiming himself the Artist Hater, Ellis went back to his editor, who found out, or knew, that Broderick had pulled this shit before, and the writers were too intimidated to say anything. Ellis, not giving two shits about the gig, pursued it, and Broderick was fired from the book. Broderick alleges that he's been blackballed from the industry since.

Anonymous said...

I have no idea whether that Warren Ellis story is supposed to make Shooter look better, or somehow worse...

But then, Dave himself probably doesn't know either

Anonymous said...

Dave, I don't know why I am doing this - because you have shown an inordinate ability to bounce every idea sent your way off into oblivion. But here goes

On the first page of Flash #9, one thing Manapul does is strangely draw some characters as cartoony. The woman and the ape look pretty good, while the kid looks like something straight out of a Calvin and Hobbs strip. Weird, distracting as a reader. He also gets lazy on the backgrounds - but we'll slam that point home later. I'm also not sure how the truck got turned on its side so that Grodd (or whoever) could hit it on the bottom like that. If Grodd himself had knocked it over, he would have had to hit it on the side, not underneath as he is shown doing. This is not nit-picky, this is storytelling Dave


The next page is pretty nice. Some nice compositions of Flash and Grodd. Although I had to look at it 3 times before I noticed that Gordd is eating the heart of another gorilla. But I know, this is the 2010's, where kewl means much more than clear storytelling

The third page is fraught with problems. I'll name 3 of them. Muddy, lazy backgrounds. Second, something that plagues Manapul in a lot of his stuff that I have seen - inconsistent character design. Look at Flash in that middle panel. Weird little arm, strange, scribbled head. Contrast that with the other Flashes on that page, it looks weird, cartoony. And again, storytelling. How did Flash get from panel 2, nearly surrounded by gorillas to where he is in the next to last panel. Here's your cue to explain how he ran, or how it is Flash, super fast. But if it's not on the page then it is poor storytelling

(more)...

Anonymous said...

... (more)

Page 4. I'll be quick about this, I'm getting tired of typing. Let me add here Dave, that I'm just a novice. I'm just a shmuck who reads comics - never taken an art class. Top panel - why did Manapul draw that weird, triangle nose on Flash. He doesn't have that sharp-angled nose anywhere else in the comic. The middle panel with the apes just seems lazy to me. Boring. If you're going to put a panel full of apes, whey not make them look different, put them in different poses, something. Lazy, not a cardinal sin when having to hit deadlines. But boring. And plenty of good artists won't get lazy like that, so why applaud manapul for being one of the best

Lastly Dave, I'm glad you mentioned lazy backgrounds in your last post. You said the old farts don't draw backgrounds or ink their own stuff. Well your hero Manpul gets really lazy on backgrounds David. Look at this cover. Christ, the 2 dark apes on the left background look like he just drew the bigger one and made a smaller copy of it right beside it. This is on a cover, when your best stuff is supposed to be on display. Here's an old fart who knew backgrounds Dave. No phoning it in there. Byrne used to do this all the time too - meticulous backgrounds, even on interiors, not just covers. Manapul couldn't even do it for a cover.

Here's a newer guy. RM Guera. Every heard of him. Now he's got chops.


Now, ignore everything I just said

Anonymous said...

A question I have wondered about for a while; why did the much lauded Sandman series not have better, or at least uniform, artwork from issue to issue within the same story (not to mention throughout the series). If Gaiman was producing a landmark work, where was the commitment from DC to the series, to give it an inviting appearance. To my mind artwork is supposed to draw the reader into the story, not detract from the work so that at times it is almost so ugly it is unreadable. Does anyone agree with this view? Does anyone know why the art was sometimes so lamentably poor?

Dave James O'Neill said...

