Untitled

This.

An instant pleb filter.

>It might superficially seem as if comics have finally achieved respect. They’re covered by the mainstream press. They’re increasingly taught in colleges. Their adaptations account for a huge percentage of Hollywood blockbusters. Hey, even nerd is chic these days.

>But at the risk of sounding petulant, this isn’t the kind of respect we wanted.

>DC comics aren't just for kids
"DC comics aren't just for kids!" A direct-market substitution for the UPC on some '80s DC comics.

>Let’s backtrack to the 1980s, when the movement to get comics respect really began in earnest. As everyone knows, the 1980s were a heady time in American comics. After slightly maturing through the 1970s, comics started exploding in sophistication. In response to this watershed moment, fans and creators both started campaigning for comics to be respected as a real and unique form of art.

>Notice that the goal wasn’t to to convince people that comics were cool. It wasn’t to convince people that nerds arguing about whether the Hulk could beat Superman deserved to be respected. No one, including the fanboys, thought that.

>No, the goal was to show people that comics as a medium deserved to take its place among others, such as novels and cinema. And suddenly, we had a body of sophisticated comics to prove our case.

>See, no one thought that Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns deserved respect because it was a cool, dark take on Batman. It was that, to be sure. But the reason people thought it deserved respect was because of its sophisticated story that experimented with the medium itself. It divided a single image into multiple panels, emphasizing Bruce Wayne’s fragmentation or the distinction between Two-Face’s dueling personalities. Its narrative was constructed through incredibly ambitious frenetic juxtaposition that wouldn’t work in any other medium. It was satirical and wild but also psychological and sophisticated, and this strange mix could only be successful in the rapidly juxtaposed panels that comics allowed.

>Equally, no one thought Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’s Watchmen deserved respect because Rorschach was a bad-ass or New York City got blown up. People enjoyed those elements, but no one argued that they made Watchmen an example of what comics could accomplish and why they deserved respect.

>No, it was how Moore juxtaposed word and image ironically, so that they undermined one another, achieving effects no other medium could accomplish. It was the way Watchmen was filled with significant detail, used in-universe back-up material, demonstrated the potential of the nine-panel grid, and adapted cinematic techniques, including zoom-outs and text that overlapped into the next scene, so successfully. And yes, how it incorporated pop culture and high literature in its quoted titles, as well as realistic psychology, to make a statement not only about super-heroes but about a Godless universe.

>Yeah, V for Vendetta had an anarchist terrorist for its protagonist. But it aggressively played with perspective and had a whole chapter done as a musical score.

>In fact, revisionism was all about doing these things. Yes, it revised existing super-heroes, often making them darker. But it was really committed to revising the comic-book medium itself. To telling smarter, more sophisticated stories — stories that used the unique advantages of the comics form in ways that had never been done before.

>It angers me that this has been forgotten. Many of the techniques pioneered by these works have become commonplace to such a degree that new readers of these stories can almost completely overlook what they’re doing formally. But it was exactly this formal sophistication that was why the comic-book community started demanding respect in the first place.

>The goal of that movement — and I’m using the term movement loosely here, because it certainly wasn’t organized — was to have these comics sit on the shelves besides great literature. And appreciated as such. It certainly wasn’t to get CNN to cover people dressed up in costumes at Comic-Con. Those people were an embarrassment to those trying to get comics greater literary respect. They were the people that those who derided comics pointed to, in order to put down comics. The geeky fans playing dress-up were an obstacle to acceptance, not part of the package we were trying to get accepted.

>Nothing epitomized this more than Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, who debuted in 1991. Overweight and arrogant, Comic Book Guy runs The Android’s Dungeon & Baseball Card Shop like his own little fiefdom, a compensation for his obviously pathetic existence. He frequently berates his customers for their ignorance of obscure super-hero trivia, the currency of prestige and status in his pathetically tiny universe. He mixes comic books, which revisionism saw as a literary art form, with collectibles like baseball cards — not to mention poor-quality toys and fads like pogs, which he’s also snooty about. And of course, his clientele consists mostly of kids and unappealing adults with arrested development. In short, he embodies every cliche about comics and was an embarrassment to those who advocated that comics deserved serious literary attention.

