Saga

[Phantom]

I was thinking the same thing.
I would never read a title more than 6 issues max, less arround 4 to give it a chance.
But 11 did you just read ~ or buy aswell ?
When I worked in a comic shop I read alot more titles than I brought.

[Cyberstrike]

If we are widening the scope here then are we saying that no violent/sex-laden films should be allowed to win Oscars? Or be labelled the best film of the year? This seems crazy, just because they are the best doesn't mean it's for everyone.

May seem crazy, but it happens.

A prime example would be the 1997 version of Lolita. I consider that version of Lolita (Starring Jeremy Irons) to be one of the best 5 films of 1997, but it had limited distribution and didn't get the accolades it deserved due to the content.

I understand why the film got blackballed, as the content is morbid/disturbing, but that doesn't change the fact that I perceive it to be a fantastic film leagues beyond some of the other movies of that same year which ended up actually winning awards.

The critics might have not considered it worthy because Stanly Kubrick directed a version of it back in the 50s, and since Kubrick is held in very, very, very high esteem by the film industery it might have been a case of "How dare you remake a Kubrick classic?!" regardless if it's better, worse, or about the same in comparison to Kubrick's version and the 97 version.

[grendeljd]

I'm going to side step the story discussion (of which I am a fan) and simply praise Fiona Staples' art. The covers are especially beautiful. I hope the series gets a nice oversized HC treatment someday.

I'm definitely a fan of her art. It's great.

The art has been superb to say the least!

+1 - its such a great style. It pulls me into the story even moreso than the writing.

[ian_house]

I was thinking the same thing.
I would never read a title more than 6 issues max, less arround 4 to give it a chance.
But 11 did you just read ~ or buy aswell ?
When I worked in a comic shop I read alot more titles than I brought.

Ah didn't think of that, maybe they weren't all purchased.

[Cyberstrike]

I can sort of understand Savant. His reaction to Saga kind of mirrors my reaction to The Transformers: More Than Meets The Eye the story is very slow, there is a lot of universe-building and the story is all over the map, but when a writer like BKV and James Roberts start all the threads together you see the tapersty that was always there and then you realize that you, the reader, was just focused on the indivisional threads too for long and not paying to attention. It's humbling.

[Savant]

I got issue 12 the other day......First issue of Saga I actually enjoyed.

But, I'll stop on that high note. Regarding the track record of this book's appeal to my senses (Out of the 11 books I read, I only liked 1 issue), it can only go downhill from here.

Dude why have you stuck with it so long if you haven't liked a single issue until now?? :S

I believe I already mentioned this a while back on this same thread, so explaining this is about as redundant as Brian K Vaughan's writing, but I bought the TPB due to all the hype. I found it average and didn't get what all the hoopla's about......Then I bought a bundle of issues of the next to-be collected storyline, and my opinion hadn't changed much. What I did was the equivalent of buying 2 TPBs. Your "stuck with it so long" comment makes it sound like you thought I was collecting the book on a monthly basis. If that was the case, I would've dropped the book from my pull-list almost immediately after reading the first issue. I likely would have gotten rid of said first issue fairly quickly, and later would have shaken my head in mild disappointment when finding out it later soared to $150+ in the back-issue market.

The only thing that was excessive was buying issue 12 (Although the second TPB will comprise of issues 7-12), but I was curious and decided to check it out.

What actually annoyed me was when I bought Y: The Last Man.......A friend of mine, who usually has good taste, heaped loads of praise on that title and recommended I check it out. So, I bought the first 4 TPBs and didn't care for the series at all. I bought them during a 50% off sale at my LCS, so I was able to get rid of the books without having lost money, but I was still somewhat annoyed at having wasted my time with it all.

I generally give a writer two titles before I know to avoid them or not (Extremely mediocre writers I know to avoid after reading a single issue).

Note to self: Stay the fvck away from Brian K Vaughan books

If we are widening the scope here then are we saying that no violent/sex-laden films should be allowed to win Oscars? Or be labelled the best film of the year? This seems crazy, just because they are the best doesn't mean it's for everyone.

May seem crazy, but it happens.

A prime example would be the 1997 version of Lolita. I consider that version of Lolita (Starring Jeremy Irons) to be one of the best 5 films of 1997, but it had limited distribution and didn't get the accolades it deserved due to the content.

I understand why the film got blackballed, as the content is morbid/disturbing, but that doesn't change the fact that I perceive it to be a fantastic film leagues beyond some of the other movies of that same year which ended up actually winning awards.