--A question I have wondered about for a while; why did the much lauded Sandman series not have better, or at least uniform, artwork from issue to issue within the same story (not to mention throughout the series). If Gaiman was producing a landmark work, where was the commitment from DC to the series, to give it an inviting appearance. To my mind artwork is supposed to draw the reader into the story, not detract from the work so that at times it is almost so ugly it is unreadable. Does anyone agree with this view? Does anyone know why the art was sometimes so lamentably poor?--

Having on recently finished the Sandman, I can suggest a few theories.
-The book didn't start out as a "landmark" work. I don't think they knew how successful it was going to be.
-One of the original artists left really early on in the run. Another died.
-The book "did" have a uniform look. Dave McKean's covers gave it a uniformity, compared to the inside pages, which, IMO, suited Gaiman's story, that everyone, and their society/culture, has a different interpretation of The Sandman.

-But if it's not on the page then it is poor storytelling

And if it's on the page, its a waste of a text box patronisingly telling readers something they can figure out for themselves.

--one thing Manapul does is strangely draw some characters as cartoony--

Its. A. Comic. Book. It's Meant to be CARTOONY.

-Muddy, lazy backgrounds--

This is extraordinarily nitpicky, but Manapaul doesn't colour his own stuff.

Anonymous said...

Dave you really are being intentionally obtuse. Look at page 3 again, 2nd panel. Look at the trees and buildings. Did he even draw those, or did the colorist do it? Look at those scribbled apes. Look at that "mountain" - a 3 year-old could have drawn that. Would you really like to compare that to the Mike Zeck background?? Are you even capable of doing so??

Now compare panel 2 and panel 4 of that page - when Flash makes his escape. Where did all the apes go that were surrounding him?? If he is fleeing, why is he closer to that stone monument in the second panel than he is in the first? Explain that Dave. Explain it. Is the bloody ape in the foreground the one who is jumping onto the monument in the second panel?? I have no idea. Why did all the apes drop their spears?? This is beyond bad storytelling - this is confusing, illogical, hackneyed storytelling.

Dave James O'Neill said...

What did you want? a patronising text box saying "the apes drop all the spears for...whatever" Are your comprehension skills that poor you need everything spelled out like that?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, you can't even explain it yourself

Good luck to you guy - as others have said, you can't even explain why you like the things that you like

Salamandyr said...

In a massive digression from the general trend of this thread, I ran across something just now that I thought the readers here would like.

Short form of article: boy won't wear hearing assistance because "superheroes don't wear hearing aids", so company sends him a pic of Hawkeye, and then a custom one of a character based on the kid, to show him that yes, superheroes do wear hearing aids. Pretty cool.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/23/hearing-impaired-new-hampshire-boy-inspires-new-marvel-comics-super-hero/

Salamandyr said...

Sorry, wasn't clear... by company, I meant "Marvel".

Ole M. Olsen said...

Dear Dave,

I really did intend to keep my promise and stay quiet, but I'm going to break my own advice once more, and before this comments page breaks off into a second one of the same nonsense. I promise this is the last time I'll address you.

There is an old Scandinavian folk tale called "God dag, mann - Økseskaft" - ("Good day, man - Axe handle"). You can read an English translation at the link there, but in short, it's about a man who was so hard of hearing that prior to a visit from the sheriff, he thought about what the sheriff might ask him and came up with the answers in advance. And he stuck by his answers no matter what the questions actually turned out to be:

«—How do you do, sir!» the sheriff said.
«—Axe handle.» the ferryman answered.
«—Very well – –», the sheriff said. «—How far away are we from the inn?» he asked the ferryman.
«—Just up under this twig knot.» the ferryman said, and pointed a distance up on the axe handle.

In the specific example of the fairytale, the man's excuse was that he was hard of hearing, of course. However, the title of the tale has become an expression for "non sequitur" in Scandinavia: "God dag mann økseskaft" may be used about pretty much any situation where answers have no relevance to the questions being asked, or where what's being uttered is irrelevant nonsense in general.

