BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Astonishing X-Men #2

 
  

Page: 12345(6)7

 
 
_Boboss
10:34 / 01.07.04
this thread's brilliant, and bobossboy is now officially beezus' possession, now and for ever more.
 
 
chairmanWOW
10:57 / 01.07.04
Bobossboy, probably listens to David Gray, and reads Tolstoy and has an ironic hairstyle. Miscreant.

P.S. Whatever happened to ValleyUm_Girl; she would so fit in on a thread about Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Popbitch asks: What do you call a fat goth? Popbitch answers: Vampire the Buffet Slayer).
 
 
_Boboss
10:59 / 01.07.04
no, fair's fair, but I will not permit you to make accusations of a david gray type - that shit's pure fighting talk where i come from.

and his hair's really rather good
 
 
Rawk'n'Roll
11:24 / 01.07.04
Threadrot this may be but he's crap. Sorry.

How did he come up in this thread again?

I'm still not buying Astonishing... it's safe to assume there'll be a trade right?
 
 
Spaniel
11:30 / 01.07.04
What's wrong with David Grey? At least he's mature.
 
 
_Boboss
11:33 / 01.07.04
you're right, he is definitely mature. how had i not noticed? and rawkusboy, whose hair are you talking about?
 
 
chairmanWOW
11:33 / 01.07.04
HE'S GOT REALLY SHIT BRITISH TEETH!!!
 
 
_Boboss
11:36 / 01.07.04
which is a sign of maturity.

not dental maturity.

artistic maturity.

my teeth are pretty dodgy and britsh too really. shall i call you a cunt or not? hmmm
 
 
chairmanWOW
12:03 / 01.07.04
if you like.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:45 / 01.07.04
I know that talking about something with words in, even a small number spaced out between attractive pictures and with fewer than 30 pages to deal with, is very tiring for young minds, and that it is tempting to talk about yourselves and who stole whose bike instead, but that's what we have a Conversation for. I think we were talking, God help us, about the difference between George Morrison's X-Men and Jeff Whedon's X-Men.

My two pennorth - I think they are coming at it from very different perspectives. For George, writing X-Men is kind of a career pinnacle - it shows that he is seen as responsible enough to handle the biggest-selling property in comics. Also, it might be the first time a lot of fans had really come across him (Morrison's work is commercially successful but would the average X-Fan have likely read much of it? MAybe JLA or FF, and FF was not an ongoing series). On the other hand, he's also aware that everything he does is going to be retconned, and any new characters he introduces are going to be misused or ignored. And that Magneto will be brought back, although he probably didn't expect it to happen quite so quickly...

For Jeff, as we were discussing ovwer frappucinos just the other day in his lovely home, comics does not represent a livelihood. It's something he loves, but it is a nugatory amount of his overall income. So, X-Men is more of a playground - an opportunity to play with the characters who did so much to shape his own aeshetic. I'd be surprised if anything happened in the course of this arc that was not wrapped up and dealt with *within* the arc, and little will actually have changed at the end of it. It's an adventure, for the reader and for Jeff himself, but it's not a CV point in the same way...
 
 
chairmanWOW
12:50 / 01.07.04
We aren't allowed to talk about George, only Jeff (since he's writing the book now). That's what Suede-head told us anyway. Sorry...
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
13:02 / 01.07.04
Well, no. In fact, I think Haus has made some pretty interesting points about where both respective talents are coming from.

It would be nice if more people could be considering of things in that way, rather than going "Grant r00lz, it was all subversiv an shit! He is Grant! He does drugs! CRAZEE! he wrote the invisdibles!*" and seemingly reacting to Jeff's work purely because George isn't writing it himself.

We are, after all, merely talking about X-Men comics, not the genius and mastery of George Morrisson and how he can percieve other worlds through his 5D brain, and how said comics (even when written by George) are still X-Men comics, however much people want them to be "edgy n' subversive and shit".

It's entirely possible I may be randomly going off on tangents because of only a select few comments. I can't remember anymore.