>Today, Comic Book Guy and his ilk have won. The character that began as a parody of comic-book readers has been turned into a loving portrayal of those readers’ foibles. Instead of rejecting him as a stereotype of the very worst in comics fans, comics fans have themselves come to embrace him. As if to say, “yeah, but dude, we are kinda fat, obnoxious losers who like trivia and dressing up in spandex.”

>In this new world in which Comic Book Guy is celebrated, comics get “respect.” But they rarely get it for their literary and artistic prowess. Instead, they get it for being cool. And instead of putting comics on the bookshelf next to War and Peace, comics are seen as a strange but charming little medium that’s mostly notable for producing blockbuster movie adaptations known for explosions and big opening weekends. You know, the kinda stuff Comic Book Guy would like.

>Instead of realizing that comics were sophisticated entertainment for mature adults, the culture has simply made arrested development cool.

>But these are too very different kinds of respect, although comics fans conveniently elide the two. One is based on comics being a literary medium, which has produced works that can stand alongside the classics of any other medium. The other is based on an insular, geeky sub-culture being seen as cool — and wanting that respect, without having to change its ways or aim higher.

>There are a lot of reasons for this shift. The revisionists largely turned away from super-hero comics in the early 1990s, demonstrating that the medium mattered more than than the super-hero genre, they left a vacuum. That vacuum was filled by creators who often imitated only the most superficial elements of revisionism, producing “grim and gritty” comics — which ignored that this tone was only an effect of trying to produce smarter, more realistic stories, since super-heroes in the real world would probably have twisted psyches and cause some serious damage. Then came the backlash against revisionism, termed reconstructionism, which was actually more a backlash against these imitators and their “grim and gritty” approach, stripped of revisionism’s intelligence and ambition to push the medium of comics into new territory. By 1999, this reaction against revisionism dominated American comics

Nice. Sequart are the guys behind that based documentary on Morrison, and they justly bashed on GotG.

>But the most important factor was Hollywood success, beginning with 1998s Blade and then in earnest with 2000s X-Men and 2002s Spider-Man. In the decade that followed, super-hero movies came to represent a large portion of Hollywood’s blockbusters, and the comics themselves came to be seen as idea farms for motion pictures, rather than significant works of art in their own right. Marvel and DC have both essentially acknowledged that they hold this view, even reconfiguring their corporate structures to reflect this fact.

>And it should surprise no one that, while these Hollywood movies borrow here and there from the smarter comics stories they adapt, these movies have mostly been really, really, really stupid.

>Certainly, there exceptions, such as Christopher Nolan’s Batman films and 2006s Superman Returns — and to a lesser extent, 2009s problematic adaptation of Watchmen. To be sure, there are smart elements in many other films. But mostly, they’re just really glitzy, bombastic, super-hero fare.

tldr

>They argue implicitly that the super-hero shouldn’t be smart. That the super-hero shouldn’t reach for more. That the super-hero is a glossy, sexy figure, there to generate nothing more than big explosions and poorly-sketched character drama.

>But they’re big business. Big, big business. And it’s this that has driven the cameras to Comic-Con. It’s this that has driven comic books to be considered cool, even as they’re considered just as insular and geeky as ever. And it’s this that has become the goal, for too many comics creators — and certainly for the companies that publish them.

>Comic Book Guy’s just as fat and obnoxious and insular as he ever was. It’s just that the local newspaper in Springfield interviews him now and then, whenever there’s a new movie out, and lets him feel like he’s getting respect.

>And if he’s really, really lucky, a girl comes into his shop occasionally, asking for some manga he either doesn’t stock or doesn’t know anything about, and this legitimates his little comics hobby. He doesn’t seal the deal with her, of course, but his fantasies of finding a skinny, geeky girl who like to dress up in Princess Leia’s slave costume seem that much closer to reality.

