Who do you think is the absolute worst writer in comics?
I'm torn between Gabby Rivera and Marguerite Bennett (female Bendis).
Who do you think is the absolute worst writer in comics?
Who do you think is the absolute worst writer in comics?
I'm torn between Gabby Rivera and Marguerite Bennett (female Bendis).
me
Who are you?
>Someone who loathes you, b***h now stand up and rhyme
I only thawed you out so I could beat your ass a second time
Roar like Chewbacca
The voice of Mufasa
I'm on the leader of your limp dicked Luftwaffe
I strike back hard against a Nazi
Brain toss your ass in the air, Yahtzee!
Ask Indiana Jones who the frick I am
I spit sick shit so focused I break your concentration camp
I'm a certified Sith Lord, you runt
So suck on deez...
Uh deez what sir?
Deez robot nuts!
I'm gonna enjoy watching you die
So let me do it with my own eyes
I think you need to cover a minimum run, and minimum level.
From my SOP reviews, my choice is BILL JEMAS. Big 2 and stuff so bad it bumps up into extistential questions of whether it still is comic book writing.
Correct answer
I’ll second that
>Who do you think is the absolute worst writer in comics?
>Mags Visaggio
>Vita Ayala
>Tini Howard
>Kelly Thompson
>Kelly Sue Deconnick
>Jeremy Whitley
Dan Slott.
This. I wish he'd get a heart attack and die already.
He'll live to 128 just to spite us.
It's Millar, it'll be Millar until the day he dies.
Previous title holder was whoever the frick wrote Avengers 300
Nah, Millar's not that bad. Not as bad as anyone mentioned so far.
Kelly Thompson, Tini Howard, any of the modern writers people are mentioning have not written a single thing as fricking rancid as Nemesis or Wanted, get real.
Kek, Nemesis at least is fun, Kelly and Ayala wrote boring and awful shit
based, millar hasnt written anything worth reading since like 2004
>whoever the frick wrote Avengers 300
Walt Simonson? His new lineup for 300 was a big disappointment, but you can't judge him by that, read his Thor instead.
Wait, shit, was it 200? The fricking story with Marcus and Carol.
Avengers #200 was credited to four writers, David Michelinie, Jim Shooter, Bob Layton and George Perez. It was a rushed production to meet deadlines after an earlier plot was scrapped. All four men have done much better work, most of them have written much better Avengers stories, it's not really fair to proclaim any of them the worst comics writer of all time over that one issue, but I can imagine some of the Carolgays on Cinemaphile feeling like that.
Avengers #200 is a normlagay pick for "worst comic" something someone picks because they read some listicle and find the content distasteful. There are far far FAR worse, distasteful and damaging issues, arca and events out there than that one but the Rape of Ms.Marvel got memed to immortal infamy
Avengers #200 is definitely a comic that'll make any reader go "what the frick happened there," and on that level alone it deserves its infamy, but what made it such a normie pick for 'worst comic of all time' is the fact that Claremont devoted a whole X-Men Annual to bringing Carol back from the incest/rape dimension and then having her shit on the Avengers for letting it happen, and then more recently there that Carol Strickland essay all about it, which got dug up by a lot of news sites when they were doing all the marketing for the Captain Marvel rebrand and eventual movie.
Marvel's damage control for Avengers #200 could have been some attempt at yelling "shut up, Carol wasn't raped" at readers who'd complained, but instead Marvel's solution was to have Claremont write a story that validates the compainers, and in addition to being raped, then Rogue steals Carol's powers and memories and nearly kills her, while Claremont holds all of the Avengers of the time accountable for things only a few of them were present for.
>Marvel's damage control for Avengers #200 could have been some attempt at yelling "shut up, Carol wasn't raped" at readers who'd complained
The fundamental problem with Avengers #200 is that it would still an incredibly weird issue, even without the implication of coerced sex. It's supposedly this 200th anniversary issue of the Avengers, and yet the main plot goes like:
>Ms Marvel is suddenly magically pregnant and gives birth, she's briefly distressed for a page that she's had some non-consensual immaculate conception
>the baby grows and matures to a fully-grown man in just a few hours, complete with sleazy goatee
>the child, Marcus, starts building a machine for some reason, and time shenanigans happen that provide the issue with requisite meaningless action for several pages
>Hawkeye blows up the machine
>Marcus tells Ms Marvel and the Avengers his tragic backstory about being Immortus's son trapped in Limbo
>Marcus decided he needed to be born into the real universe, chose Ms Marvel for it, took her away to Limbo for the sole purpose of impregnating her
>now because the machine is destroyed, Marcus has to go back to Limbo or he dies, which makes everyone sad
>Ms Marvel decides to go with him, not just because he's her son, but because she still has romantic feelings for him from her forgotten time in Limbo
>the Avengers accept this and it literally ends on "happily ever after"
It's this completely fricking bizarre story about a man who ensures his own birth in another dimension by impregnating a random woman WITH HIMSELF, grows up in just a couple hours, and then runs off with his mother for an explicitly stated incestual relationship with an extra layer of weirdness, thanks to the fact he's his own father. The rape elements (both Immortus and Marcus kidnap their respective women and both explicitly coerce them into sex using "ingenious machines") are simply the cherry on top of what's already an insane comic.
Claremont's in-universe response was, I think, too extreme in the complete condemnation of every Avenger, and then weirdly adding even more suffering to Ms Marvel's life with the whole Rogue business, but, even without the rape, Avengers #200 is simply too offensively nonsensical an issue for it to have been quietly swept under the rug. This is apparently an anniversary issue, and it's entirely dedicated to this completely bonkers plotline that thoroughly fails to be either entertaining or compelling, and then ends with the heroes barely questioning this magical, sped-up incest.
There would've been an outcry from casual readers, fans, and fellow Marvel writers alike no matter what, and the rape point only made the inherent badness of the issue even worse. I don't think there's any possible easy damage control Marvel could have done, and just saying "Carol wasn't raped" wouldn't have solved the other fundamental issues with this story. It's something that should NEVER have gone to print.
Hell no
I dislike a lot of Millar's writing but it'd be better than a lot of shit over the last decade
Fricking this. Sure, there's arguably writers just as bad as him in terms of quality, but Millar more than makes up for it in the sheer quantity of garbage he's written that dwarfs them all. He pumps out some of the worst comics ever made like a factory.
Miller has some genuinely good comics to his name mixed in with some complete drek
delusional
Sure Millar writes sloppy synopses for comic books, but at least a few were enjoyable. Tini, Vita, Kelly Thompson write comics with feces. Millar > those listed.
Millar ever wrote about some gay black trannies showing up da ebil huwite males? Well, did he, gay boy?
Dan Slott, Tom King, and Bendis.
I want to say Tom King but with Mags and Ayala they are so bad I don't mentally call them writers. I keep thinking they are vagrants the pulled in the building to make up a script.
Rainbow Rowell
What has (s)he done? A girl I like recommended one of his/her novels that she enjoyed as a teenager.
Her She-Hulk run is fricking awful.
Runaways fans insist her run is good but I tapped out really quick when she character assassinated Julie by writing her as an arrogant, uptight c**t who basically hated the non-Karolina Runaways so she could do her preferred Nico/Karolina ship (which involved turning Nico gay). Then there's only using Xavin in a small role near the end of her run, writing out Klara with an off-hand comment by another character, and bringing back Gert for no real reason.
Her Runaways is basically just fanfiction.
She's so weird, In her She-Hulk run she has Jen groom Jack of Hearts into this creepy live in pet that cooks for her.
Rowell is 100% the type of female fan who has questionable Snarry fan fiction on an old hard drive. She's clearly the early 2000s Livejournal type of female geek who wrote a lot of fanfic and was really horny.
