TF Views

Did Hasbro also mandate that Starscream couldn't turn sincere, and had to have a 'nefarious plot' all along? Did they also mandate that the wilds outside the city turning TFs into conflict-crazy beasts was just an evil hate-plague plan by Megatron? There is TONS of stupid shit Barber did at the eleventh hour of that plot there that I will forever question why I ever thought he was going somewhere worthwhile with any of it.

Onslaught Six wrote:I mean, if you read the current book (and I know you aren't) Prowl is right back around to trying to do the heel turn again...which is going to get fucked up as soon as Combiner Wars starts.

{Picture of George R.R. Martin from South Park}
"Prowl's going heel! He's definitely turning bad, you guys! It's definitely happening! Any minute now, and it's going to be awesome, trust me! This is definitely going to happen this time!"

Prowl's been stuck in the SAME place he was all the way back in AHM Coda. They're never going to actually move forward or do anything with it. It simply isn't going to happen. And even if Barber DOES try to make it happen, finally, there's no reason to believe his execution would be anywhere close to the mark. The man is a hack.

andersonh1 wrote:I often find something of interest in comics because they're so dated. They reflect the times they were written in, just as current comics will reflect our times and seem dated a decade from now. If nothing else, I get enjoyment out of seeing where a character began compared to where he is now.

But I've also thinned out my collection of older books from time to time, so I don't entirely disagree with Dom here. I don't get rid of books just because they're dated, but there have been times when I'll look through back issues and realized that I'm not likely to read a certain series again, or I've got some books I wanted to try out and once I read the series for awhile I didn't really have much of an attachment to it, so I take the books to the store and sell them or get store credit so I can read something else.

Exactly. While there were a lot of new ideas in terms of "guy gets spider powers" they also reflect the times they're written in. Like the Superman stories taking place during WWII. There definitely are stories there worth reading and the fact that they are old doesn't negate quality.

I've done the same thing with my collection as well. A few years ago, I purged everything that wasn't either TF or MOTU related. It wasn't because those stories weren't worth reading anymore, it was because I'd had these things in my collection for multiple years without reading them. They weren't getting used so I figured I would pass them on to people that would. But that still doesn't diminish my appreciation for those stories.

Dominic wrote:

If something is good, what does it matter when it was written?

Because standards change over time.

Technology changes over time. A person's standards for quality can change over time, but that's not usually the case except for going from childhood to adulthood. Besides, this still doesn't answer the question. Assuming everything is judged on the same standard of "good" the why would it matter when it was written?

Dominic wrote:My "go to" example is "Iron Man: Armor Wars".

It was excellent, being a decade ahead of its time, 3 years ago. That still leaves it 2 decades out of date now.

Yeah, and maybe it shouldn't be. I use the original Star Wars trilogy because everyone here has seen it and is familiar with it. I have not read Armor Wars and am not likely to anytime soon. As such the example is lost on me and artificially limits my end of the discussion since I can't really comment on it.

Also this math doesn't add up. If three years ago it was a decade ahead of it's time, then how is it two decades out of date now? This also still dodges the question of how time diminishes quality. Even taking time frame into account, there are stories that will be of high enough quality to still be good regardless of when they read/watched. This is why MY "go to" example is the original Star Wars trilogy because they are still just as good now as they were over 30 years ago.

Dominic wrote:

if all your looking for idea based minutia because the early days of comics was nothing but new ideas.

By "idea based" I do not mean "guy gets spider powers is a good idea". I am talking about the sort of thing that Gillen does with "Uber" or did with "Iron Man", writing about an actual idea in comic book format and actually have something to say about it. (This is why I am not really a fan of Gillen's current run on "Angela". He barely has anything to say about a topic I really do not care much about.)

And again with examples I know nothing about. But, Anderson has provided examples of stories from older comics that had ideas beyond "guy gets super powers". Superman comics during WWII had ideas beyond "It's a bird, it's a plane, it's SUPERMAN!". They couldn't just have him end the war like he could have so they had to find a way to address what was going on in the world and find a way around that situation. And, a lot of comics took ideas from what was going on in the world at that time. there was a lot more to the industry than "guy gets powers" but you would just dismiss all of it out of hand just because it's old. Personally, I've enjoyed reading Anderson's reviews of those old comics because it's interesting to go back and see how writers of the time used their medium to comment on the world around them and, subsequently how it shaped the development of the characters that we've come to be familiar with today.

Dominic wrote:Been flipping through the old UK stuff. Some of it is painful, even by the lower standards of the 80s.