>But there’s no real respect here at all. There’s just cultural cache, and most of that stems not from the comics themselves but from movies based on them.

>That’s not respect; it’s a fad. It’s a mirage in the desert. It’s fool’s gold.

>Wanna bet how quickly this “respect” dries up, when comics-based movies start making less money?

>I suppose you can’t blame people, especially people desperate to see comics respected, for latching onto it. A lot of writers and artists — and not only in comics — have been lulled into thinking that their work is good — and that they’ve arrived — because Hollywood wants to adapt it. Well, ain’t necessarily so. They make Twilight movies too, you know.

>The only real, lasting, substantial respect comes from producing lasting work that does something new and vital. Something that can sit on the shelf next to The Great Gatsby.

>That was the goal of the revisionists, who now seem dismissed almost completely in the comics community as pretentious, “grim and gritty” curmudgeons, despite being anything but. And they’re usually the first to admit that they fell short of their ambitions. But they produced an astounding amount of major work in the process, and they at least pointed the way.

>Unfortunately, comics don’t seem interested, with very few exceptions, in the actual respect that comes with producing classics that push the medium forward.

>That’s partially because, also unfortunately, the siren call of Hollywood and the illusion of respect it brought to comics happened to coincide with the reign of reconstructionism. Which rejected revisionism. And realism. And snooty comics with innovative narratives. And intelligence. In favor of being, above all, fun. Kinda like a Hollywood blockbuster.

>What’s interesting is that the early, trailblazing works of reconstructionism were quite intelligent. 1994s Marvels might have been a love letter to Silver Age Marvel comics, but it fused that history into an easily understood whole, one that was moving without any understanding of Marvel continuity. And its painted artwork by Alex Ross was a revelation at the time, one that didn’t exactly break the comics form but certainly pushed it forward. Grant Morrison’s JLA and Mark Waid’s Flash were also not just great fun but fairly smart. Alan Moore’s Supreme was nostalgic fun but, if you’ll pardon the pun, supremely intelligent — and it even played with the medium too, such as having an issue appear as an artifact in that issue’s story. By 1999, when reconstructionism had already come to dominate super-hero comics so much that Warren Ellis forced himself to accommodate it in Planetary and The Authority, he was still able to write intelligent stories within this model. In his work for America’s Best Comics, largely a reconstructionist enterprise, Alan Moore produced many fun, reconstructionist tales that were also brilliant stories, several of them (e.g. his Greyshirt short stories) even pushing comics forward as a medium.

>Of course, all of this is old news now, and no one can pretend that nostalgic or fun super-heroes is anything other than old hat. As a matter of indisputable fact, no one’s been able to say that for a decade now. But instead of admitting this and coming up with something new and vital, comics have instead retreated into increasing levels of nostalgia, now coupled with slick, glitzy artwork that imitates both early reconstructionist works (like Marvels or The Authority) and the Hollywood blockbuster.

>Because that’s the model now. Not Citizen Kane or Gulliver’s Travels. Hollywood movies, big and dumb and filled with plot holes — but oh, so very pretty.

>And there’s a Pavlovian system of reinforcement in place to continue this attitude. Comics have achieved more respect (or at least attention from the media) by being cool fodder for movies than they ever did being literary or sophisticated.

>And that’s where Alan Moore’s right to say that no one even seems to be trying today. Compared to the formal innovations of his era, or even the intelligence he brought to his reconstructionist work, he’s right. Because trying, for Moore, doesn’t mean trying to squeeze bigger explosions and fanboy reveals into the newest mega super-hero crossover. Trying, for Moore, doesn’t mean giving the audience what it wants. It means, for Moore as for any serious artist, trying something new.

>And no, a spectrum of alien corps modeled after Green Lantern’s isn’t new. Or doing a Watchmen sequel, which is what occasioned Moore’s remarks.

>Of course, Jason Aaron’s also right, in saying (in January of this year) how offensive Moore’s comments were to him and other comics creators who pour their hearts and souls into their work. Moore certainly was blunt and uncharitable, not to mention generalizing and surprisingly inarticulate, despite having a vital, intensely relevant point beneath his bluster. But Aaron’s written some truly excellent work that immediately stands out for being thoughtful — a far cry from the insular crap foisted on the same 100,000 or so members of America’s comics-reading community.