Rainbow Rowell is a good writer, but her pacing isn't a great fit for a 20-page monthly.
Her run on Runaways is worth checking out. Easily the best non-BKV Runaways writer, even if I don't love some of her choices.
>Who do you think is the absolute worst writer in comics?
Geoff Johns
Mark Millar
Brain Michael Bendis
Loeb has written the comics I have read which I enjoyed the least. He also wrote some good shit with Daredevil Yellow and Long Halloween/Dark Victory.
Has Rivera done anything good because I have seen the bad shit she's done and it's pretty awful.
>Has Rivera done anything good
Not that I know of.
Has she done all that much in comics, though? Her run on America Chavez was epic shit, sure, but aside from her queer indie comic (did that ever finish?) I don’t think she’s done anything else in comics. It seems weird to call someone barely in the business the worst in it.
Gabby isn't relevant anymore
all of them
It's zeb Wells and there is no comparison it's the worst writer marvel has ever employed he destroyed the marvels and Deadpool is next
Zeb has written a lot of good stuff, he's just a terrible Spider-Man writer. The Ant-Man mini from 2020 is genuinely great.
Arguably some of the indie/zine writers that no one talks about. People like Mike Diana, Alex Graham, etc.
Realistically, this should be by weight class:
Eisner winner:
Eisner nomination:
Long standing big 2 writer.
Wrote once for the big 2.
ect.
The guy who wrote Duncan the Wonder Dog, because hoo boy was that a piece of shit.
That one's very highly rated by the five people that read it, too.
What he do exactly?
Also I'm nominating Mark Russel
>What he do exactly?
Planned an ambitious 10 part comic series based around a world where animals can talk but are treated the same as they are in our world. Sells like shit because the art sucks and half the buck is collage. The writing is also not good. So now he works in video game writing to actually make a living and Duncan gets hyped up by reddit mods as one of the greatest comics ever.
He also asked people instead of purchasing a copy (since it was a webcomic) to donate to animal shelters. He doesn't seem like a bad guy, if a bit talentless, but a small portion the comics world just sucked him off HARD.
Yeah, I'm sure his heart was in the right place and I won't say he doesn't have good ideas, but man was that thing a slog. I think that's the problem these days, comics are evaluated for their message and not their story.
Brian Michael Bendis.
You can argue that there are writers worse than Bendis on a technical level, but nobody has done the amount of fricking damage Bendis has. Every hero he touches ends up worse off by the time he's finished with them.
He ruined Luke Cage by locking him down with his fictional white daughter.
Peter Parker is forever made worse by the presence of Miles Morales
Riri Williams will never not be a black mark on Iron Man comics.
New Avengers was never good.
And then the first thing he did went jumping to DC was create a lame new Superman villain nobody even remembers the name of then followed it up by ruining Jor-El and doing such irreparable damage to Jon that the next writer just gave up and had Superman adopt two Kryptonian offshoot kids from Warworld because Jon is literally mandated to suck wiener by editorial.
The only passable thing he ever did was Ultimate Spider-Man. And that's only because he was just retelling 616 Peter's greatest hits with quirky unconventional dialogue.
Even that went to shit later on and the only thing still worth a DAMN from that run is ultimate Spider-Woman. Because Peter Parker but a literal girl is still better than Jessica Drew had been over the last 20 years.
In many ways, Marvel editorial under Jemas and Quesada telling their writers to write more like Bendis, to plot and pace stories for the trade, and then DC following suit probably did even more damage than the specific characters Bendis wrecked, though that list definitely needs Iceman and Scarlet Witch added, they'll probably never recover.
Wait
Was Bendis the "Bobby, you're gay" writer?
Ahh of fricking course he was. It was 8 panels static character dialogue.
Bendis wins the terribleness because of that exact point. Writing for the trades pacing. (Then stuffing it full of bad dialogue.)
>It was 8 panels static character dialogue.
I know people who moan about old comics repetition of dialogue in the narration and character dialogue but it feels concise compared to this stuff. This shit feels like a fast paced stage play bit and not something built for comics.
& for making Jessica Jones.
Jessica Jones is based tho
she's just discount Jessica Drew. That hack Benis didn't even bother to change her first name or BFF
Alias was actually pretty decent.
Bendis didn't start going downhill until the New Avengers era, but it was a pretty fricking sharp decline.
No one wants to follow a trainwreck of a woman who gets frick-up the ass & inhales booze like there's no tomorrow.
I did in 2004.
Well it was post 9/11, It was like Nam again, & era of sleaze.
>Alias was actually pretty decent.
No, it was pure trash and an example of everything wrong with the 2000s comics.
>Peter Parker is forever made worse by the presence of Miles Morales
I don't remember Miles Morales telling Peter to sell his marriage to the devil
>I don't remember Miles Morales telling Peter to sell his marriage to the devil
No.
But writers have been using Miles as a means of upstaging and humiliating Peter for a decade now.
It wasn't enough for them to neuter Peter Parker and turn him into a 30+ year old loser living with his aunt, unemployed with no prospects at the start of BND. No. They needed to have a Spider-Man show up that everyone in universe loves more than Peter, who acts like a self centered little twatrag when Peter isn't paying enough attention to him, and has more powers than Peter does to aid in upstaging him.
Frick Miles.
Frick Jessica Jones and frick her dumb baby, I didn't know it was still okay to show white people owning a black man in a modern setting.
Frick his Iron Man and frick Riri Williams
Frick House of M
Frick New Avengers
Frick All-New X-Men, frick gay Bobby, frick OG5 horseshit.
Frick his Spider-Woman runs
Frick civil war II
Frick Avengers vs X-Men, the only worthwhile thing was the meme edit from years ago that's aged like fine milk.
Frick the entire last half of Ultimate Spider-Man
Frick his entire Superman run
Frick his Justice League work.
Frick his dumb bald homosexual face and his adopted accessories that he uses to virtue signal on twitter for attention.
Frick the standard he forced upon modern writers.
Frick the fans who insist that this shitstain is and ever was good.
Oh, and also, while I'm at it. Frick whatever he did in those Halo comics. I didn't read them but I'm just going to assume he contributed to Halo being shit now too. His track record supports it.
>Frick his dumb bald homosexual face and his adopted accessories that he uses to virtue signal on twitter for attention.
i'm calling the police, this is murder
>I'm just going to assume he contributed to Halo being shit now too
Safe assumption
343 just hates Halo as a franchise and probably decided actively to encourage surrounding shit that ruined it more than they could in the games alone.
>The only passable thing he ever did was Ultimate Spider-Man
Passable is an understatement. USM is really good.
Bendis also did some really good work on Daredevil. Much like Loeb he started out with some actually fantastic outputs and then got irredeemably bad afterward.
Yeah, his early Marvel stuff is good, but eventually his writing started getting lazy and he started orienting his stories around outrage bait and finally movie bait.
I can understand people who are tired of his writing tics getting triggered by his Daredevil/Alias/USM runs, though.
This. I actively dread "written by Bendis" somewhere. And when he gets to his "words words words" pages he is genuinely unreadable.
Don't forget ruining Scarlet Witch purely out of spite for Cereal King. Among others.
I can think of a bunch worse than them, Anon.
Daniel Way, Scott Lobdell, Chuck Austen, Bruce Jones...
>Lobdell
Has written plenty of good comics. Never great at the big epic scope stories but always did well with smaller scale stories. Generation X is great if aimless, lots of good X-Men issues like Colossus' death, probably the one writer who really got Jubilee.
