Printable View
I think Guidi's just always drawn to his own style which is relatively independent of other DW and IDW artists (aside from following unique character designs of course). I like Guidi's art although I think he needs a wider range of "screaming mouthes." :p
It’s all good to sit on the rocking chair as a so-called favourite tanks to 10K. I think what you’ve missed is that AHM is offering us, hopefully (as I haven’t read beyond issue #3 yet, a different model I think that it was wrong to try and link it to “-tion” series as that meant people, especially the old timers, couldn’t look past that and it was poor choice on IDW’s behalf because they’ve been on the back foot ever since.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky Shadow
The assessment that this is G1 all over is a misrepresentation.
When in G1 did the Autobots become so fragile and without purpose? I don’t think that’s an angle that’s ever been explored. When did the Decepticons ever actually go about methodically dismantling the Earth?
And overexposure of ’84-’86 characters does not ever meant they were developed with much depth. I’ve read or watched very few stories about Prowl or Mirage that were more than generic cartoon characterisations. I think those characters deserve as much as a chance to be developed in a meaningful fashion as Sixshot or Hardhead. I really like Hardhead (the futuristic tank and all) and absolutely agree it was great seeing Nightbeat, him and the Technobots working with the classic characters. But it’s awfully naïve to only want older characters developed. The big names, the ones that have recognition deserve a chance to be developed too. They never were and I long for more stories of Gears, Prowl and co.
And the other thing that’s been lost with the AHM formula is it is trying the “Big Gun” approach. A lot of other comics do it like the Avengers and JLA which bring together the biggest most iconic names in the comic fandom together. AHM was trying this approach in my estimation. Big first and second season characters with high recognition factor. New Avengers, a comic I didn’t like, did it very successfully with the strangest mismatch of characters. They brought Wolverine and Spider-Man, two longtime non-Avenger characters, into the fold and it sold like hotcakes. It had top artists and top writers too. And that worked wonders. So like it or not IDW tried AHM b/c it needed to revitalize a very poor selling comic book. The numbers were pitiful – especially given the brand’s success. AHM doesn’t seem to have worked though and I just wonder where to from here.
Not to mention that just b/c one group was overexposed to something (apparently the '84 to '85 cast), the rest of the fandom has to be deprived that? The ones who want to see that?
Comics have downward momentum and you need to try new things to arrest the inevitable decline. It’s one of the principal reasons why most creative teams stay on a title for 12 or less issues these days. I’m not sure what IDW can do though. Furman is one of the big names in TFs and even he doesn’t have staying power as evidenced by the empirical data. And, like Sky Shadow, I’m not sure how much I’d care even if we got a big name like Mark Millar or Brian Bendis on Transformers. Its about TFs first and foremost for me and I don’t care who but I fear there aren’t many avenues for improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulbot
I think it would be great if we were privy to Hasbro and Takara’s numbers, it would give us empirical data to base our comments based on rather than a lot of conjecture we work on.
That’s neither here nor there though. As far as sales numbers go, what else would anyone suggest instead?
I’m open to suggestions but I can’t find one.
Sales numbers are the only objective criteria that exist yet there are so often claims, such as was made here, about how “successful” Simon Furman’s series was and that it didn’t deserve the axe or a revamp, claims that are absolutely empirically not possible to support.
Or alternatively, we can believe the spin that IDW puts out there as to their success. It’s just the same as Marvel or DC though, really.
The TF comic reading public I feel is perhaps the least progressive part of the fandom from my experiences in my short 3 years of collecting. It seems to be so absorbed about how right it is, how successful what it loves is that it can’t see failure in front of its eyes. It doesn’t like numbers because they convey the truth. The Transformer faithful, of which I count myself as one, is reduced down to a pathetically paltry 10,000 readers from 100,000.
I’m as loyal and passionate about TFs as the rest of you. I ride the highs of alacrity and disappointment. I fret and grumble at glaring lows but I am under no illusions about where TF comics have gone. I don’t like the fact that its flopping. Its very concerning but at least I’m prepared to accept that. We can hold onto what we like but the reality is the sales number tell another tale, a cold hard truth. There aren’t many of us who are the faithful and there’s got to be a good reason for that.
.
Otherwise, we’re living with a whole of denial and that ain’t the pretty river in Eqypt.