The critics might have not considered it worthy because Stanly Kubrick directed a version of it back in the 50s, and since Kubrick is held in very, very, very high esteem by the film industery it might have been a case of "How dare you remake a Kubrick classic?!" regardless if it's better, worse, or about the same in comparison to Kubrick's version and the 97 version.

Most film critics loved the '97 version, although there were some American critics who didn't like it because they preferred the Kubrick version. Regardless, it wasn't seen as a remake of the Kubrick film. Both were adaptations of the novel, and, unless a film critic is uneducated, they would realize that as the book is very well-known.

The blackballing had far more to do with the content. The Kubrick version was a dark comedy, whereas the '97 version was serious and had more focus on sexuality (Whether Kubrick would have wanted to or not, back when the Kubrick version of Lolita was made such content wasn't allowed). Although they were both based off the same novel, and mostly had the same characters, the films are completely different.

Also, the Kubrick version was a mainstream film, whereas the '97 version had a very limited theatrical release in America (I believe it aired on Showtime before going to theaters in the US). The reason for the limited release was due to the content. The film barely had any exposure at all.

[Cyberstrike]

If we are widening the scope here then are we saying that no violent/sex-laden films should be allowed to win Oscars? Or be labelled the best film of the year? This seems crazy, just because they are the best doesn't mean it's for everyone.

May seem crazy, but it happens.

A prime example would be the 1997 version of Lolita. I consider that version of Lolita (Starring Jeremy Irons) to be one of the best 5 films of 1997, but it had limited distribution and didn't get the accolades it deserved due to the content.

I understand why the film got blackballed, as the content is morbid/disturbing, but that doesn't change the fact that I perceive it to be a fantastic film leagues beyond some of the other movies of that same year which ended up actually winning awards.

The critics might have not considered it worthy because Stanly Kubrick directed a version of it back in the 50s, and since Kubrick is held in very, very, very high esteem by the film industery it might have been a case of "How dare you remake a Kubrick classic?!" regardless if it's better, worse, or about the same in comparison to Kubrick's version and the 97 version.

Most film critics loved the '97 version, although there were some American critics who didn't like it because they preferred the Kubrick version. Regardless, it wasn't seen as a remake of the Kubrick film. Both were adaptations of the novel, and, unless a film critic is uneducated, they would realize that as the book is very well-known.

The blackballing had far more to do with the content. The Kubrick version was a dark comedy, whereas the '97 version was serious and had more focus on sexuality (Whether Kubrick would have wanted to or not, back when the Kubrick version of Lolita was made such content wasn't allowed). Although they were both based off the same novel, and mostly had the same characters, the films are completely different.

Also, the Kubrick version was a mainstream film, whereas the '97 version had a very limited theatrical release in America (I believe it aired on Showtime before going to theaters in the US). The reason for the limited release was due to the content. The film barely had any exposure at all.

When it comes to films about adult men having sex (or even just having sexual desires) for underage teenage girls they tend to get blackballed because of the perceived idea that the filmmakers are perverts and advocating for that kind of thing. I think Lion's Gate released the 97 version of Lolita on DVD a few years ago, (they did have the trailer to it on their version of God and Monsters) but there are a lot of films that have that problem, in fact IIRC Gods and Monsters got a limited release theatrically do to the fact that James Whale was gay and the film is very frank and up front about it and Ian McKellen won an Oscar for it! I do remember Irons talking about Lolita on Inside the Actor's Studio I recall him saying that he told his agent to get him as much money for it because he knew he wouldn't get another job for at least 3 years and he also said he was right.

[tarheelmarine]

I'm going to side step the story discussion (of which I am a fan) and simply praise Fiona Staples' art. The covers are especially beautiful. I hope the series gets a nice oversized HC treatment someday.

I'm definitely a fan of her art. It's great.

The art continues to a be a high point. In fact, it looks like we are getting a two month break before the next issue (perhaps to keep the art so good ).

After reading #11, I would like to know how other veterans feel about the dialogue between Prince Robot and the writer. I could not tell where Vaughn was going with his view on veterans that have experienced war.

[nutflush76]

I find it hard to believe the statement, "Please shoot it in my tw@t," has far-reaching implications within the storyline

Funniest line I have read in a comic book forum in a long time!

I think it serves to illustrate how she got pregnant and that Marko didn't pull out or wear a rubber. The story would be significantly different if she said "Please shoot it on my face!"