*Yes, I know that's over the top.
 
 
"See me for what I am, OK?"
13:04 / 01.07.04
You people make my head all hurty.

If anyone wants to bitch about Whedon's TV writing skills, go and do it in the TV threads - there are about a million 'Buffy' and 'Angel' ones and if anyone wants claim that Whedon's crap, I'll bitchslap them down over there.

If anyone wants to point out that 'Fray' was a little bit whiffy, that's fine. Find or start a 'Fray' thread. (And for the record, if your argument is that 'Fray' wasn't as ground breaking as his TV work, read the issue 8 letter column before whining.)

Conversations about teeth, David Grey and other sundry crap can go elsewhere also.

Here, can we please just talk about the art/story so far/writing of 'Astonishing X-Men'?

As for Morrison vs Whedon (and what's this 'George' and 'Jeff' shit all about?), Morrison is a long-established, and deeply talented comics writer who had three years on X-Men and wrote a full story that, crucially, IS COMPLETE so we can judge THE ENTIRE THING.

Whedon is a TV and movie writer who at worst gives us dross like 'Alien: Resurrection', and at best genius such as 'Toy Story' or 'Buffy' and 'Angel'. He is relatively new to comics, having done 8 issues of 'Fray', 4 of 'Angel', and small stories in the various 'Tales of...' spinoffs. He is 2 issues into a year-long run, and the story is only beginning to unfold.

My point being that the comparisons are useless.

Am I done?

No, one more thing. J. Michael Straczynski - leave him alone as well, ya bloody vultures. Those who're calling him crap - show me a TV series you've written and produced that's a sgood as Babylon 5, or show me a Spider-Man run that you've written that'll get me reading it, and then you can whine about Joe.

Venting complete.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
13:08 / 01.07.04
But gosh, do we really have to go down the show me what movies/comics/tv series you've written before you are qualified to criticise other peoples's work route? Oh please.

"They're all infallible because they are great enough to work in the medium, and we - the consumers - are only fit to gobble up their genius biscuits!"
 
 
_Boboss
13:12 / 01.07.04
sorry executive decision, whose mum are you again?
 
 
"See me for what I am, OK?"
13:12 / 01.07.04
Sorry - no we don't have to do that, or I would neither be qualified to be here or to have the degree in English Literature that I have recently acquired.

The backlash on these forums against anything that may be as good as Morrison is horrendous though. Come on, people: Grant Morrison is a great writer, but he's not unique in that. Other people have talent as well.
 
 
"See me for what I am, OK?"
13:15 / 01.07.04
Gambit, I gotta say, I've noticed your posts on dozens of threads across the 'Lith, and I really, truly disagree with almost everything that you have to say.

And I'm Whedon's mum and also Morrison's great uncle Margaret in 18-dimensional poncespace, or some other such nonsense.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:21 / 01.07.04
Joss Whedon made a little purple dragon a team member…

No, Chris Claremont did. Lockheed was a mainstay of the X-Men during the 80s.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:25 / 01.07.04
It's really weird and absurd to suggest that a person who has written several tv shows and screenplays with great success and acclaim from both his critics and peers is somehow less qualified to write comics than relative novices who have been working on what is arguably the lowest and least competitive rung of the literary ladder for a slightly longer period of time.
 
 
Spaniel
13:29 / 01.07.04
But Gambit is such a lovable little bugger.

The cover to next ish has wolvy falling towards us, claw drawn, all-a-snarl. Looks like someone's going to get it. That said, covers are often misleading.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
13:30 / 01.07.04
Yes, if anything we should be saying "Grant, reach for the stars, dude! Are you in comics because you love them or because they accept you? Comics are nothing, and nobody cares!" I mean, I've heard plenty about TV shows and screenplays from the Morrisson camp, yet I haven't seen any of them materialise in to anything good. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Grant still waiting for his big break in to those arenas?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:30 / 01.07.04
Actually, I think George Morrison is quite a good writer rather than a great one, but there we go.