They did in Generation Two! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by STL
I don't remember much of G2. The art always pulled me out of it. But even then its really different from AHM which has different layers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulbot
As summarised by the TFwikiQuote:
Originally Posted by STL
New York? Bah every other monster/alien/terrorist hits New York. These Decepticons know there are other cities on the planet! :pQuote:
The Decepticons global onslaught is said to have hit Moscow, Tokyo and London as well as Washington; they currently are hitting Delhi, forcing an evacuation (which they're also hitting), and are fighting in North Africa
In fact come to think of it SPOILERS the purpose of this attack in Generation Two comics and the reveal at the end of AHM #5 are quite similar... END SPOILERS
Haha. Thats a good one. Other cities. Pull the other leg PaulbotQuote:
Originally Posted by Paulbot
Manny Galan's artwork in G2 was terrible IMO and he's been widely criticised by fans for his poor attempt at mimicking Derek Yaniger's art (which Galan has since admitted was a mistake). It was Derek Yaniger who created the distinctive new art style for G2 (I like this comment from TFwiki - "inconsistent proportions that'd make Pat Lee proud" :D). I did like Geoff Senior's art, but I'm biased. (^_^)
The story's quite good though - and it fits in well with Beast Wars too. :)
Pretty much every time Optimus died in the comic I'd say. The Autobots milled around hopelessly for a few issues before getting there act together. I seem to recall in the UK story "Prey" Optimus faked his own death to see if the Autobots could cope with out him. As for the dismantaling earth, as mentioned above they did that in G2, and they had finished dismantaling North America in Rythmns of Darkness, now that was a bleak world of Decepticon rule, AHM still pales in comparison to both as far as dark futures go.Quote:
Originally Posted by STL
But credit where credit is due Mcarthy has done an excellant job with the Autobots without Prime so far, enough at least to keep me reading.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, Transformers comics may be flopping, but AHM's sales numbers don't actualy affect my opinon of it one iota. Most of my favourte issues of the past TF comics series come from when they were near the end of thier runs, this is true for me at least for the US Marvel G1 comic, Dreamwaves G1,Gen 2, and the IDW "ation series" The only exception si the end of the run of the Marvel G1 Uk comic, which bugged me for much the same reasons that AHM does.Quote:
Otherwise, we’re living with a whole of denial and that ain’t the pretty river in Eqypt.
Between the Marvel Comics, Dream Wave and IDW I've read plenty about Prowl, and seen more than few sides of him than just his cartoon role as Optimus advisor so I don't think he's a good example. Gears certainly is and in his case, and I'd agree that yes he desrves a chance to be developed. However even if he were included in the cast of AHM I doubt veey much he would be developed at all. Seems to me whenever they go back to bascis and reboot G1 wether it be for a new series, or a spin of universe or whatever, the same thing happens. The writters grab a bunch of recognisable G1 favourtes and then give all the lines and development to the ones who have already been established, Prowl, Starscream, Ironhide, HotRod, Kup and Grimlock for example. I don't see AHM breaking this mould, and Ipart of the annoyance with the Character Drift is rather than taking a bot like say Gears and giving him some personality (like Mcarthy did with Blur), they instead give us Drift.Quote:
And overexposure of ’84-’86 characters does not ever meant they were developed with much depth. I’ve read or watched very few stories about Prowl or Mirage that were more than generic cartoon characterisations. I think those characters deserve as much as a chance to be developed in a meaningful fashion as Sixshot or Hardhead. I really like Hardhead (the futuristic tank and all) and absolutely agree it was great seeing Nightbeat, him and the Technobots working with the classic characters. But it’s awfully naïve to only want older characters developed. The big names, the ones that have recognition deserve a chance to be developed too. They never were and I long for more stories of Gears, Prowl and co.
Yeah G2 is one of my favourte TF stories, just because its just so different from everything else out there.Quote:
The story's quite good though - and it fits in well with Beast Wars too.
G1 Thundercracker desperately needs character development, but I'm not seeing it in AHM. He got particularly shafted in Machine Wars - what the frell is a Decepticon rebel warrior meant to be? His function is to... rebel? Poor Thundercracker. :(
Yes, between the last five issues of Furman's US run and the War Within in particular, I'm pretty sure Prowl has gotten more than just a moment in the sun. And Gears?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_Zed
Gears already had a comic spotlight as early as issue #3 of Transformers US. He's Spider-Man's cranky friend and the whole issue is about him. And - according to Spider-Man's co-creator - as far back as 1985, Gears also liked lifting elephants over his head, falling for obvious traps and carrying potatoes to the market.
This is why I find it ridiculous for anyone to play the such-an-such-a-'84-'85-character-never-got-any-exposure card. It's absolute bollocks. Sure, feel free to play the iconic-Transformers-are-better-for-noobs-and-casual-fans trump. But the other argument is going to collapse every time. Kind of like this:
http://tfwiki.net/w2/images2/a/a5/Th...sher-gears.jpg
Or, as the allegedly underexposed Thundercracker would put it:
http://www.insecticons.com/images3/Smasher-09.jpg
http://www.insecticons.com/images3/Smasher-20.jpg
(That's Gears. No, really).