>Put another way, the return of Barry Allen is not an “event.” The return of a bunch of dead characters in Blackest Night is not an “event.” Undoing the marriages of Spider-Man and Superman are not “events.” Killing Captain America and bringing him back are not “events.” Breaking up the X-Men (again) is not an “event.”

>These are events only to a tiny, insular community. They are “events” only in the sense that any twist or turn in any continuing narrative constitutes an “event” for that narrative’s fans. They’re “events” only in the sense that the newest action movie is “the must-see event of the summer.”

>If you see comics as a literary medium deserving of respect, the only real event is a literary one. The recent publication of a new book by Vladimir Nabokov? Or the publication of Mark Twain’s autobiography? Those were literary events.

>The Dark Knight Returns was a literary event. Watchmen was a literary event. Not because they were grim and gritty, but because they instantly announced themselves as major works that were doing things with comics as a medium that had never been done before.

>I’d argue that Marvels was a similar event. And DC launching Vertigo. So too Warren Ellis launching The Authority and Planetary, or Alan Moore launching America’s Best Comics. Or Grant Morrison concluding The Invisibles. These were ambitious projects, the effects of which continue to be felt today.

Capes will never be respected, especially with all those cape movies.

>So does this mean DC is free of blame?
Why would you post something that stupid?

Eisners award superhero comics instead of completely ignoring the entire genre

>comics aren't deep
This is a stupid criticism. No one likes the pretentious shit put out in any medium. The MCU is the biggest film franchise in the world for a reason. People actually enjoy things meant to be entertaining, not shit made by retards who think they're saying something smart.

>if it's any deeper than a big arrow pointing to a character going "THIS IS THE BAD GUY. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO LIKE HIM", then it's pretentious shit
Spoken like a true braindead capeshitter.

And note I'm not saying the MCU are the best films in the world, but what this article is arguing is that because cape stuff is the most popular in the comics medium, somehow the medium is viewed with less regard, and this is completely untrue. Whether it's film, television, literature or music, from Justin Beiber to Naruto to Roseanne, the things that take center stage are not ever going to be shit that's "sophisticated"

As opposed to what? Something the author here mentions like Watchmen where the "totally morally grey antagonist" is killing millions of people for his retarded plan that'd never actually work, and if it did would still be completely unethical?
It says more about your own moral standing if you believe there's some kind of blurry line between right and wrong, and it's hard to tell who the bad guys are.

>Something the author here mentions like Watchmen where the "totally morally grey antagonist" is killing millions of people for his retarded plan that'd never actually work, and if it did would still be completely unethical?
Yes.
Because we could actually have a conversation about that, although the tranny janny would ban whichever side he didn't like for being "off topic".
Compare that to your average capeshittery, which is just "AND THEN THE GOOD GUY, WHO IS A PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, PUNCHED THE BAD GUY WHO IS A CONSERVATIVE DOO-DOO HEAD, EXCEPT NOT ONE OF THE ONE'S THAT A PERSON OF COLOR OR A MUSLIM OR ANYTHING, AND THE DAY WAS SAVED."

Damn this motherfucker is a huge Moorefag.

Fpbp

>Miller's TDKR
>Sophisticated

>AND THEN THE GOOD GUY, WHO IS A PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, PUNCHED THE BAD GUY WHO IS A CONSERVATIVE DOO-DOO HEAD
And you could probably name a few comics like that, hell, I could too. But they're an incredible minority, even among modern comics, and have nothing to do with this conversation because that's just about bad writing, not "they say something deep about LIFE."

>People who read comics are the problem with comics

>I'm not saying the MCU are the best films in the world, but

Attached: 482.jpg (275x410, 31K)

Why is the focus never on making good comics, but instead convincing other people comics are good? Who the actual fuck cares? Clearly, given the fact he has examples he uses to suggest comics deserve to respected as much as other mediums, creators can and have made works of that type, and he could just buy and read them himself. If things are being made that appeal to him why the fuck is there any need to write this retarded article just because people like different things than he does?
This guy must be a regular on Yea Forums because that's as retarded as what people here do.