[caniac]

[xodacia81]

If we are widening the scope here then are we saying that no violent/sex-laden films should be allowed to win Oscars? Or be labelled the best film of the year? This seems crazy, just because they are the best doesn't mean it's for everyone.

May seem crazy, but it happens.

A prime example would be the 1997 version of Lolita. I consider that version of Lolita (Starring Jeremy Irons) to be one of the best 5 films of 1997, but it had limited distribution and didn't get the accolades it deserved due to the content.

I understand why the film got blackballed, as the content is morbid/disturbing, but that doesn't change the fact that I perceive it to be a fantastic film leagues beyond some of the other movies of that same year which ended up actually winning awards.

The critics might have not considered it worthy because Stanly Kubrick directed a version of it back in the 50s, and since Kubrick is held in very, very, very high esteem by the film industery it might have been a case of "How dare you remake a Kubrick classic?!" regardless if it's better, worse, or about the same in comparison to Kubrick's version and the 97 version.

Most film critics loved the '97 version, although there were some American critics who didn't like it because they preferred the Kubrick version. Regardless, it wasn't seen as a remake of the Kubrick film. Both were adaptations of the novel, and, unless a film critic is uneducated, they would realize that as the book is very well-known.

The blackballing had far more to do with the content. The Kubrick version was a dark comedy, whereas the '97 version was serious and had more focus on sexuality (Whether Kubrick would have wanted to or not, back when the Kubrick version of Lolita was made such content wasn't allowed). Although they were both based off the same novel, and mostly had the same characters, the films are completely different.

Also, the Kubrick version was a mainstream film, whereas the '97 version had a very limited theatrical release in America (I believe it aired on Showtime before going to theaters in the US). The reason for the limited release was due to the content. The film barely had any exposure at all.

When it comes to films about adult men having sex (or even just having sexual desires) for underage teenage girls they tend to get blackballed because of the perceived idea that the filmmakers are perverts and advocating for that kind of thing. I think Lion's Gate released the 97 version of Lolita on DVD a few years ago, (they did have the trailer to it on their version of God and Monsters) but there are a lot of films that have that problem, in fact IIRC Gods and Monsters got a limited release theatrically do to the fact that James Whale was gay and the film is very frank and up front about it and Ian McKellen won an Oscar for it! I do remember Irons talking about Lolita on Inside the Actor's Studio I recall him saying that he told his agent to get him as much money for it because he knew he wouldn't get another job for at least 3 years and he also said he was right.

McKellan has yet to get an Oscar-he's been nominated a few times-and as for Lolita, the '97 version wasn't blackballed as much as it was so shocking to audiences that it wound up very quickly going to Showtime, which is where I saw it, in either late 97 or early 98.

[lorddunlow]

So, I did finally read the first two volumes of this book, so I can make a more informed opinion. I did enjoy the story. I am still extremely put off by BKV putting completely gratuitous crap in there that is clearly just for shock value. He's basically just waving his dick in the reader's face in my opinion.

I decided to revive this thread because it once again won multiple Eisners. Best writer, best artist (or whatever) and best continuing series. With the books that are coming out right now, I don't get this. I'll give you Fiona Staple (maybe) as her art is awesome. But could someone please explain to me what it is that Saga does that is deserving of an Eisner? I thought the Eisner award was to honor creators and books that do something that elevates the sequential art form. In what way does Saga do things that highlight the strength of the sequential art form? I remember erwinrafael showed a bunch of Aja's work on Hawkeye that showed why he thought it was great sequential art storytelling. I agreed with his argument. I don't see any of that in Saga. It really seems to me that it wins these awards due solely to its popularity.

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I don't see what all the fuss is about (I do agree Staples is awesome, though). There are a dozen better books on the shelf this days.

[Chiclo]

The new guy makes a good point. I agree with him, as wrong as that feels.

[lorddunlow]

The new guy makes a good point. I agree with him, as wrong as that feels.

[grendeljd]

The new guy makes a good point. I agree with him, as wrong as that feels.

Hey, don't be so hard on him - as of this posting he just passed his first 100 posts! We should celebrate that in the Milestone Posts thread.

[erwinrafael]

Ooops. Is the Sex Criminals image too racy for this board?

