Greatest. Comic. Ever.

Entropy

Well-Known Member
I'd buy the comic without doubt. And I'm relatively confident that if it ever did happen, it would be fantastic. But, it wouldn't be the pairing of the greatest comics writer and greatest comics artist. That can only happen the day Moore writes a story that is illustrated by Jim Steranko. THAT would be so incredibly awesome the world would literally shatter in two.
 

ShaggyMarco

Well-Known Member
I thought Superman was Jesus?

Actually, I am pretty sure Superman was originally meant to be Moses.

-young child is sent "down the river" in a "reed basket." He is then found by a kindly family and raised to be the hero of the people.
-His creators were Jewish.

Sorry for the randomness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ultimates

Well-Known Member
....I feel like there is something wrong with me.

I have read ALOT of book and material, and I find Alan Moore..... boring. I mean, his stories have a good plot idea and all, but they start feeling like they are draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaging.

Watchmen and V For Vendetta come to mind. While I ultimately enjoyed them, I didnt feel like they were AMAZING. I havent read From Hell or Swamp Thing, so maybe these are better?

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? wasnt bad either, I just feel it wasnt on par with alot of other stuff.

I sometimes feel that subconsciously, people feel more the need to pay homeage to the originals, rather than truely think they are great. In my opinion, Alan Moore isnt bad, but someone like Garth Ennis or Mark Millar run circles around him.

Only one who was better than him IMO was The King himself Jack Kirby

Do you REALLY feel like that? Like when you see his drawings of the Avengers, and then look at Brian Hitch's, do you think "well, Hitch isnt bad, but Kirby is better." And PLEASE dont take this as offense, I mean none, im just insanely curious as to what you see that I do not.

The old school artwork doesnt do it for me I guess. I can read a story and enjoy it, but I feel greatly unimpressed with alot of it.
 

Ultimate Quicksilver

Well-Known Member
64538939_7cb718b11b_m.jpg

Look what I gound at the internetz!

1149364481748.jpg
 

Lil Brother

Well-Known Member
Ultimates said:
Do you REALLY feel like that? Like when you see his drawings of the Avengers, and then look at Brian Hitch's, do you think "well, Hitch isnt bad, but Kirby is better." And PLEASE dont take this as offense, I mean none, im just insanely curious as to what you see that I do not.
But in Brian Hitch's world, there are only two people: Man and Woman. They both have Multiple Man-esque powers, so they can be everywhere at once. Man and Woman like to perform plays for no one, so they often dress up as superheroes and act out scenes.
 
Last edited:

moonmaster

Without him, all of you would be lost souls roamin
....I feel like there is something wrong with me.

I have read ALOT of book and material, and I find Alan Moore..... boring. I mean, his stories have a good plot idea and all, but they start feeling like they are draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaging.

Watchmen and V For Vendetta come to mind. While I ultimately enjoyed them, I didnt feel like they were AMAZING. I havent read From Hell or Swamp Thing, so maybe these are better?

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? wasnt bad either, I just feel it wasnt on par with alot of other stuff.

I sometimes feel that subconsciously, people feel more the need to pay homeage to the originals, rather than truely think they are great. In my opinion, Alan Moore isnt bad, but someone like Garth Ennis or Mark Millar run circles around him.
I prefer Alan Moore because he's displayed a level of depth and profoundness that has rarely been reached in comics. I prefer him because his work has been powerful enough to directly effect my life and transform my way of thinking (I'm talking about Promethea). Other writers are certainly more entertaining, but how much do they make you think?
Do you REALLY feel like that? Like when you see his drawings of the Avengers, and then look at Brian Hitch's, do you think "well, Hitch isnt bad, but Kirby is better." And PLEASE dont take this as offense, I mean none, im just insanely curious as to what you see that I do not.

The old school artwork doesnt do it for me I guess. I can read a story and enjoy it, but I feel greatly unimpressed with alot of it.
It's about perspective.

In his day, Kirby was producing revolutionary work that was more exciting, dynamic and inventive than anything that had been seen before. You just have to look at past comics and compare them to what Kirby did.

Plus, he was one of the most productive and prolific artists ever. Where it takes Bryan Hitch 3 or 4 months to do one issue, Kirby did several books and dozens of covers every month. Overall, he produced more than 25,000 comic book pages during his career. He also essentially co-created the Marvel Universe with Stan Lee and produced hundreds of characters.

I'd say he deserves to be "The King of Comics".
 

Iceshadow

Well-Known Member
Do you REALLY feel like that? Like when you see his drawings of the Avengers, and then look at Brian Hitch's, do you think "well, Hitch isnt bad, but Kirby is better." And PLEASE dont take this as offense, I mean none, im just insanely curious as to what you see that I do not.

The old school artwork doesnt do it for me I guess. I can read a story and enjoy it, but I feel greatly unimpressed with alot of it.

Honestly that oldschool artwork never impressed me either, I imagine that at the time it was pretty cool. That being said I still prefer Kirby's stuff over Bachalo's anyday.
 

Entropy

Well-Known Member
....I feel like there is something wrong with me.

I have read ALOT of book and material, and I find Alan Moore..... boring. I mean, his stories have a good plot idea and all, but they start feeling like they are draaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaging.

Watchmen and V For Vendetta come to mind. While I ultimately enjoyed them, I didnt feel like they were AMAZING. I havent read From Hell or Swamp Thing, so maybe these are better?

Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? wasnt bad either, I just feel it wasnt on par with alot of other stuff.

I sometimes feel that subconsciously, people feel more the need to pay homeage to the originals, rather than truely think they are great. In my opinion, Alan Moore isnt bad, but someone like Garth Ennis or Mark Millar run circles around him.