>But they're an incredible minority
Hah.
No.
Civil War was considered groundbreaking because it was one of the few times Marvel published a comic without a big bright arrow pointing at the guy who is the bad guy for the sake of being bad, who you are not supposed to like.
It was still as deep as your average "WHO WAS IN THE WRONG HERE?" shitpost, but that's the level of idiocy that capeshit is on.

Are you saying they are?

>Civil War was considered groundbreaking
If you shit a turd very quickly it will break the ground.

This guy is retarded. Comics are not literature, there are two different mediums.

And yet Stan Lee said in a 1960s interview that comics are good literature...

Did you read the rest of his post?

No, I stopped reading there.

Dumb motherfucker.

Except Civil War had a very clear bad guy in Tony Stark and the Fantastic 4, the only unique thing it had was a lack of mind control

He is one of those pretentious fags who hates geeks but defends sluts who cosplay.

I wonder what this fag would think of The Immortal Hulk?

>people dressed up in costumes at Comic-Con. Those people were an embarrassment to those trying to get comics greater literary respect. They were the people that those who derided comics pointed to, in order to put down comics. The geeky fans playing dress-up were an obstacle to acceptance, not part of the package we were trying to get accepted.

Shoo shoo shill

based brainlet

So the people who read comics for fun were an obstacle to the medium?

>cosplayers
>readers
>ever

DC were the company that just kicked a writer off a run that was 20 issues away from being finished.

That's not the worst DC has done and Marvel has done worse too. Stop being a companywarfag

I was referring to "geeks" but whatever.

>actually praises the edgy 80's cape shit where rape and murder were thrown about to make it DARK and SOPHISTICATED
>not a single mention of non-capeshit
capeshit will never to be sophisticated, yes even your deconstruction cape shit.

>20 issues
>bi-monthly
>"why didn't they let this guy keep ruining sales for 10 months"
Are you dumb?

Are you talking about Tom King?

>20 issues
Fuck, I was kinda pissed before, but that's because I thought Kingbats was like two or three issues away from being finished. Twenty issues is almost two years. King has to finish his opus soon, it's been dragging on. That said, it would've been neat to see Batman come back from the newest rock bottom of his superheroing career.

Flash is gay

>Of course, Jason Aaron’s also right, in saying (in January of this year) how offensive Moore’s comments were to him and other comics creators who pour their hearts and souls into their work.
Aaron needs to fuck off because Moore is right that there's nothing that good or interesting or even remotely innovating in cape comics at the least, especially since most of the people working on them don't care to do any of that stuff. Aaron's work is not even part of the best current comics have to offer.

Nowadays at the most you get a fun story and fanwanking but nothing new or innovating. Not to mention people like Moore and Morrison have already run out of steam themselves and frankly they shouldn't be expected or need to carry capeshit forever. Morrison nowadays just wants to do stories he finds fun.

If there's anything good in comics right now it's most likely going to be outside of cape comics and outside of Marvel, DC, and Image.

This.
Most comic writers today only write to see if their series are pitched por optioned as TV series por movies. Millar and Fagtion are the worst example.

>Nowadays at the most you get a fun story and fanwanking but nothing new or innovating.
No, you get new stuff.
It's just that the new stuff is absolutely fucking terrible, because SJWs can't write for shit.
Remember when Marvel decided to kill everyone off and turn them into niggers?

Let's not pretend comics were close to getting respect before this shit

Registration side was absolutely portrayed as the bad guys, retard.

>registering walking weapons of mass destruction is now bad

It's not, but they were portrayed as incredible pieces of shit, walking garbage they were.

