Why must comics be so angsty?

^Well, that isn't very different from Invincible Iron Mathen. Salvador Larocca is perfect for drawing metal, armors and shiny things, but when it comes to flesh character, he's a lot less talented.

Yeah, but Land can't draw ANYTHING WELL. At least with Iron Man you can understand putting priority on drawing cool armor.

Land's problem is less an inability to drawn anything well, and more the fact that he cuts corners to get work done on time. As far as getting things done quickly, on deadline, even on short notice, Greg Land's one of the best in the business....but it's at the cost of a lot of "soul" to his art. He over-relies on photo reference (I don't know that I believe he literally traces the way the rest of the internet does, but the effect is the same regardless) to the point of having characters look less like they're people in an environment and more like they've been pasted into a collage, and his characters have trouble looking the same from panel to panel.

Which is to say nothing of the female characters' Greg Land Porn Face.

edited 21st Oct '10 1:19:34 PM by Shadowtext

I've heard before that Land has done good work, but never seen any evidence. Does anyone have any reference points for me?

There used to be some at Scans_Daily, and yeah, Land CAN draw. He just won't.

I really don't like Fraction's IM run, but The Order was great.

^^ His work on Birds Of Prey and Nightwing in the late 90s was pretty good (and far less soulless than his current output).

^^^ Wait, Greg Land hasn't been able to do a monthly book for ages. I think his last such attempt was Millar's zombie run on Ultimate Fantastic Four, and he was often quite late on that.

One of my favorite artists is J.H. Williams III. Go read Batwoman: Elegy and just see how beautiful that is.

Now, Elegy is incredibly angsty at times, but is still really awesome. Probably because Greg Rucka knows when to insert angst and when it's not needed. Angst is good in small doses.

@Jhiday: Maybe things have changed recently, but there was a time when he pinch hit every time Marvel needed something done yesterday. If he's stopped being on time and stopped producing work with any soul, I don't understand why he's still employed.

^^^Wrong, he had a long stint with Uncanny X-men last year. It made an otherwise decent book hard to read.

Greg Land hasn't been doing monthly work on Uncanny X-Men, though. He only drew half of the issues (and thanks the gods for the Dodsons, who made the other half much more enjoyable). He hasn't even been able to draw the whole "Nation X" arc, which had two very jarring issues by the Dodsons right in the middle.

I see I'm the only one who doesn't like Matt Fraction. And even if I'm not, then I'm possibly only one who sees all flaws Brian Bendis is acussed off in his writing.

What don't you like about him ( and precisely his Iron Man run, cause that's what I'm reading) I'm just curious to have other people opinions.

I don't really have problem with his Iron Man, it's a little dragged out and boring for me, but I understand how people may like his approach, it's just not for me. I have problems with his X-Men and Thor.

• He does not get Thor, his comics with this character were hit and miss. In his one-shots Thor comes as unfunny version of Hercules who thinks only about screwing as many women he can, while his Secret Invasion: Thor mini was rather nice, but not enough to make me try his Thor run. And even if it would, hearing that Thor plans to ressurect Loki because he miss somebody of his blood put me off permamently. I'm sorry but no amount of decent writing can explain ignoring both runs of two previous writers AND one of elements of classic Norse Mythology that was carred out to the comics, for me that's simply too much.
• His X-Men..well, I have some problems here. First, Loads And Loads Of Characters. Fraction puts everybody he wants into the X-Men and ends with overload of characters he simply cannot lift, it's too much for any writer, good or bad. And a lot of those characters are pushed into backsroud from sake of most promiment ones, like Cyclops, Emma and Wolverine, and they rarerly gets anything reveal or important to do, their relationships are flat (and I'm still laught at panel fith Fantomex givin Psylocke flowers, with face like he wanted to say "You will like them. Or I will shit on your head", by the way) and characterizations can be often sumed in one sentence, like "Emma is Cyclops girlfriend who calls people "draling"" or "Namor says "Imperius Rex!" all the time for no reason". For me it's like he puts way to much characters in the story and because of it everything else slips between his fingers and falls apart.

@Arilou - DC also has Batgirl. It's a pretty lighthearted comic with minimal angst most the time. Steph's complete abridged history of the Bat-Family in the issue that came out this week being a particularly funny sequence.

It pretty much all comes down to this, Alan Moore and a handful of other writers were able to do it well. In typical meddling executive thinking if one of something is good and more is even better then making all of your works that way has to be the best. Unfortunately they miss the small intricate details that made the original work. Instead they merely see the obvious boobs, guns, swearing, and angst thus everything becomes boobs, guns, swearing, and angst only poorly done.

Another problem is what made the darker and edgier works so good in the first place was they were the alternative. They were unusual. It was something nobody else was doing. But once it got to the point where everybody and his mother was doing it, it got stale and repetitive.

I think comics have always been angsty. For a silver age example, Lois Lane putting her head in a box. Or the whole, "Why is this monkey crying". It works as a sales tactic to over emphasise every little thing.

Don't forget the original Spider Man story. Hell, the Ultimate origin story didn't do much except make him fit more with mood-swingy teen.

Also, lol ennis and his need to put pointless gore everywhere. At least Warren makes dark humor out of things.

edited 24th Nov '10 6:08:31 PM by JackMackerel

What's sad is that boobs and guns get the blame, when if properly used, they could be a force for good...

What's sad is that boobs and guns get the blame, when if properly used, they could be a force for good...

If you are female, consider this reply a proposal for marriage.

If you are not . . . . . . . . . . I could learn to adjust.

Let me go on the record as stating that it isn't the fault of the boobs and guns. While I am not a fan of either, it is the fault of bad writers who consider them to be a substitute for character development or pathos.

If you are female, consider this reply a proposal for marriage.

If you are not . . . . . . . . . . I could learn to adjust.

Sorry, I'm a guy.

But I do respect your admiration of a straight girl who likes boobs and guns. Life would be great if I could find a girl like that.

are comics angsty or is it fiction in general...in relation to to superheroes i think they want the characters to be more relatable...would iron man be as likeable(character derailment aside) or as interesting without his various problems...the various superman expies need something to make them interesting

as for the T and A "problem" thats an unfortunate side effect to the dark ages

Fiction in general is getting angsty. It's because it's a rarity that people can come up with character flaws without descending to angst.