Executive Decision - you make an interesting point about the profitability of comparing George and Jeff. However, I think it's inevitbale that some comparisons are going to be levelled simply because these are likely to be the X-books that people on Barbelith are likely to have read, and possibly the only X-books. As far as I can tell there is a *very* steep shelf between people on Barbelith reading AXM or having read NXM and people who read or at least read and wish to discuss Academy X, Excalibur, UXM, Emma Frost, Mystique and so on.

Unfortunately, since you have yet to have written a post as successful as Stoatie's one about badgers, your opinion cannot be taken seriously and does not deserve discussion. As a matter of interest, did your English literature degree involve a series of essays all reading variations of "Well, when *you've* written a series of books as successful as Dickens, then you can criticise them. Until then, shut up, Mister Examining Board Man." and "Oh, so *you* wrote a work of classic Anglo-Saxon poetry, did you, Mister Examining Board? No? Then I don't *think* you get to talk about The Battle of Malden. Do you hear that? That is Byrtnoth crying, and he's crying because of you. SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!"?

However, to avoid rotting this thread further, could you please take your passionate defence of J Michael Straczynski to another thread, where there is space to mock?
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
13:31 / 01.07.04
Is that cover available online, Boboss?
 
 
"See me for what I am, OK?"
13:34 / 01.07.04
My passionate defence of my great-grandfather from the future, J. Michael Straczynski, is only there 'cos I was already whining about the whiners anyway...he's quite capable of defending himself from any detractors. I'd rather talk about 'Astonishing X-Men'...
 
 
thirty/thirty
13:40 / 01.07.04
smart_mass, you are THE instigator.

I think Joss getting to write the X-Men can be compared to the little rich kid who gets to run daddy's company even though there are hundreds of other employees who have spent their lives to get to that point, just to have it snatched away right in front of faces. Instead of allowing room for new talent to be incorporated, they just get some famous fuck to put his name on the book so they can sell more. That’s all that this is about.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:41 / 01.07.04
Sorry. I got his name wrong. That should of course have read Jim Michael StraJimski.

Now, is this a good time to start moving subsequent threadrotting posts for deletion? I think it might be...

As a procedural matter - does anyone know if Jeff has somebody helping him with stuff like the use of the panel grid, as he would have a cinematographer in filming? I would call him and ask myself, but he has been kind of busy... It occurs to me that the grid system is the main thing you're going to have to get to grips with if you are Jeff Whedon or Jim Michael StraJimski, since you have plotting, dialogue, characterisation etc carrying over from a previous job? After all, althought these people have significant experience of writing for larger audiences in arguably more demanding environments, one thing they d not have, which George has, is an apprenticeship in writing comics. They get dumped straight into prestige products or their own high-hype series sold on the back of their previous successes (Jeff Whedon's Fray, J. Michael StraJimski's Rising Stars)- unlike Robert Rodi, say, whose coin is comparatively debased, I would assume, in comics circles, and who got Codename: Knockout, a low-sales title for a niche brand, before moving on to his own Marvel superhero title now...
 
 
"See me for what I am, OK?"
13:44 / 01.07.04
So you don't think that it's at least partly about trying to widen the appeal of comics by getting a Big Name from outside the genre in to write a Big Title, in the hope of getting the two holy grails of comics: Big Sales and New Readers?

Or maybe just about giving a writer with a proven track record in character-based action-comedy-drama a chance to work in a genre that interests him with characters he likes to tell a story that he wants to tell?

Or would you rather just have Claremont and Austin writing ALL the X-books?
 
 
"See me for what I am, OK?"
13:53 / 01.07.04
I don't see why Whedon would need 'help' with framing his comic.

Writing a comic is scriptwriting, in the same way as writing a TV episode or a movie. The difference is that instead of seeing the action in motion as we do with genres, we see only specific points of it. All that Joss has to do is choose those points that are crucial - such as his use in issue 2 of the four panels showing the key points of Beast's infiltration into the Benetech building - and write his script that way.