>Austen
Bad X-Men but I'd argue everything from M-Pox on is worse. The only stories from Austen's run that are as genuinely bad as shit like Rosenberg's run are Holy War (lawn crucifixions, Skin dies, exploding communion wafers) and its follow up (the issue where Jubilee, Husk, and Warren go to have a funeral for Skin). He had a few decent comics in there (his Ultimate X-Men filler arc, his Exiles stuff) though and did great with Juggernaut; pissed Slott off too so bonus points. The enmity for Austen came a lot from his combativeness with fans. He's more a prototype for the modern writer (bad writing backed by slapfights with fans) but I'd argue most who followed his example, so to speak, take his faults and magnify them.
Can't believe I forgot Daniel Way though. Totally wretched and Way was a far bigger butthole than Austen while being a far worse writer.
The Draco is the single worst X-Men arc ever published. Prove me wrong.
Inhumans vs X-Men, though.
It's not good, but the Draco doesn't affect anything except Nightcrawler's parentage, you'd have to be a massive Nightcrawlergay to think that's the worst things ever got. And his new buttbaby origin is exponentially worse. Other writers were doing much greater long-term damage to X-Men at the same time as Austen's run and afterwards, but Austen doesn't have a cult of personality claiming he revitalized the book.
Not even Austen's worst arc (Holy War and She Lies with Angels are way worse). If you mean in X-Men history, it wouldn't even scratch the top 10, top 20, maybe even top 50. It's not worse than IvX, AvX, Death of X, Rosenberg's Uncanny, 99% of Krakoa Cult, Lemire's run in general, Life and Times of Charles Xavier, Battle of the Atom, evil Cerebro, basically everything Claremont wrote upon his return, etc.
Rosenberg's Uncanny was unduly hated.
Remember X-Men Red? X-Men Gold? Extraordinary X-Men? At least Rosenberg was interesting.
My main memory of that run is it had shit art. The idea was ok but badly executed
>Rosenberg's Uncanny was unduly hated.
Rosenberg's Uncanny is fricking abysmal and the entire comic seems like it was written out of whiny, petty spite towards both the fans and Marvel because he knew he was only doing a filler run so he set out to make it as meanspirited and miserable as possible in an attempt to torch everything on the way out.
That run was just setting up the Age of X-Man event, which flopped but IIRC Rosenberg wasn't writing, and then it was just slaughtering characters for cheap shock because they knew Hickman would be bringing them all back afterwards. Also more making Captain America look bad in an X-book. Didn't Hope assassinate a politician and get away with it, too?
It's weird how everyone knows now that the deaths in Rosenberg's run only happened because they were all coming back afterwards, but people are still seething about it like the deaths stuck. I think only Dark Beast has stayed dead, even Joseph finally came back this year.
> I think only Dark Beast has stayed dead
Sinister had his head in a jar unless I missed something.
I wonder how Rosenberg reads now knowing about Krakoa, makes me wonder if it’s better knowing it’s a “darkest before the Dawn” kind of thing
>evil Cerebro
Which time? Because the one from the 90s with the Bachalo art wasn't that bad.
Evil Robot Cerebro was a better design than Evil Robot Danger Room, the wrong one stuck around.
Everything Krakoa is worse
Are you stuck in the 90s and early 00s
>Bruce Jones
Fricking HOW is he worse than average?
His Hulk was shit. His Nightwing was shittier. Do people actually like his comics? The only thing I didn't hate was Ka-Zar.
Because it's people who only read superhero comics that don't read his non-superhero comics
I don't know names, but comics after civil war(2006) and ww hulk (2007) went really downhill around the time when they started to introduce these remake heroes like black spiderman,.female thor, female spider man 2, black iron man. So like after 2010?
So whoever wrote those are the worst writers I kinda stopped reading after that, but I also aged so maybe it's that also.
Can you tell me any good comic arcs after 2010?
Waid's Daredevil.
Jason Aaron's Thor and Doctor Strange. Hickman's Avengers and X-Men, Immortal Hulk and Guardians of the Galaxy by Al Ewing.
How is Ewing's Thor so far?
Trash.
It's okay, Storm's already been established as his equal and I feel this is a stealth agent of asgard series. Hopefully it picks up because the first arc opened well and fizzled out. Similar to Dormammu in Ewing's Last Annihilation actually. Impressive opener, meh - everything else.
You're moronic
That thing looks really fricking cool
I have to give it to Mark Millar. If it was just about writing quality I'd go with Tom King, but I can't ignore influence on the comic industry, and Millar churning out crap for money and becoming the poster child for writing movie pitches instead of comics, when he has proven that he can actually write good comics if he tried, puts him over the top. Honorable mention to Bendis but I've been lucky enough to have avoided actually reading any of his comics, so it wouldn't be honest or fair to put him with the others.
If we want to go influence, then Ellis has Millar beat and I also think that Ellis is a horrifically overrated writer too.
>If we want to go influence, then Ellis has Millar beat
Does he? Even before the scandals tanked his career he was nowhere near as successful as Millar.
Ellis is entirely responsible for the drawn out slow pacing of modern comics and the whole writing for the trade thing. Also his smarmy cynical bullshit.
Quesada made it a quasi mandate "Write it for the trade".
Fraction, KSD, Zdarsky, Hickman, and Gillen came from Ellis' forum.
KSD looks like she smells of cigarettes and cat piss
>writing movie pitches
Can you actually describe what's bad about this?
Because needing a comic to prop up your movie pitch usually means your pitch wasn't very strong to begin with. Like 9 times out of 10 these types of comics are the most by the numbers shit you can imagine. Stuff that starts and ends on an elevator pitch. It's made with the express purpose of enticing moronic executives to sign them a fat paycheck.
>Because needing a comic to prop up your movie pitch usually means your pitch wasn't very strong to begin with.
They're not done to "prop up" movie pitches, they're done to secure more money in royalties.
If you publish your shitty story idea as a comic idea first, you'll typically get more for it than if you'd just sold a standalone script.
Writing for movies limits the author because he'll be conscious of things like SFX budgets and live action vs comic timing. The first one is obvious, can't have a superhero do anything too flashy because studios won't want to invest in recreating it. The second causes shit like Bendis-talk.
Read Empress, because that is a perfect example of why Millar's glorified movie pitches are so miserable. Just derivative, boring dreck with zero redeeming qualities to it because getting the concept out there was more important that actually making a good book.
Bendis and Ennis... easily the worst hacks alive. Bendis made me stop reading comics after he butchered Superman.
Ennis is a good writer.
Millar, not Miller.
>Ennis is a good writer.
This, People just don't get his humor & take him too seriously.
Nearly everyone working at DC right now.
Rivera was basically a one off and Bennet was largely low level stuff barely above a webcomic. If we're talking people who kept getting high profile work despite how awful they are, then there's a few names I'd consider.
>Bendis
Obvious reasons like dialogue but his stories are often meandering, go nowhere, and always fizzle out with what feels like no real ending. He can barely keep his own continuity straight from issue to issue. Mangles characterization by inventing it from wholecloth. Bendisboot Legion.
>Slott
Childish and poorly thought out ideas and stories. Uses his stories to be petty and whiny. Kid playing with action figures mentality.
>Aaron
Unfathomably dumb ideas that go on forever. Action figure mentality. What if character... was other character?
>Terry Kavanaugh
Terrible all around, was the guy who suggested the Clone Saga and wrote a lot of it so his mark on comics is pretty big.
>Marc Guggenheim
Kavanaugh's successor. Has never written a good or even mediocre comic. Often gets higher profile gigs than you'd expect despite his consistently terrible output and has ruined a lot of characters and teams. One of the main Arrowverse writers and showrunner for Arrow too so his awfulness isn't contained to one medium like most of the rest.
>>Marc Guggenheim
I kinda liked his Blade series
Dude wrote what is easily the single worst X-men related thing of all time
>Terrible all around, was the guy who suggested the Clone Saga and wrote a lot of it so his mark on comics is pretty big.