Like what? Some of the post movie stories were convoluted which even Simon Furman admitted. But some of them are still great today ("Crisis of Command", "Dinobot Hunt", and "Target: 2006" are still some of my favorite TF stories to date). And, the artwork at the very least was years ahead of the US comics at the time. Living in England at the time and getting the UK versions week to week I could always tell when a story was a US reprint or a UK original because the artwork in UK was infinitely better.

I like Marvel's movies. I still think the first Iron Man is one of the best superhero movies ever. But despite that, I just don't care enough for the comics to read them regularly. You enjoyed this last Iron Man run and I kept browsing it for a few months to see if it appealed to me, but I just never got into it.

This is probably a question of me not reading for character. I loved "Armor Wars". But, "Armor Wars II" sucked. Similarly, I went a decade or so between giving up "Avengers" in the 90s to even looking at Marvel a decade ago. Picked up Gillen's "Iron Man" on the strength of concept. Similarly, I am reading "Injustice" (which you should also be doing) for the concept.

Relating to the original topic, the less TF comics deliver on things I want from comics, ideas or (more rarely found) linear story, the less reason I have to stick with the comics. The fact I have been following TF for years is irrelevant. If the comics do not deliver, I drop 'em.

RID, by comparison, was an absolute crime committed against ideas and storytelling.

I could say the same about "Beast Wars". I could say the same about Scioli. I could say the same about just about plenty of comics.

fucked up EVERYTHING, and much of it likely will never be fixed satisfactorily.

Point.

At this point, given that TF is like just about any comic published by the big two, I would be happy if the book just moved the hell on.

Or Hasbro should let him do what he wants. You still haven't entertained this possibility? Or that he had to cut it short because Hasbro showed up with Dark Cybertron? I mean, if you read the current book (and I know you aren't) Prowl is right back around to trying to do the heel turn again...which is going to get fucked up as soon as Combiner Wars starts.

I would imagine that Hasbro played a role.

But, as far as I am concerned, the end comics are bad regardless of who is to blame.

Did they also mandate that the wilds outside the city turning TFs into conflict-crazy beasts was just an evil hate-plague plan by Megatron? There is TONS of stupid shit Barber did at the eleventh hour of that plot there that I will forever question why I ever thought he was going somewhere worthwhile with any of it.

The "hate in the wild" thing was pretty stupid. Some of the problems may have been editorial mandate, and thus not entirely Barber's fault.

A person's standards for quality can change over time, but that's not usually the case except for going from childhood to adulthood. Besides, this still doesn't answer the question. Assuming everything is judged on the same standard of "good" the why would it matter when it was written?

Narrative and art are products of human intellect and labour. As writers and artists refine their craft (and build on the work of their predecessors), the average output of an industry (like comics) should improve. It used to be that comics with-out tedious narratioin boxes were the exception. Larry Hama managed it in the 80s. Marvel made a generakl push away form narration boxes in the 90s, but struggled until someftime in the last decade.

70s books tend to be polemic. But, that kind of blunt-force writing would not be acceptable now.


A person's standard will change over time, even in adulthood. It can be a question of changing priorities. It can be a question of diminished novelty.

Also this math doesn't add up. If three years ago it was a decade ahead of it's time, then how is it two decades out of date now?

My mistake. Fixed it.

This is why MY "go to" example is the original Star Wars trilogy because they are still just as good now as they were over 30 years ago.

Not trying to set up for a "Lucas sux lolololol" thing here. But, you would not expect a director/writer/whatever to get better at their job over time? Similarly, you do not expect more of something made now than you would of something made decades ago?

And again with examples I know nothing about

You do not need to have read "Iron Man" or "Uber" to get the idea that Gillen was writing about humanity and technology and had insight about that topic (which I have posted about in the comics thread).

Like what?

I will cover this in the UK thread at some point.

Shockwave wrote:And again with examples I know nothing about. But, Anderson has provided examples of stories from older comics that had ideas beyond "guy gets super powers". Superman comics during WWII had ideas beyond "It's a bird, it's a plane, it's SUPERMAN!". They couldn't just have him end the war like he could have so they had to find a way to address what was going on in the world and find a way around that situation. And, a lot of comics took ideas from what was going on in the world at that time. there was a lot more to the industry than "guy gets powers" but you would just dismiss all of it out of hand just because it's old. Personally, I've enjoyed reading Anderson's reviews of those old comics because it's interesting to go back and see how writers of the time used their medium to comment on the world around them and, subsequently how it shaped the development of the characters that we've come to be familiar with today.