You reminded me a lot about this folk tale, Dave. You stick to your story no matter what arguments you're faced with - your story being that Jim Shooter hates Francis Mannapul and actively tried to ruin his career because he drew a rock the wrong size, and that your opponents here consider Jim Shooter a God and hate Francis Mannapul because Jim Shooter hates him and because he's young and talented unlike Shooter and the othe washed-up old farts we like.

I feel tempted to ask if you even understand how ridiculous your posts and your "arguments" actually look to me and others (I was tempted to write "to most of us", but I guess that would be speculation...), but I really don't think you do. Either that or you pretend that you don't and just go on regardless.

You show no comprehension when faced with sound arguments, but you're perfectly willing to contradict yourself in the belief that you're making a point. And you're very eager to point people to Mannapul's answers to Jim's criticism, but it doesn't look like you have actually read it yourself, nor do you show any sign that you have actually read Jim Shooter's actual criticism either.

I don't wish to be mean. I want to be polite and respectful, and I have no desire to call you such names as some others here have (and which you certainly have done back). But a small piece of advice in parting: If you wish to be met with politeness and respect, show some yourself. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, make sure you actually have some. (I mean substantiated arguments, not accusations and wild assumptions). If you argue a case with actual arguments based in the same reality that most of us (sorry - that was speculation) live in, you may even have a chance of winning it.

P.S. I read Francis Mannapul's Flash every month, and rather enjoy it! The book is not without faults, but better than a lot out there. And it shows promising signs of a bright future for Francis Mannapul.

Jason said...

Geez, I go off doing other stuff for a while, waiting for a new post to pop on my feed reader, then come back to see if Jim's been in the comments, and...

I MISSED THE BRAND NEW TROLL!????!?

:P

Anonymous said...

You all are boring. And Manapul sucks.

Dave James O'Neill said...

--Short form of article: boy won't wear hearing assistance because "superheroes don't wear hearing aids", so company sends him a pic of Hawkeye, and then a custom one of a character based on the kid, to show him that yes, superheroes do wear hearing aids. Pretty cool.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/23/hearing-impaired-new-hampshire-boy-inspires-new-marvel-comics-super-hero/--

The utterly, miserable prick cynic in me is eager to point that Franklin Richards helpfully cured Hawkeye's deafness in Heroes Reborn.

Also, for a character, who, lets face it, sucks, Hawkeye sure gets put through the wringer. Dead. Deaf. Half Blind. Married to Mockingbird.

-- you can't even explain why you like the things that you like--

I shouldn't have to. I shouldnt need to. Why do you not like Flash? "Oh, because Shooter says there's not enough Patronising text boxes telling us everything an average reader can figure out".

Why do I like Flash? I've liked Flash since I was six years old, and now, twenty three years later, there's an artist of real dynanism aand skill working on a book thats had some shitty artists on it (I'm looking at you, Scott Kollins). It sucks that there had to be a reboot to get the Barry Allen book I desperatly wanted for years, but, whatever. I love that fact that Manapaul is telling a long form story, with a cast of characters I'm genuinely interested in, and, unlike some books (cough batman cough), is using a mix of new villains, and the old geeks,

Anyway, let's feel the trolls, and play "Why hate Manapaul"

http://mutantaday.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/fjladv31.jpg

*Jim Shooter Voice* "Ya know what that needs, you little foreigner? A big stupid textbox taking up half the page telling everyone who these people are. Hell, if you don't do it, I'll just draw over the original art myself. I used to do that, back in the seventies, when Marvel let me run the place"

Anonymous said...

My two cents:

Jim Shooter has never been a good writer; his work as a writer is awful.

Jim's skills lie in editing other's work and in running a successful comic book company. From those standpoints I think his blog (and his work) is incredibly worthwhile and I enjoy reading it.

Anonymous said...

Dave, have you read any of Cerebus? I would recommend the second 'phone book' called High Society. I think you may find the story more satisfying than Flash tales and the other superhero stuff.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and Rob Liefield blows.

Peace.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 301   Newer› Newest»