In fairness, he suggested bringing back Spider-Man's clone, not the entire Clone Saga plot, the other writers and editors involved share the blame for it snowballing into the thing it became, along with Marvel's marketing department stretching it out longer than planned.
Left to his own devices and not on plotted by committee events Kavanagh was just one of the many Marvel ex-editors who became a forgettable mediocre writer, he just got more work than a lot of the others in the 90s because of cronyism.
It always looks like the X-gays cult of personality around Claremont led to Lobdell and Nicieza both getting overhated for just not being /theirguy/, when as big 2 cape book writers go they're nowhere near as bad as it gets. Nicieza had a bigger body of Marvel work outside of the X-books so got some respect there, while Lobdell's DC work has been almost entirely on Jason Todd books which tend to be divisive whoever's writing them.
At the time Austen was writing X-Men there were other books doing far more damage to the entire brand and franchise than Austen writing some bad stories about lower-tier characters, but Austen was the one who got the fans so angry at him that they were demanding DC fire him off Superman before he even started. You're probably right that his online persona and interaction with fans had more to do with it than the actual work.
I mean don't get me wrong, Austen's Uncanny is shit but I'd argue that it's better than the few runs before him (Davis, Claremont II, and especailly Casey) or the run that came after (Claremont III). I'd even argue that it's better than Brubaker's run because I fricking hate Brubaker's run.
Austen's Adjectiveless run is far worse than his Uncanny run IMO. And actually I forgot that the last real arc (ignoring HoM) of Austen's run is She Lies with Angels. For whatever reason I kept thinking of it as an Adjectiveless arc, I guess because Larocca was the artist. So everything from She Lies with Angels through Adjectiveless is worse than shit like The Draco.
loeb killed the ultimate universe
More like editorial killed it.
If you seriously think that writers just write what they want then you're naive.
You're supposed to be saying things they did that were BAD.
Ultimate was always a self defeating waste of time. You can't do Hip, New and Continuity Free for long before it becomes just as dated and tangled as the original.
"Ultimates le bad" is a reddit take at this point. I'd rather have 50 monthly issues of shit like this rather than most of the modern slop.
I don't actually hate most 2000s comics. There were some turds in there but compared to what we have now it's easy to take some of that for granted.
Just because what we have now is worse doesn't mean 2000's weren't fricking terrible.
Currently?
Because all-time it's probably either Chuck Austen or about half of the writers that debuted in the 2010s.
Any random chick writer from the last 10 years.
Aaron for how stark difference in the quality of his writing can be, makes the bad stuff seem 1000x worse
>Marguerite Bennett
What's wrong with her? Never read her stuff but she's hot as frick last I saw.
That woman is a bbc addict fr fr
No way. I don't believe you.
That's ok, she still a bbc addict fr fr
I'm sure there's worse writers out there but as far as popularity and influence goes Bendis and Millar have got to be some of the worst, hackiest writers out there on a purely technical level. Their dialogue is just a pain to read.
Chuck Wendig
His Turok was something else.
Wendig got fired from writing any more herkily jerkily Star Wars novels or comics for being too combative with fans, but you're right, he's also the man who did Black Turok.
Not only Black Turok, But a single father that gets rescued by dino lesbos as they fight saurian Nazis.
>Black Turok.
Isn't Turok native? Why drip that to represent a more prominent, arguably less fricked over minority?
I'm not familiar with the situation but just the name Chuck Wendig summons up an image of extreme mental illness to attribute it to
>the man who did Black Turok
Wait...what?
>googles
fricking insanity...
Most comic book writers are failed tv writers.
Some successful tv/movie writers became mediocre comic book writers (Jeph Loeb, J. Michael Straczynski, Brian K. Vaughan, Jeremy Adams).
Some novelists have also become mediocre comic book writers (Brad Meltzer, Greg Rucka, N. K. Jemisin, Ta-Nehisi Coates).
It's not as easy as it seems.
The “comic writers are failed tv/‘real’writers” line is a surefire way to tell a tourist to me.
Hi Dan.
It's not wrong especially for the last ten to fifteen years though. Marvel and DC have been utilizing non-comic writers for a while with mixed results
Funny thing is that more comic writers have successfully transitioned into TV/cartoon writing, especially the bronze age guys, than the reverse.
Bendis or Slott. Both ruined Spider-Man in huge ways. But Slott actively hurt 616 Peter more than Bendis.
>Marguerite Bennett
I want to nut on her face so bad
Tom King is up there. Looking back it's almost offensive he had such a strong push by DC. Miniseries every month, giving him the fricking Batman book for years. He's pretty much gone now.
I think we should judge writers based on their best works, then see who's the biggest stinker.
>No one has mentioned Donny Cates yet
Come on, Cinemaphile, do better. Talk about a new writer that was frickin shit and got way too much hype.
Maybe because he's not that bad?
Go to bed, Donny.
>Donny Cates
I don't know if I've even read any of his "work". I checked out of modern comics in 2016. When comics suddenly became about the Prima Donna big baby types like Mark Waid and Dan Slott behaving so unprofessionally towards the fans and shoving their political rage into everything. Wasn't Donny the one tweeting out pics of his taint to someone he disagreed with. There are so many no-talent hacks getting published with their "don't buy my books if you don't like my politics" mentality, where they doubled down and started using their writing to intentionally antagonize the fans who were still buying. This is not what makes comics FUN, and hence the death spiral of the market. I'd say they are all pretty bad writers, none of them are capable of drawing me back in to reading modern comics again. Seven fricking years now of not reading modern comics, and I don't miss it at all. Gives me time to catch up on the classics, and I'm finally making time to read Cerebus.
And Mark Waid was one of the biggest reasons why I quit modern comics. IIRC his voice was the loudest and his work was pure trash.
If you're read Jason Aaron you're pretty much read Donny Cates, they're the same kind of "smashing action figures together" kind of writers with the same failings though Cates is more of an edgelord
I read Aaron's Thor for a bit before he went insane woke. It was not the worst shit I've read. If I've read Cates he left zero impression on me off the top of my head, because that would have been over seven years ago. But all I recall was the story of the Moon Knight writer tweeting his taint at someone and IIRC that was Cates, unless I'm mistaken.
Currently at the moment I'm trying to make my way through the Age of Apocalypse omnibus and it's just soooo fricking terrible I don't know if I can finish it.
The person who tweeted out his taint was the artist of Spider-Gwen
It was the Moon Knight writer that I'm specifically aware of, not an artist who might have done the same. No shortage of taints in the world.
Cates is simply and extension of Aaron, everytime someone mentions Aaron Cates is implied. Kinda like how Gage is with Slott
It's okay anon, nobody's mentioned Snyder yet, either.
Not that bad, just not worth reading.
There should be a vetting process so cultural vandals like Johns & Slott never get any work.
When I was a kid I loved Bendis, I thought the characters he made and stories he wrote were really cool. I read more dc after avengers vs x-men and so until he came back to DC, now as an adult, i had not read him since. His shit sucks so much ass. I understand the hate anons had for him back then. I can see how a kid would love him, but shit like changing supermans well built up story from 2014-20 to what is is now felt like a slap in the face. A "Yeah that shit was okay but I know what's gonna be even cooler!" and then it sucked ass.
Tom King. The worst of Bendis-speak and pacing mixed with woke feminism and PTSD.
Dan Slott has made me never want to invest in a female character ever again.
Ryan North is also terrible
Reginald Hudlin sucked too
>Black Panther & Storm go to Latveria to see Dr Doom
>Small village, nobody comes to visit
>Storm, smoking hot &half naked costume
Black Panther covered from head to toe in costume
>"they're staring at us cuz we're BLACK!
Yeah, his paranoia made me drop that book so fast.