I'm glad you're enjoying the posts! And yeah, it's very interesting to me to watch the character develop and to see how different he was back then. The same with all of DC's characters, really.

Dominic wrote:Narrative and art are products of human intellect and labour. As writers and artists refine their craft (and build on the work of their predecessors), the average output of an industry (like comics) should improve. It used to be that comics with-out tedious narratioin boxes were the exception. Larry Hama managed it in the 80s. Marvel made a generakl push away form narration boxes in the 90s, but struggled until someftime in the last decade.

70s books tend to be polemic. But, that kind of blunt-force writing would not be acceptable now.

Again, the increased "quality" you refer to above is more about improvements in technology rather than anything else. A good story on the other hand is not limited to the bounds of technology. If a story is good, it is good regardless of when it was written.

Dominic wrote:A person's standard will change over time, even in adulthood. It can be a question of changing priorities. It can be a question of diminished novelty.

Nope. The question was if you're judging everything by the SAME standard. If a current story fits the bar for what is currently regarded as good and a story from 15 years ago also fits that same criteria, then why would it matter when it was written?

Dominic wrote:

This is why MY "go to" example is the original Star Wars trilogy because they are still just as good now as they were over 30 years ago.

Not trying to set up for a "Lucas sux lolololol" thing here.

Neither was I (hence the reason I limited my example to the "Original" Trilogy).

Dominic wrote:But, you would not expect a director/writer/whatever to get better at their job over time? Similarly, you do not expect more of something made now than you would of something made decades ago?

Maybe in terms of technological advancement, but that's it. I expect films made today to have better special effects. I also expect comics to have better art (I actually dropped TF vs. GI Joe largely for failing on this point). But beyond the advancements in technology, my standard for what makes a good story is universal and not limited by technology. I can watch a good movie recently made, or one from the 80s or one from the 60s or whenever. A good movie does not stop being good over time. Similarly, with comics I can read good comics that are made now or I can also read comics that were good back in the 80s and they are still just as good to me today as they were then. My UK examples above are my "go to" examples on that. They're quality has not diminished over time.

Dominic wrote:

And again with examples I know nothing about

You do not need to have read "Iron Man" or "Uber" to get the idea that Gillen was writing about humanity and technology and had insight about that topic (which I have gone in the comics thread).

Yes I would. Because that's what you got out of it doesn't mean that's what I would have got out of it. Nor does it even guarantee that I would even regard it as "good". But, if you use something we're both familiar with, then we can both look at it objectively for the sake of discussion. It gives us a common frame of reference. And unfortunately, not being much of a "comics guy" you're not going to find much that fits that description outside of TF or MOTU in the comics industry. That's why again, I went with Star Wars. But, if you really need something in comics, a few stories I've read and liked (and still like) were Stormbreaker (the Beta Rey Bill comic), Thor Disassembled, MODOK's 11, Ultimates volumes 1 and 2. I can't really think of anything from DC that I've read and liked well enough to use as an example.

Again, the increased "quality" you refer to above is more about improvements in technology rather than anything else. A good story on the other hand is not limited to the bounds of technology. If a story is good, it is good regardless of when it was written.

But, techniques and standards for writing change and (should) improve over time. Many comic writers (and readers) are slow to adapt, which is why there were comics after "Watchmen" that read like throwbacks to the 70s or even 60s.

Nope. The question was if you're judging everything by the SAME standard. If a current story fits the bar for what is currently regarded as good and a story from 15 years ago also fits that same criteria, then why would it matter when it was written?

Because the bar has to get raised.

Yes I would. Because that's what you got out of it doesn't mean that's what I would have got out of it.

That is what the books are actually about though. (That is not a foo-foo "this is what it means to me" line of thinking. The writer has said as much.)

And, my point is that Gillen was writing about said idea using comics, rather than "writing about Iron Man because Iron Man is awesome".

Thor Disassembled

Read that recently. Was not bad. But, it did not floor me. Oeming is definitely an artist before he is a writer. He tried to make it memorable, but it was ulitmately a "paint by numbers" ending.

And I wonder why I'm so long winded

Ok Dom: Here's the question, as clear as I can possibly make it: Assuming that the "bar" has already been raised and that there are two stories that satisfy the current, raised standards of "good", one was written recently, the other from say, two decades ago. Why is the new one better (and again, this is assuming that both are considered "good" by current raised standards ie: they are of equal quality)?