When writing an episode of 'Angel', he wouldn't have a cinematographer sitting next to him saying "Ah, you'll need to frame this like that..." - that job is done after the script is written. In comics, that is the artist's job - again, after the script is written.

To use a Joss-related example, Doug Petrie notes in his introduction to the 'Buffy - Ring of Fire' graphic novel that he has never met or communicated with Ryan Sook, his artist on the story, in any way. And yet he managed to write the comic. (The fact that the comic was shit does nothing to alter the fact that I'm right).

Also, Joss has been reading comics all his life. I'm sure all of us here have at least vague feel of how you would frame a story as a comic. Joss does as well...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:58 / 01.07.04
Yes, but Jeff is writing the X-Men and we aren't. Which, incidentally, means we have no right to criticise him. As such, and since as you have pointed out his form runs to maybe 13 comics, I don't see why it would be extraordinary for him to have an assistant, as one has filming assistants or script assistants. Of course, he may not need one. I mean, Jeff's a pretty confident guy. Believe me, I know; that guy wrassles *to win*. Which is why I was asking whether anyone knew, rather than whether anyone had an opinion on, whether he had one or not.
 
 
TroyJ15
14:00 / 01.07.04
"So you don't think that it's at least partly about trying to widen the appeal of comics by getting a Big Name from outside the genre in to write a Big Title, in the hope of getting the two holy grails of comics: Big Sales and New Readers?

Or maybe just about giving a writer with a proven track record in character-based action-comedy-drama a chance to work in a genre that interests him with characters he likes to tell a story that he wants to tell?

Or would you rather just have Claremont and Austin writing ALL the X-books?"

HA! Took the words right out my mouth. Look how many Hollywood stars are actually writing comics and look at how many comic book writers are still writing comics. comic writers still are bigger in number than Hollywood's.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
14:01 / 01.07.04
Haus, I don't know if Joss has anybody helping him with the specifics or not, but I don't think adapting to comics language is as difficult (at least for some people) as you might think. Especially for someone who writes in the manner Joss does, to be clearer. If the writer works in a visual way anyway and has already used a lot of standard comic techniques in his previous writings. I'm presuming a little about the visual side of things, but certainly a lot of the mechanics of his Buffy/Angel scripts have used a lot of what I found to innovative storytelling for conventional TV, and demonstrated a lot of comic influenced thinking.

Indeed, I'd say thinking of it as a panel grid, or merely as collection of windows on to the story being told is limiting in itself and Joss has shown me he can think about using the panels themselves as an expressive tool that is not rigid in it's grid-like nature, which I would say epitomises the understanding of comics as a medium unto themselves. The story in "Tales of the Vampires" w/ Cameron Stewart showed a good example of this (as well as good compact storytelling), and a nice example of expressive panel layout from that story can be seen here.
 
 
Spaniel
14:01 / 01.07.04
It's online and it's on the 'lith...

 
 
"See me for what I am, OK?"
14:05 / 01.07.04
Yeah, if you read any of Whedon's scripts, you get a very comic-book vibe from the way he describes the action scenes. It's also no accident that when 'Buffy' was first getting popular, one of the common comments was that the "comic-book action" combined with the blah-de-blah let's not get off-topic. 'Buffy' and, to a lesser extent, 'Angel' are comics told on screen, and their success had a lot to do with the comic-based TV and movie projects that have sprung up in the last few years. Whedon knows the genre and he knows the style.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
14:11 / 01.07.04
I find the comic book sense to be less to do with the action, and more involved with the telling - all the overlapping narratives/voiceovers/perspectives and the like. I can't think of any specific examples from his work, but I know it's in there. In this sense, I find a lot about Joss' TV work to be similar to more recent directors who demonstrate a strong comic influence in their technique, rather than subject. (note: Not Kevin Smith).
 
 
"See me for what I am, OK?"
14:15 / 01.07.04
Kevin Smith's a director? I thought he was just an amateur photographer...
 
  

Page: 12345(6)7

 
  
Add Your Reply