Who is worse? Hudlin or Coates?
Coates was good. Hudlin was trash.
Whoever writes Scorched, that Spawn team-up book. That shit has literally no planning or pacing it's just an unfiltered stream of consciousness and nothing ads up or pays off.
Jeremy Whitley. This creepy old fat man is obsessed with writing comics about little girls aimed at teen girls. He now pretends to be bisexual LGBTQ+ to prevent himself from getting cancelled and fired for being white.
>He now pretends to be bisexual LGBTQ+
How do you know he's pretending? Did you make a pass and get turned down or something?
Either Tom King, Gabby Rivera, or Chip Zdarsky right now.
A lot of these are complaints about writers taking characters in directions you don't agree with. That should be a minor issue at most. Things like plotting, characterization, dialogue, etc. are bigger issues.
>You only exist because of your breasts.
Does this count?
>writers taking characters in directions you don't agree with. That should be a minor issue at most. Things like plotting, characterization, dialogue, etc. are bigger issues.
Those are not mutually exclusive, in fact it often goes hand in hand
The major issues should be put first, then.
This whole thread is just "me hate popular thing." Out in the real world, Bendis's Daredevil, Ewing's Immortal Hulk, Cates's Venom, etc. are beloved runs. Only Slott's Spider-Man is legitimately controversial and has haters outside of Cinemaphile.org.
The true worst writers are randos you've never heard of. Dennis O'Neil had one of the lamest runs on Amazing Spider-Man from the classic era and while I like some of his Batman it's nothing to write home about compared to the truly great Batman comics. There are also countless comic writers who only ever got to do random 5 issue miniseries that nobody remembers and will never work in comics ever again.
>Only Slott's Spider-Man is legitimately controversial
That's all of Slott's work.
I don't see hate for She-Hulk or SIlver Surfer outside of Cinemaphile. His Silver Surfer, for my part, is one of my all-time favorite comics. His Fantastic Four... just doesn't get talked about, period.
People only say they like his She-Hulk run for more less as a geek touchstone.
If you actually read it, It's filled to the brim with ick.
>I don't see hate for She-Hulk or SIlver Surfer outside of Cinemaphile.
I've started to see opinions on his She-Hulk more split than before, outside of here.
>Bendis's Daredevil
It's garbage when you stop and think about it, which the "real" world won't bother to do because they live on nostalgia farts. People in the "real" world call that horribly-traced art good, sometimes even great.
Photo-comics tier.
I've long since realized that any artist who drenches their art in shadows like that is doing it to (poorly) hide the fact they're a tracer.
As a person yes. As a writer, mediocre to decent.
Maleev has done a lot of tracing, yes. He literally took tons of photographs of both NY and its people and even used costumes on some occasions. Doesn't make the final product inherently bad though.
Mitch Gerads wins Eisner awards for being the best artist in comics for tracing photos. The people who run comics are DUMB
Nah, I read it recently and it's good.
You have shit taste.
I have phenomenal taste.
You don't. You have dogshit taste.
Incorrect. Mind you, my taste is all-encompassing, not merely comics.
You have dogshit taste.
>Doesn't make the final product inherently bad though.
It looks bad. That's all that matters.
No, I'm right. I never read his later work, and it wouldn't color my opinion of his earlier work regardless.
It doesn't matter if it's "a good comic book run for Daredevil" or even if it's the best take on the character. It's a bad comic, plain and simple.
>It doesn't matter if it's "a good comic book run for Daredevil" or even if it's the best take on the character. It's a bad comic, plain and simple.
Oh I get it, you have autism.
>pulling the autism card
>lowly comic world
Two forfeits. Nice.
It is lowly. Most comic book runs don't pass as good art let alone high art. Bendis' run on Daredevil is good enough for comic book standards.
If we start vivisecting all comics to your unreachable standards we'd be left with about 3 or 4 runs that can be considered readable.
I can tell you're on the spectrum. Doesn't make you inherently wrong on everything but you are wrong in this case.
I hate this fricking online mentality that you can "win" a discussion. All it does is make you disingenuous, because from the off you're out to score points rather than actually talk.
No it's just a good place to stop the inane back and forth.
I have considered your opinion but I disagree. My sensibilities on art come from outside the lowly comic world which so I know what I'm talking about.
>It looks bad
When it comes to this type of art it's subjective.
I'd rather have Maleevs than Calarts. I get that it's not everyone's cup of coffee though. But there's some beloved artists who I dislike too.
Yeah, that's not what his interiors looked like. If they did, I would never have said a word against them.
>I'd rather have Maleevs than Calarts.
It's a good thing there are more than those two options.
>Yeah, that's not what his interiors looked like
Fair enough. Ribic's interior work isn't nearly as good as his covers or pin ups either. But Maleev's style was never really an eye-sore for me. I have a method of testing that and it involves looking at the art from a distance.
>It's a good thing there are more than those two options.
The options are dwindling by the minute. What are some good current artists in your opinion?
>it involves looking at the art from a distance
That's a good way to mask the flaws. I like to pore over the art.
>What are some good current artists in your opinion?
I can't say much about capes because I don't read much of the new stuff, but I've seen the work of artists like Jorge Fornes and Greg Smallwood and it looks good. Unfortunately, they've mostly worked with Tom King, so I won't be reading their more recent works. David Aja drew The Seeds a few years ago, but it wasn't as good as his work on Hawkeye, which I couldn't bear to finish. Matias Bergara is pretty good.
I like the manga-infused artists (I've read a lot of manga too, but no recent names come to mind for those either) like Tradd Moore and James Stokoe, but their comics tend to be disappointing.
The only ones pumping out good art with decent comics are the Europeans. Juanjo Guarnido is still active, Joris Mertens does scraggly goodness, and Jordi Lafebre does some expressive cartooning. The problem is they pump them out real slow.
I'm sure there are names I'm forgetting.
Bendis' Daredevil gets a lot of undue credit because people confuse it with Brubaker, who followed him up. And Brubaker's run was fantastic.
Dardevil has had more good runs than bad ones overall. It's hard to find too many faults there.
The first half of Brubaker's run is fantastic and at least as good as Bendis' work. Everything after Mr. Fear's story is resolved is less good.
Bendis was at his peak with Golden Age/Decalogue, Out, and Hardcore.
>"me hate popular thing."
Hello Marvel writer! What else do you write besides gaslighting fans? It would appear the sales numbers disagree with your claim.
>Randos you've never heard of.
>Dennis O'Neil
Are you moronic? He was the main editor of DC/Batman and his Batman was absolutely classic. He is one of the VERY few people who created new villains that actually stuck around and get to compete with the big boys.
And his run on The Question is probably one of the best street-level series of all time.
Bendis' Dardevil holds up. Out plays much more into Matt's lawyer life which is definitely novel but also well executed. Bendis did some interesting things with Kingpin and Matt becoming the new crime boss and Hardcore was a satisfying 'big action packed' storyarc in between Golden Age and all the legal drama that was going on. Bendis + Brubaker is probably the longest uninterrupted period of Daredevil being awesome in recent memory.
>Bendis' Dardevil holds up.
It really doesn't.
>people who are tired of his writing tics getting triggered by his Daredevil/Alias/USM runs
I grew up reading and loving USM. I've only gone back to read what were supposed to be his best comics (minus Powers), having followed none of his work after these. All three are of these are pretty bad.
Now, I'd kind of get it if the art were really good, but all three are have subpar art. Bagley lost the touch he had in the 90s, Gaydos not quite memorable, and Maleev eventually just tracing the art badly. All three reusing the same Bendis gimmicks of repeating panels and shit like that.
You may think it holds up if you have a nostalgia for it, or if your only frame of reference is today's comics. Other than that, you have no excuse for having such shit taste.