It's all about taste I think. The trouble with defining greats in comicbooks is people don't tend to allocate creators into genres or area's. For some reason we group everybody into COMIC BOOK and that's the genre, as opposed to the artform. In my opinion, we need to think of it like we think of novels and other literature. That way, you can still have a mostly agreed upon "greatest ever" but also point out he isn't the "specific greatest ever". Like Shakespeare. Greatest writer in the English language, but specific to only one or two genre's. Go into other genre's and James Joyce, Emily Bronte, Mark Twain, Thomas Pynchon, etc. stand at the pinnacles, but they are still secondary in the grand scheme to Shakespeare.

Same thing with Moore. In terms of the overall scheme, NO other writer has brought as much innovation into the artform as he has. Variations and deconstruction of character portrayal and plot structure, cerebral and intellectual depth, artistic usages, film conventions. All these things had been beginning to peek up here and there, but Moore was really the one who brought them all into the medium IN COMBINATION and showed it was really possible to expand beyond the basic panel/picture/story structure. It's what allowed people like Ennis and Millar to tell their stories like they tell them.

On that note, even though he was the revolutionary and everybody after him owes Moore something, he is only the top writer in the genres he works in, which is pretty much the Cerebral Epic. All of Moore's stories are pretty grand in scope, but the true conflicts of his stories are the mental and spiritual battles of his characters. He isn't as good of a Balls-Out-Action writer as Millar. He can't write Operatic Punk like Ennis can. His Whimsical Weirdness doesn't even touch Morisson. But Moore is still the top.

That's my opinion at least :D.

Do you REALLY feel like that? Like when you see his drawings of the Avengers, and then look at Brian Hitch's, do you think "well, Hitch isnt bad, but Kirby is better." And PLEASE dont take this as offense, I mean none, im just insanely curious as to what you see that I do not.

The old school artwork doesnt do it for me I guess. I can read a story and enjoy it, but I feel greatly unimpressed with alot of it.

I think our basis for comparing across era's is skewed too. It falls back once again I think to everybody assigning COMIC BOOK as this supergenre and everything falling into it is on equal comparison to everything else. You got to look at it in era's and styles.

Hitch is the superior artist in terms of realistic quality. I'll give that. But imagine the pages in basic stick layout, and then do the same for Kirby. What do you see? The EXACT same principles and approach, Hitch and Kirby just layer different styles on top of it. For my money, Kiby wasn't the BEST artist of all time. He wasn't even the best of the silver age, Steranko, Buscema and Adams had him beat by a mile I think. But when you go back and consider both the extreme amount of artistic innovation and depth he brought too the field, the extreme breadth of his work in different genre's, and the sheer output of quality he had, I think without question Kirby is the most prolific.

As for comparing artwork, thats a matter of taste. I happen to love the silver age artwork, but it's a different style and bare no comparison too modern work, outside of structural and stylistic conventions. Aesthetically, I appreciate both in their genres.

Once again, just my opinions.
 

E

Moderator
Excelsior Club
Going along with some of these points, I think some of us have skewed views of some of these things. For me, Watchmen is a perfect example of this. It was so revolutionary and profound, but when I read it, even though I liked it I felt like I had read it a dozen times already. Because I had. Not because Moore copied anyone, but so many copied...er, were inspired by Moore in stories I've read more recently; Watchmen was a little before my time.

I'm not saying Ultimates was better than Watchmen; it's not. But upon reading each, Ultimates felt much more profound, partly because it was the first of that type of story I had read, and partly because it was amazing to see the characters that I liked that had been dumbed down so far being used and making them great again.

Same goes for art. Reading old Spider-Man stories and seeing art by Gil Kane and John Romita - those guys were miles beyond anything anyone was doing at the time. They were just better artists. Is Bryan Hitch technically better? Of course - but *many* artists today are. And when you are growing up, so to speak, reading these comics, it's hard to look back at those artists and appreciate what they were doing at the time.

As for Jack Kirby - same principle. The stories were amazing and accomplishment wise as an artist no one can touch him. But stories like Watchmen or Dark Knight Returns came along and those became the new standards. It's hard to judge his work when those are the standards.
 

TwilightEL

Well-Known Member
Actually, I am pretty sure Superman was originally meant to be Moses.

-young child is sent "down the river" in a "reed basket." He is then found by a kindly family and raised to be the hero of the people.
-His creators were Jewish.

Sorry for the randomness.

I think he's just God.

Look at the old covers on superdickery.com! He constantly murders people and humiliates his "friends". Just like how in the Old Testament, God was all about the smiting.

But in the modern ages (or New Testament), he's cooled down, he's peaceful, he's the big virtuous blue boy scout (or forgiving God who sacrifices his own son for humanity.)

This post is so sacrilegious. Sorry.
 

Ultimate MJ

Well-Known Member
I think he's just God.

Look at the old covers on superdickery.com! He constantly murders people and humiliates his "friends". Just like how in the Old Testament, God was all about the smiting.

But in the modern ages (or New Testament), he's cooled down, he's peaceful, he's the big virtuous blue boy scout (or forgiving God who sacrifices his own son for humanity.)

This post is so sacrilegious. Sorry.


Those covers on superdickery.com are great. I hadn't seen them before, quite hillarious.

Superman is a dick.
 

ourchair

Well-Known Member
I think he's just God.

Look at the old covers on superdickery.com! He constantly murders people and humiliates his "friends". Just like how in the Old Testament, God was all about the smiting.

But in the modern ages (or New Testament), he's cooled down, he's peaceful, he's the big virtuous blue boy scout (or forgiving God who sacrifices his own son for humanity.)

This post is so sacrilegious. Sorry.
God, Jesus, Moses, Superman... don't you know, Joseph Campbell says they're all the same damn guy.
 
Top