That's it. That's what I'm driving at. Because you're essentially trying to sell me on the idea that just because something is old that it's automatically crap and I'm just not buying it. I just have too many old comics in my collection that I enjoy either just as much or more than comics produced today. So I just don't get how you can be so dismissive of so many comics. Especially ones that you once enjoyed.

Never said that if something was old that it was automatically bad. I said that it was more likely to be bad, and that something that was good 20+ years ago will not necessarily hold up to modern standards.

Dominic wrote:Never said that if something was old that it was automatically bad. I said that it was more likely to be bad, and that something that was good 20+ years ago will not necessarily hold up to modern standards.

Not outright, but you sure as hell implied it. Or at least that's how you came across. It just seems like every time someone brings up even the option of reading something old you get some sort of knee jerk reaction to just say that it sucks and then I start to wonder about the practical side of someone like yourself maintaining a huge comic book collection full of books that you only read once and then never again because now they're old and therefore, suck.

Or maybe I'm just more picky with my money. I generally won't spend money on something unless I'm guaranteed to get sustained, continued enjoyment from (meaning that it's something that I will go back and enjoy over and over again). For as much as I enjoyed reading Thor: Disassembled, I only read it once and then didn't read it again. Same with most of my comics from the big two, which is why I got rid of them. And in hindsight, they really were not worth the money I spent on them because of that. The titan Marvel TF compilations are comics that I continually get enjoyment from and have been well worth the money I've spent on them.

Detective Comics #38
Robin the Boy Wonder

I think Dick Grayson’s origin story is fairly well known, but as always it’s interesting to read it in context with the rest of the series. Batman gets one year as a solo character, from Detective Comics 27 through 37, and then for the next thirty years he’ll have his faithful kid sidekick Robin to help him fight crime until Dick Grayson goes off to college. Batman won’t be a grim, scary figure of darkness again until the early 1970s, when Denny O’Neill and Neal Adams take him back to the characterization of those early issues. I still find it interesting just how quickly the character evolved. Until I read these stories a few years ago, I had assumed it took years to go from the guy sneaking around in the shadows to the square-jawed, smiling guy in the blue cape. But it takes just about a year.

The story opens with a couple of shady characters running the old protection racket at Haly’s Circus. Pay up, or accidents will happen. Haly refuses and the men leave, promising trouble. And it comes in the form of sabotage of a highwire acrobat act by the Grayson family. The act is nearly over and Dick is safely on the ground when his parents fall to their deaths due to someone sabotaging the trapeze ropes. Haly agrees to pay after that so that no one else will die. Dick overhears the conversation, and is approached by the Batman for help in solving the murder case.

And here’s where the two characters find something in common, since both of them saw their parents murdered by criminals. Dick wants to help bring them to justice, and Bruce can’t help but empathize, so he tells him everything and essentially takes him on as an apprentice. Dick is already a fantastic acrobat, but Bruce teaches him how to fight and about detective work. And there’s even a scene where Batman administers an oath to the young boy to fight crime and seek justice. It’s presented as a serious commitment. To modern sensibilities this is all child endangerment and Bruce looks like a terrible person for doing it. It’s one thing to risk his own life and limb and sanity fighting crime, but another entirely to drag a young boy into that kind of existence. But setting all of that aside, since this is comics, it’s good to see this solitary character have a friend and confidant to talk to. The addition of Robin certainly changes the whole tone of the series, but as I mentioned above, it was changing anyway.

So Robin goes undercover as a newsboy to infiltrate the protection racket, run by Boss Zucco. Batman begins smashing Zucco’s gambling houses and stopping his men from collecting protection money, all in an effort to draw Zucco out. The final confrontation takes place high up on a half-constructed skyscraper that Zucco and his men are sabotaging in order to “send a message”. There’s a fight when Robin jumps in early to take on the gangsters alone, but Batman arrives just in time to bail him out, and between the two of them they take out the opposition and are able to get a confession from one thug, and then pictures of Zucco pushing him to his death. The evidence and criminals are turned over to the police, and Dick Grayson decides to keep on fighting crime, having enjoyed himself so much.

Overall: A solid origin story with some genuinely heartfelt emotions, though written with the typical shallow characterization of the time. And having a boy sidekick in bright red, yellow and green fighting grown men with guns could only have originated in those simpler times. But I’ve always liked Robin, though I think Tim Drake is my favorite. I like Grayson as Nightwing, but he got his start here in this issue. And it's interesting that Young Justice borrows and develops the way that Robin smiles and laughs for their version of Dick Grayson/Robin. It's not exactly the same characterization here, but you can see where the writers of that show were inspired.