>It really doesn't.
False. You're just biased because you're intellectually aware of his later work and it has tainted your perception of his overall work.
For all intents and purposes, it's a good comic book run for Daredevil.
>you hate popular thing
>then goes on to unironically attack someone as beloved as Dennis O'Neil
Pleb o'clock
>The true worst writers are randos you've never heard of.
The only good observation itt.
I’m leaning towards Bennet.
Daily reminder she’s responsible for this travesty crossover comic.
Why would anyone read that?
RWBY gay since it's probably one of the last pieces of RWBY content that'll be ever made
>the last pieces of RWBY content that'll be ever made
Explain
This series is a goddam masterpiece but it's tainted forever.
I love this comic. Had no idea about what Gerard did. Damn shame.
>Viz hasn't released a new edition of Dragon Ball after their 3-in-1s from right before he got convicted in 2016 or 17.
>hasn't done anything with Ranma 1/2 either
Just fricking retranslate them so you don't have to presumably give him royalties for his "adaptation" work. Lord knows Dragon Ball could use it too.
QRD? What was he convicted of?
He made a comic called Batman Fortunate Son that featured Bruce Wayne in College getting raped by Sid Vicious in a hotel room for 2 weeks.
>hurrrrrrrrrr
frick you jackass moron
That shit was weird.
lol wut
Jesus.
>What was he convicted of?
Pic related
Being a vampire?
In a way
Bendis:
>Really pushed story decompression for trade market.
>Bendis speak and the dialogue of modern comic book stories over actual action.
>Big reboots and changes.
>Pushed a bunch of diverse characters simply because he knew where the wind was blowing in terms of adaptation.
>that screencap
It gets so much worse when Bendis' destruction of comics Wanda was seen by the guys running the MCU as her big important stories that absolutely needed to be adapted, leading to the complete and utter destruction of an even more popular version of her.
>seen by the guys running the MCU
In their defense, fans had been doing that for years. I was browsing comics youtube channels and have seen a bunch of people talk about House of M with fondness. There are people that just like big overhall shit events and let them infect the zeitgeist for a character until it becomes inescapable.
>a bunch of people talk about House of M with fondness.
Jesus, how? X-Men fandom talk about it like it's one of the most important events Marvel ever did but don't like it, they've been sperging about it ever since it happened, while to Avengers fans it's just the second of two awful Bendis events that wrecked Wanda and took her out of comics for years. Who are the people who actually like it, other than Magneto fans who are really into the 'mutant royal family' larping?
>There are people that just like big overhall shit events and let them infect the zeitgeist for a character until it becomes inescapable.
There are plenty of Marvel and DC events that might be stupid stories overall, and may have done a lot of damage, but contain enough "moments" or action set-pieces to entertain readers and create some level of fondness, especially from more casual readers. But House of M doesn't really have any of that to offer at all.
>the shared awful taste of comics Youtubers and Redditors has probably made enough persistent background noise to help convince Kevin Feige he had to adapt all these Marvel stories and characters from the 2000s and 2010s
We're in the worst timeline.
>Jesus, how?
I love Maximum Carnage because I read it when I was 12. I'd like to believe that the people who love House of M, love it for that same reason.
Maximum Carnage enjoyer here, I did not like House of M. Civil War was ok though.
Maximum Carnage has lots of action, groups of classic heroes and 90s antiheroes teaming up to stop the villains, moral angst for Spider-Man, plenty of reasons for 12 year old kids to have liked it and to be nostalgic for it years later. What does House of M have to compare that kids would have latched onto? Characters sitting around and talking in Bendis-speak?
This sounds like you're saying a good number of the people constantly shilling House of M on Youtube are just trying to get normies to think the only important thing about Wanda and Pietro is "Magneto's kids" and get the MCU and comics to make that crap canon again.
>This sounds like you're saying a good number of the people constantly shilling House of M on Youtube are just trying to get normies to think the only important thing about Wanda and Pietro is "Magneto's kids" and get the MCU and comics to make that crap canon again.
You're overthinking it. It is just trading information in a way to make people feel clever. So much of Youtube is actually plagiarism and repetition from other sources that people can't be asked to go and read. A proportion of the population have no critical thinking skills (hence they have to go elsewhere for it and basically outsource it). A bunch of these Youtubers trade in what I like to call "that's cool" analysis. They offer no analysis apart from "that's cool" while they talk about a bunch of this stuff with no substance. These youtubers trade in facts about these characters while they are being adapted to act like secret repositories of knowledge. As soon as you get Scarlet Witch in the MCU it is, "Are they going to do House of M" clickbait, a load of articles talking about the same few stories. Comics news/journalism is so basic it becomes a repetition of a repetition. Hence why every comics recommended list feels samey.
>Comics readers just have varying taste and understanding on what a good run entails.
Sure, there is a reason why events get made because a certain amount of people enjoy them and the action and big shit happening that'll get retconned anyway. I was more referring to the general public narrative of a character being shaped by a specific number of things that interplays with adaptations and public knowledge.
>it becomes a repetition of a repetition
And comics writing feels like that too.
>You're overthinking it. It is just trading information in a way to make people feel clever. So much of Youtube is actually plagiarism and repetition from other sources that people can't be asked to go and read. A proportion of the population have no critical thinking skills (hence they have to go elsewhere for it and basically outsource it). A bunch of these Youtubers trade in what I like to call "that's cool" analysis. They offer no analysis apart from "that's cool" while they talk about a bunch of this stuff with no substance. These youtubers trade in facts about these characters while they are being adapted to act like secret repositories of knowledge. As soon as you get Scarlet Witch in the MCU it is, "Are they going to do House of M" clickbait, a load of articles talking about the same few stories. Comics news/journalism is so basic it becomes a repetition of a repetition. Hence why every comics recommended list feels samey.
That's what kind of pisses me off about the recommendations during the 2010s. I hate that House of M keeps getting shilled for that reason
>That's what kind of pisses me off about the recommendations during the 2010s. I hate that House of M keeps getting shilled for that reason
Cinemaphile used to actively make recommendation images. There is an archive of them on tumblr that hasn't been updated for 9 years. No one makes recommendation updates anymore here. (Shows you the state of things.)
The clickbait sites post the same few recommended comics and all people do is read those few comics and then parrot those few stories and no more. Very rarely does something get added to them. So you have the same list of stock books for every character. Then collected edition departments reprint those books more often. It becomes a cycle. So no one is doing any kind of deep dive on Wanda in the many years she has been in comics because only the same few things are talked about or printed.
>good comics
I want to make a chart of great comics.
>This sounds like you're saying a good number of the people constantly shilling House of M on Youtube are just trying to get normies to think the only important thing about Wanda and Pietro is "Magneto's kids" and get the MCU and comics to make that crap canon again.
Normal people might know Magneto is related to them via the cartoon. So it is the only thing they know. So it gets repeated ad infititum. Then it becoems a topic as they are getting adapted or whatever. Because they remembered that from the cartoon.
Are two late-era episodes of the 90s X-Men cartoon really that well remembered by normal people who don't read comics?
Yes, the two later X-Men cartoons also used them, but neither of them were as big and don't really have the same normie nostalgia factor.
That shit sticks and then gets repeated over and over again online. I mean even the average comic book fan doesn't really do a deep dive on a character and only reads the same handful of recommended books. People just repeat this stuff a lot. The base of establish facts for an audience is weird that way.
Normal people know frick all.
The next level is the "google when adaptation comes out" who probably saw a bunch of clickbait articles with that information.
Then the third level is people with vague knowledge, nostalgia for cartoons.
>Jesus, how?
> Who are the people who actually like it, other than Magneto fans who are really into the 'mutant royal family' larping?