Comics have gained enough respect in that any reasonable person wouldn't reject a work solely on the grounds that its illustrated through comics. The original problem has always been that comics were seen as cheap entertainment, and any story portrayed through comics was seen as cheap and/or shallow, regardless of the actual deserved merit. In modern times, perspectives have changed, and comics are mostly seen as a universal medium with much value and potential to offer. The only thing that hasn't changed are the most popular comics publishers. They still print what's fun and relatively easy to follow, not what's deep and innovative, because that's not what the average person wants. The average person wants to be both entertained and learn a lesson, not belittled about how everything they think is wrong. But that's okay, because there's plenty of other publishers waiting to publish that garbage and garner ignatz awards, so you can draw that 1000 page graphic novel that deserves a spot next to Ulysses and you'll find the people who want to see that happen.

I really don't see what the problem is here. The pretentious snobs won and comics are discussed seriously at the academic level, and there is nothing holding anyone back from making what they want. You just have to make it and hope the right people read it.

What's wrong with Alan Moore?

You're a dumb faggot. Shakespeare was the most popular living playwright during his life.

>The pretentious snobs won and comics are discussed seriously at the academic level
>academic level
I'm not sorry, as someone with a STEM masters, the idea that what amounts to a Bleeding Cool clickbait shitpost about comic books is considered to be a part of "academia" makes me fundamentally disgusted.

>Nowadays
That's what comics used to be from the beginning.

Nothing, the problem is the people that follows everything he says as a Bible.

It's not.

>Remember when Marvel decided to kill everyone off and turn them into niggers?
Didn't that only happen to one character

How does one read Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet and come to the conclusion Shakespeare is deep and sophisticated or complex?

Had me right up until he praised Aaron. The last thing we need is a return to realism in capeshit or revisionism in indieshit.

Why so these op-eds about comic books and sophistication and cultural legitimacy always make "comic books" synonymous with "superhero/genre comics?"

Talking about the '80s and the British Invasion as the time that "comics matured," as if alternative comics and European comics weren't already a thing by then. These people don't care about comics as a medium being taken seriously, they care about The Hulk being taken seriously.

I think comics are a worthwhile medium with a wide breadth. But I'm not so self-conscious that I care about if the entire world thinks they're sophisticated or not. And I'm not just taking about those aforementioned alternative, indie, and Euro comics. I like to read a good Batman story, too, and I don't give a fuck that it isn't Tolstoy. I don't give a fuck that Alan Moore says it's for manchildren with silly fantasies and arrested development. It's fucking entertainment, people of all ages like even fucking fairy tales, and nobody gives a shit about the fact that adults see Disney reinterpretations of them. People generally don't "grow out" of fantasy. There's never been a real divide between "serious realistic fiction for adults and things only kids should like." We've forever been entertained by concepts that aren't plausible or reflective of our real-life problems. This is a problem for what reasons, exactly? Because some autist told me I'm having too much fun reading a thing?

>That said, it would've been neat to see Batman come back from the newest rock bottom of his superheroing career
>come back from rock bottom
That's not what King writes. King writes that you should embrace rock bottom and build your home there. We were never going to get a successful Batman out of Kings run, just a dour 'endurance is the better part of valor' because that's King's personal belief.

If the thematic emotional complexity of Macbeth or Hamlet is lost on you I think you need to watch less cartoons.

>Didn't that only happen to one character
Spencer had planned an entire 'legacy' avengers line up
>Hulk to Chulk
>Thor to Whor
>Cap to SamCap
>Hawkeye to Kate
>Ironman to Ironheart
>Spider-man to miles

Only two of those are niggers.

You might have missed a
>wolverine into titslut
but close enough

Bruce, Thor, Cap, and Clint weren't killed for that, Tony's death didn't stick, even while he was actually dead or whatever the fuck he was still around.

>try to replace characters people actually like with various forms of dumb titniggers
>nobody likes your dumb titniggers
>"HAHA JUST KIDDING... WE WERE ONLY PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED"

The only one that was "haha just kidding" was Cap and Whor.

Because they're fucking bad

next question.

