Your taste

[dude9876]

What have you identified about your taste? Which type of creators, characters and stories fit your sensibilities?



I like big, operatic modern mythology type of superhero takes.



Characters that lend themselves to this would be: justice league, batman, superman, Thor.



Creators that lend themselves towards this: Alex Ross, Jack Kirby, Frank Miller etc.



High concept/ big ideas



Characters that fit: Fantastic four, justice league, Thor,



Creators that fit: Jack Kirby, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison etc.



Gritty street level crime fighters



Characters that fit: Batman, Daredevil



Creators that fit: Frank Miller, Ed brubaker



Characters that don't fit the type of tone or story that I like: Spider-Man, Deadpool.



Creator that is the polar opposite of my taste:

Chuck Dixon. Runs maintenance on Characters rather then being additive. Only innovations are Creating Bane and developing the bat-family. Prioritizes character relationships first and high concept/big ideas second.

With Kirby and Morrison i prefer the opposite approach.

 

[Babillygunn]

This seems to be a pretty significant discounting of Chick Dixon’s contributions. The man was the architect in many ways of Knightfall, which is one of the definitive stories in all of comics. It acted as a commentary on modern comics while also drawing a clear line in the sand as to why Batman differed from a lot of the trends that were popping up in comics at the time with the rise of anti-heroes.

To say that he was not an additive voice in comics and wasn’t isn’t all that accurate.

Also, if we are talking about writers who contribute to the mythos and are influential, you have to mention Len Wein and Denny O’Neil.

 

[dude9876]

This seems to be a pretty significant discounting of Chick Dixon’s contributions. The man was the architect in many ways of Knightfall, which is one of the definitive stories in all of comics. It acted as a commentary on modern comics while also drawing a clear line in the sand as to why Batman differed from a lot of the trends that were popping up in comics at the time with the rise of anti-heroes.

To say that he was not an additive voice in comics and wasn’t isn’t all that accurate.

Also, if we are talking about writers who contribute to the mythos and are influential, you have to mention Len Wein and Denny O’Neil.

Maybe that wasn't a fair description. The point that i was trying to illustrate was that Chuck Dixons focus on serialized soap opera type of runs just doesn't appeal to me the same way that for example the Walter simonson thor run does. Which makes a definitive statement on the character rather then being designed to be indefinitely ongoing. I thought Chuck Dixon was a good example of this.

 

[CrimsonMist]

Hmm. Sounds like you've never read something like Kraven's Last Hunt or Reign.

Every character, and I do mean EVERY character, has had journeyman stories told about them and some elevated stories told about them.

John Ostrander doesn't get enough credit for falling somewhere in between the intelligent storytelling of Alan Moore with the traditionalist superheroics of Roy Thomas. His Firestorm run is absolutely brilliant. It's a shorter run for sure, but that's because it's Firestorm. His Hawkworld run, following the absolute pitch-perfect Timothy Truman mini-series, is another phenomenal run, short only because it's Hawkman. Ostrander 's run on The Spectre is so definitive that, like James Robinson's Starman, DC has never bothered to even try to touch it throughout any line wide changes.

Despite Chuck Dixon's recent and still ongoing trip to the far right, he was one of the best damn storytellers throughout the 80s and 90s. It might be easy to write him off, but Nightwing, Tim Drake, and Birds of Prey are nothing without him. That development of the Bat Family was absolutely crucial in making those characters who they are, and why so many people loved them in the first place. His Eclipse comics stuff really cements him as one of the best action adventure storytellers in the medium. He may not be highbrow entertainment, but he's one writer I have a tendency to go back to. He's about as textbook "gritty street level" as it gets. Check out the Robin Annual #6 or Detective Comics Annual #10, both from the Pulp Heroes themed series of 1997 annuals for examples of what I mean.

William Messner-Loebs is the same way. Despite Mark Waid's brilliant poster child of classic superheroics run on the Flash, Messner-Loebs is responsible for making Wally West relatable and told one of the best damn Flash stories of all time in Flash #54. He was, and still is, a journeyman storyteller, responsible for why we love the characterization and development of Wally West.


I'd argue that Brubaker is the same way. He understands character first and foremost. As a result, his storytelling is pretty effortless. His runs on Batman, Daredevil, and Captain America are, barring a few exceptions, fairly low-key but full of really great characterization. He's not really reinventing the wheel, or even trying to.

Most comics are hack work. But every now and then you get something special. Tom King is one of those writers who understands both the deep humanity of otherwise silly characters, and the inherent silliness of human characters. That's why his Batman run was so great to me. We get told, twice monthly, tales about a man dressed in a leather bat outfit and the profound anguish and hardship that comes with that, in a way that really clashes with the acceptable norm of the medium.

Sometimes it truly is great to get a story that truly, deeply, profoundly explores the 4-color myths of our time. And sometimes, it's great just to see Batman punch a dude in the face.

 

[Babillygunn]

It always strikes me as more impressive when a writer does a truly amazing classic in the midst of a serialized run with deadlines and obligations than when someone does it as a mini or maxi series.