Wanda and Pietro have had multiple parentages: random Eastern Europeans, Golden Age heroes, High Evolutionary, Magneto. The one normal people remember is Magneto. So that is a fact that normal people repeat. Youtube and the like trades in these facts like it is some secret knowledge they know. Which is why you get literal comics channels that just repeat an event like they are reading it from a wiki. People are so desperate for little tidbits of knowledge to treat like they are an authority on things. Like people who read a book before the movie comes out to say they read the book and pretend like they are in some secret club to lord over their friends with how this part diverts from the book. The reason why events like House of M are looked at favourably is because so many people are trading third person accounts like it is some cool seminal moment of a character's history. All in an attempt to feel clever or superior by knowing these facts. For years you could see it on tumblr as people posted about completely out of context panels about all kinds of characters while pretending they were part of the fandom for that character despite knowing nothing.
There are probably more people LARPing as comics fans than there are actual comics fans these days.
Comics readers just have varying taste and understanding on what a good run entails. But I think both sides largely agree that the majority of the current output is shit, hence why the industry is dying.
There's a lot of books in the 2000 - 2010 time period that Cinemaphile hates which I don't mind, and a lot of Golden/Silver age content I don't care for.
But it's hard to find someone worthwhile to grasp on in the current comic landscape and I want to give these creators a chance too.
Man I had to talk down one of my work buddies from the normlagay clif because I saw him watching comic Youtubers (about House of M no less) and had to explain to him why it was a dogshit event and why he needs to actually READ comics himself. At least he wants to read them too many just want trivia beamed into their heads
>There are probably more people LARPing as comics fans than there are actual comics fans these days.
It's practically guaranteed that if anyone tells you they're a Marvel fan, then 9 times out of 10 what they really mean is that they're just a fan of the movies.
I blame the influx of people who started reading in 2000s and got brainwashed into thinking these stories are important (and therefore good).
I remember the obnoxious shilling of Civil War like it's some once-in-a-lifetime occurence you just HAVE to experience or you're missing out.
It was Marvels playbook.
And how did that really work out for them? Last I remembered the Avengers titles didn't sell that well during the 2010s despite having movies that decade
Brevoort's a moron, news at 11.
Classic bean-counter brain. Number go up when X, so number will go up with X forever at a 1:1 ratio. If you could show comic sales increased at the same time as wars in the middle east, these dipshits would start selling weapons to ISIS.
To be fair at least the shilling of Civil War felt more natural even though looking back in hindsight some were obvious people from Marvel
It's AvX and every other event afterward where I felt like the shilling was fake as frick.
>Jesus, how? X-Men fandom talk about it like it's one of the most important events Marvel ever did but don't like it
Because that was the start of X-Men being ass fricked in comics till 2018. They have shared trauma stemming from M-Day till IvX
>other than Magneto fans who are really into the 'mutant royal family' larping?
Shit you'd think Magnetogays would hate it because it paints him as a fricking monster and not some noble anti-villain, especially in the side content
God I fricking hate Magneto so goddamn much he's Red Skull tier evil but with Doomgay tier fans and writers
Kek I have a friend who spergs over this on tumblr
At least MCU fans can now finally experience whats it's like to be a modern cape comic reader, right?
>Marguerite Bennett (female Bendis)
We need examples, OP.
He looks like Jim Norton
>Bendis
Why hasn't anyone killed him yet? For that matter why hasn't he killed himself?
Frick Dennis O'Neil. I can think of decent books Bendis, Loeb, Jones, Millar, Johns, and even Ellis have put out, but every time I look back over O'Neil's bibliography it makes me want to dig his body back up and slap it around.
>I can think of decent books Bendis
That's because you have shit taste.
His early stuff is forgettable at worst. Don't be a c**t like O'Neil.
I don't know what your weird hateboner for O'Neil is about, but he's written some good stuff.
Name one story that was passable.
His Ra's al Ghul stuff from the 70s. Daredevil with Mazzucchelli. The Question.
I'll give you Daredevil. Other stuff is too dry.
Ok. But Bendis is shit.
I totally agree.
>I don't know what your weird hateboner for O'Neil To answer your previous question: Green Lantern and Superman.
Trying too hard.
Is that Joe Rogan?
Someone please post the full page/scene of OP's image. I wanna hear what 616 Bendis has to say for himself.
You posted one of them.
Let me explain why.
Brian Michael Bendis is a writer, who followed in the footsteps of John Byrne's big ideas which is "Superheroes need to ditch the weird/bizarre and be these down-to-earth buttholes!" His entire bullshit is "cut, kill and replace" the "outdated" with "the modern".
That's why his comics in the 2000s can be summed up quite simply. "Modern superheroes need to be edgy, grounded, hard men doing hard things and if you're a C-D List character you're lame!"
Alias, for all the praise that is heaped onto it, is ultimately a story about how much superheroes suck and are unable to solve the problems and it is instead "grounded" characters like Luke Cage, Jessica Jones etc who are the real heroes.
Just look at how he wrote and wanted to kill Scott Lang or how he turned Black Tarantula from an eloquent gentleman villain into a Latino King because he was Latino.
Then we get to Avengers and then the problems start becoming more obvious. He kills off all the "loser" Avengers, even supposedly having a list of loser Avengers before he starts the gig, then turns Scarlet Witch "evil" because he thinks she's lame and his "damaged women" characters are more interesting.
We see it again with the Illuminati where its revealed out of nowhere that Iron Man has been running a cabal which makes absolutely no sense, but is designed to hammer down "These heroes suck and are out of touch bastards who think they know better" so that its easier to accept when he redefines the Avengers and has characters talk about how the New Avengers are so much better than the old guard.
>Brian Michael Bendis is a writer, who followed in the footsteps of John Byrne's big ideas which is "Superheroes need to ditch the weird/bizarre and be these down-to-earth buttholes!" His entire bullshit is "cut, kill and replace" the "outdated" with "the modern".
It's hilarious because Byrne hates the direction Bendis and the rest of the Quesada crowd went in
Oh yeah, its why I 90% sure that Bendis Donut Steel killed Alpha Flight.
But at the same time, there is pretty much a straight line from Byrne's FF and his Super Republican Post-Crisis Superman and what Bendis and other Quesada types ran with.
What's even funnier is that you can absolutely see writers like Yost, Kyle, Abnett, Landing etc looking at what was going on and going "What the frick are you people doing? This fricking sucks."
>Oh yeah, its why I 90% sure that Bendis Donut Steel killed Alpha Flight.
Make it 99%, Byrne pissed off Quesada back during the Kevin Smith Daredevil run and pissed off Bendis when he shat on all the news about Bendis' Alias at the time (ie about adult superhero comics). Bendis decided to throw Mattie Franklin through the wringer in Alias
>But at the same time, there is pretty much a straight line from Byrne's FF and his Super Republican Post-Crisis Superman and what Bendis and other Quesada types ran with.
Honestly it's not that surprising, Bendis did used to read a lot of Byrne's stuff back in the day. But I'd say there were a lot of other factors too.
Ultimate X-Men and New X-Men comes from Marvel wanting the X-Men line to be more grounded like the movies.
Ultimate X-Men and Ultimates is Millar applying what he learned from Authority to the X-Men and Avengers.
Jemas wanted Fantastic Four to be more like what eventually became Marvel Knights 4 rather than what Waid was doing
What did Byrne say about Alias, cause I can't find anything.
Also I can believe that. Bendis is a petty as shit bastard and he's done a bunch of things that were absolutely "Frick you" to writers he didn't like.
>Ultimate X-Men and New X-Men comes from Marvel wanting the X-Men line to be more grounded like the movies.
>Ultimate X-Men and Ultimates is Millar applying what he learned from Authority to the X-Men and Avengers.