>The only one that was "haha just kidding" was Cap and Whor.
They literally weren't, and you're a fucking retard for trying to claim that.
Anything that's popular becomes canon.
Anything that's not popular becomes retconned.
If you unironically believe that "it was just a joke bro", you have somehow managed to become even more of a brainlet than your average capeshitter, whom are already functionally retarded to begin with.

Holy fuck it's just a way to get the point across, you low iq nigger. The only ones cast aside for the originals to swoop back in were Captain Falcon and Whor, get some reading comprehension.

The point was that you're a cuck, which is obvious.

Okay, pavement ape.

Fuck off Didio.

Now kiss.

Those guys on sequart are brainlets.

That's true, isn't it?

It is if you are an snob.

>t. julian

>The only real, lasting, substantial respect comes from producing lasting work that does something new and vital. Something that can sit on the shelf next to The Great Gatsby.
It will never cease to disgust me, be it in comics, vidya, film, music, what the fuck ever, when pretentious asstwats directly connect “true value” and “lasting worth” with novels. Not even novels, the engaging, vibrant written tradition that stretches back for millennia and continues to today, no, specifically a list of about 50 or so books that they read in high school that for whatever reason (read: circumstance, forgotten cultural context, cross-curriculum convenience) became the go to list of “real art”. Not even that, a watered down, dried out form of those texts.

It’s a fetish for boring pedantic bullshit, and it’s fucking autistic. It’s a mindset that puts popular appeal and genuine quality in direct opposition, that the problem with a given scene or medium is always, *always* selling out to the Normies. That’s shit I reeee about in Yea Forums when lesbians pop up in muh christian cartoons, not a fucking academic argument. Comics don’t need legitimacy. Video games don’t need legitimacy. No medium needs validation like it’s a cam girl on twitch, especially not from the kinds of people who say the most engaging parts of The Great Gatsby are its “commitment to modernity in craft and depiction of the collapse of the American Dream”.

“____ isn’t real art like FILM and FINE LITERATURE” should be autobanned.

Attached: 08EFA9DF-0B57-43D5-A6C6-7AC9BF415380.jpg (333x293, 18K)

>Comics should be "fun" not good. They should be like Johns' GL.

Comics should be good, not pretentious drible so snobs can alienante themselves into believing comics aren't art if it's not deep and philosophical for the sake of it.

Johns' GL was good you gaylord.

Only Morrison is worth reading for adults.

40 year olds buying 4 dollar comics are the problem. Comics were great because they were cheap entertainment for kids that help spark creativity . Bring back 99 cent comics on cheap paper

>People who read comics are the problem with comics
People who act like immature idiots around comics are the problem, user.
>Instead of realizing that comics were sophisticated entertainment for mature adults, the culture has simply made arrested development cool.

By being confused by the big words and old-timey talk.

>>Instead of realizing that comics were sophisticated entertainment for mature adults
is this an actual line from the article holy shit. Literally just "please think I'm smart for consuming media." People camping out for a 3 day marathon of MCU movies are more emotionally sound adults than this guy

Sadly this. The guy who wrote the article sounds like a really sophisticated manchildren who needs validation to not feel ashamed for liking comics.

>This guy is not emotionally sound because he doesn't accept my shitty entertainment.

Except according to Millar, who wrote it, Tony was the good guy.

because instead of enjoying his shitty entertainment he's complaining about the fact that other people are enjoying theirs or don't think he's smart for enjoying his.
That doesn't make it true

>Wah! Let me watch my MCU and read Supersons without being judged.
>Anyone who criticises them is snobby and pretentious.

What a quality strawman
>>Anyone who criticises them is snobby and pretentious
Except he doesn't, he's not actually making critiques of anything, where is his critique of either of those works?

but i guess if we're being children i could just say
>wah! stop liking things I don't like
because if you put wah and a meme arrow before it becomes a valid argument

>because if you put wah and a meme arrow before it becomes a valid argument
Yes, that's Yea Forums and Yea Forums at large as well.
Were you under any impressions this was not normal here, or just naively optimistic for a moment that you forgot the nature of this board and site?

None of the above, but expecting stupid arguments doesn't mean they aren't stupid