>Jemas wanted Fantastic Four to be more like what eventually became Marvel Knights 4 rather than what Waid was doing
Oh yeah, all that I can agree with.
The 2000s unfortunately were filled with a lot of writers who thought that the superhero needed to be updated and grounded to remain relevant and interesting.
I would absolutely say that Byrne's Post-Crisis work on Superman helped lay down the "framework" so to speak for those kinds of reimaginings.
>What did Byrne say about Alias, cause I can't find anything.
A lot of it has been deleted because Byrne's 2001 forum just straight up deleted shit after a while and Bendis' forums are lost to history. But I think remnants of it remain on other forums. I'll go check.
Here, this was from the Warren Ellis Forum.
This is how the timeline works
>Alias (and by extension the MAX line) gets announced, emphasis was on being able to do mature things that the mainline can't.
>Byrne makes the quotes seen in the second and fourth posts of this screencap, among others lost to history
>Bendis gets pissed, makes the post that's quoted in the first post.
>Byrne makes the retort quoted in the third post.
God, they sound about as bad as each other.
Also Byrne doing "Superhero sex bad" is so funny when you remember how much shit was the writer's unironic fetishes crammed into his books.
Oh yeah, that plus "Apocalypse is the coolest guy ever", "Xavier/Magneto were secretly working with Sinister all along" and Krakoa is actually an ancient island instead of a creature made from radiation are bizarre.
Although I would definitely not call Hickman the worst writer, he is vastly overrated.
Byrne is right though. And I don't like defending him. But any capable writer can show a couple is a couple without being gratuitous, and we sure as shit didn't need to see the actual conception of Jessica Jones & Luke Cage's baby in Alias.
I think more than that, as much as Bendis argues, "Sex as a means of storytelling" which I can agree with, the ultimate thing of Alias is that it was there to be shocking and edgy.
Jessica Jones taking anal from Luke Cage is meant to show how broken she is and she's disappointed by the fact that Scott Lang has a small dick and can't sodomise her like Luke can.
Its meant to be this edgy, shocking confrontation of what Sexual Assault victims go through etc, but at the same time its the fundamental problem with Alias and arguably 2000s Bendis. He wants wants to be edgy and confrontational about superhero comics and include "real" stories by he can only do that by giving something an unnatural, almost comical level of sleaze and edge which did not exist in the setting/character before hand.
In contrast you read something that Prieststroke and that works, because that sleaze and edginess is something that always existed in the character/his stories. Him being a shitty husband and father was always in the comic, its just that Wolfman and other writers don't want to confront it.
Prieststroke is also crap.
The shittiest take in this entire thread.
It's the most based take, Priestgay.
>she's disappointed by the fact that Scott Lang has a small dick
Nowhere is that stated or implied. You don't have to like it, but no need to lie about the contents.
Her problems with Scott are all about her projecting the least charitable motivations on him because of her hangups with the Avengers. Which does make it funny that Luke joins the Avengers a couple years later, I'll grant you.
Byrne is right but 1. Was judging the book before it was released and 2. Is kind of a hypocrite on this
Back when the blow-up happened most people were taking Bendis' side. I think nowadays more are taking Byrne's side or it's an even split
>We see it again with the Illuminati where its revealed out of nowhere that Iron Man has been running a cabal which makes absolutely no sense,
This is the part that completely bugged me about the Illuminati. If you have even a vague idea of Marvel Universe history before Quesada, the history of the Illuminati as shown by Bendis makes no sense. If all these other members know Tony is Iron Man, couldn't Tony have called on them for problems that came up?
I mean, it operates off a lot of Bendis things where he throws in a reference to an old story "Doomquest" as the justification for the event he is depicting... but never anything else.
Likewise, the Illuminati as a team makes no sense. Namor in the Silver Age was an butthole who would not want anything to do with the Illuminati. Likewise, Black Panther bailing doesn't gel well with how the character was written before, especially when written by Priest, who would stick around to know what was going on even if he didn't agree with the spirit of the organisation. Doctor Strange and Reed would've bailed because they didn't agree with it.
It's dumb as all frick and its like Hickman's Moira X retcon. Its meant to be this big shocking event, but its so poorly implemented and thought out that it makes no sense.
>Hickman's Moira X retcon
Nothing has ever undermined the X-Men more than having their longest lasting human friend revealed to be a mutant who has secretly be manipulating everyone since the very beginning.
>It's dumb as all frick and its like Hickman's Moira X retcon
Bendis and Hickman are buddies and Bendis got Hickman into Marvel. I've said it before but Hickman is just Bendis but with charts instead of cribbed Mamet/Sorkin dialogue. They're otherwise virtually the same writer with most of the same flaws.
An anon said it before. Hickman is what happens when you combine the bullshit of Millar and Bendis.
Millar in that he talks about how his comics are deep/meaningful, when they have the depth of a swimming pool. Bendis in that his characters all sound the same and his ideas/stories are such utter nonsense that goes absolutely nowhere and always end anti-climatically and then he'll b***h about his vision getting hijacked, when in truth, he had no real story and was just writing incomprehensible garbage, stealing from other writers, then hoping that critics would gaslight people into thinking it was good.
Hickman is what happens when you filter Christopher Nolan through a comic book writer machine.
Bendis? Female Bendis?
Gabby Rivera made me loathe America Chavez so much I rooted for the bad guys in Doctor Strange to fricking kill her.
Her run WAS THAT BAD.
Bendis also killed the Supersons. Frick him, but unfortunately he has good work, so he can't count.
It looks like the answer is Bendis.
Prieststroke is fine, but ultimately overrated. There's too much going on with its multitude of characters and plots, and eventually all those spinning plates come crashing down and it loses its way in the last third or so of the run (or from whatever point Slade starts trying/pretending to be good and the shitty Rebirth Teen Titans come in). Slade being a unrepentant c**t in every aspect of his life was the easily the most entertaining part of the first half of the run, and the whole ""good"" Deathstroke plotline just didn't work half as well, specifically because both the reader and every character in-universe knew it wasn't going to last. Priest is a confident writer and that at least kept it readable throughout. I appreciate him trying to do SOMETHING consequential and character developing here, but that last stretch just kind of falls apart by the end.
Still, I reckon it's overall one of the better runs capeshit has seen in the last 10 years, even though that's obviously a low bar.
>it's overall one of the better runs capeshit has seen in the last 10 years, even though that's obviously a low bar.
I called it crap and I can agree with this.
It suffered from the push to keep the book above cancellation numbers. Reading the Willow arc for Rose kept reminding me of the brain damage and happypants BP storyline in his Black Panther run. Batman and Damian and Two-Face were showing up so much made it feel like a Batman expansion book.
Bro the entire last point of that "good" Slade stuff is to home the theme of the book which the ending is practically screaming at you: Slade Wilson is a bad person. You can give him literally everything he wants and in the end he'll still choose to frick over everyone he cares about to continue doing bad shit because he's a bad person. It gives you "noble" Slade for the express purpose of telling the reader that Slade is not noble or admirable in any way. You can like him or find him entertaining but he is not, nor will he ever be, a good and decent man.
The problem with this question is it doesn't address once-great writers who went off the deep end
Different thread.
That's a far more limited question tbh. The biggest candidate is probably Byrne, who fell off hard in the 90s and never recovered
Ken Penders
Are there any good ones? Even the good ones seem overhyped.
Plenty of good writers, but there are also plenty of contrarians.
Bendis has done more damage to comics than any other artists combined and I'm sick of people pretending he was ever good
Who drew this abomination?
David Marquez
Which issue?
Defenders Volume 5 #9
Thanks
No problem.
Frank Miller
As-Salaam-Alaikum.
All women tired at first place. Bendis and Aaron second.
Bendis is the worst one, he made more damage that those others you said