[erwinrafael]

I decided to revive this thread because it once again won multiple Eisners. Best writer, best artist (or whatever) and best continuing series. With the books that are coming out right now, I don't get this. I'll give you Fiona Staple (maybe) as her art is awesome. But could someone please explain to me what it is that Saga does that is deserving of an Eisner? I thought the Eisner award was to honor creators and books that do something that elevates the sequential art form. In what way does Saga do things that highlight the strength of the sequential art form? I remember erwinrafael showed a bunch of Aja's work on Hawkeye that showed why he thought it was great sequential art storytelling. I agreed with his argument. I don't see any of that in Saga. It really seems to me that it wins these awards due solely to its popularity.

I'm actually very happy that the Pizza Dog issue won the best single issue in this year's Eisners. Hawkeye, as a series, though, does not have a chance of winning because the quality was just uneven because of the lack of the Aja issues.

Back to Saga. While it seemingly does not push the boundaries of comic book storytelling as, for example, Fraction and Aja's Hawkeye does, I can sort of understand how people could feel that it deserves an Eisner. It utilizes the comic book medium to push forward imaginative universe-building ideas. The kind of story that Saga is telling, in my opinion, is something that can be told only in comic books, because it needs the visuals to realize the world that Vaughan is imagining. It's has the imaginative scale of Prophet, in terms of world-building, but with better characters as Vaughan has created a really good and captivating cast in this series.

In terms of technique, Saga is not really innovative, but it does use the potential of the medium. One thing I particularly like is how there are a lot of meta-commentary on the silliness of the concept that is conveyed through both the visuals and Vaughan's narration. Here are some examples:



Amazing one-liner, and the repetition in the image really made the deadpan humor effective. Hahaha



The irony between the visuals and the words is really funny. "no killing" is uttered by the guy with devil horns holding the sword and in a fight stance, while "no promises" is uttered by the girl with angel wings who is holding a baby. (and I love the design of the characters in Saga. it's like mocking us "hey, we look like Star Wars, but we know it, and our hero's head has a Princess Leia-vibe, F*ck you very much!")

And as a final example, this:



Vaughan and Staples are playing with seriousness and the absurdity here. The 3x3 panel grid is seemingly lending gravitas (it's the Watchmen panel layout after all) to the inquisition-type questioning, but the character design and the facial expressions (for lack of a better term) make the reader feel uneasy over taking this seriously. And the characters seem aware about it, with meta-comments from the Moonie like "machine head" and "*SQUEE* heads", and then the ultimate self-referential comedic punchline with the last panel where Prince Robot IV goes old-school "TSSSSSSSSSS." After reading that page, i don't know whether I should laugh or I should clap because I have not read anything like it, it's so awesome.

Only in comic books. Which is why Saga IS considered Eisner-worthy from the standpoint of advancing the craft.

That said, it was not my bet to win series of the year. I was hoping it would be Sex Criminals.

[Aram]

From conversations I've had over the last 2 years, I'd have to say Saga has done more to bring in new comic readers, especially Female readers, than any other title at least in my area. That to me is deserving of an Eisner.

[The Dirt Gang]

erwinrafael - thanks for all your posts about sequential storytelling. I feel like I've learned a lot about the medium from them and have a new found appreciation for different artist.

lorddunlow - I agree with you somewhat. I've only read the first volume of Saga and like it quite a bit. It has some great world building and I do like the characters, however, I do feel like Vaughn is "waving his dick in the reader's face". I think there are a lot of clever bits in the series but I'm not necessarily a fan of all the referencing and I do feel he has some unrealistic dialogue and that is used for "shock" value. Side note: I prefer Prophet's world building as it feels completely originally where as Saga is clearly referencing a lot of past literature and media.

And Fiona Staples rocks!

[X-O HoboJoe]

"Watchmen panel layout"?

[erwinrafael]

"Watchmen panel layout"?

The 3x3 grid indeed is not an Alan Moore invention, but it became associated with him after he used it extensively in his books, most popularly, in Watchmen. Type "watchmen panel layout" in google and you would see that the nine panel grid would be the first to show up. type "nine panel grid layout comics" and watchmen would pop up.

[X-O HoboJoe]

"Watchmen panel layout"?

The 3x3 grid indeed is not an Alan Moore invention, but it became associated with him after he used it extensively in his books, most popularly, in Watchmen. Type "watchmen panel layout" in google and you would see that the nine panel grid would be the first to show up. type "nine panel grid layout comics" and watchmen would pop up.

9 and 6 panel page layout were the industry standard from the mid-30's well into the early 50's. Identifying them with Alan Moore or Watchmen is missing the reference: They used that in Watchmen for the sake of alluding to the "old-style." The arguement you've presented is akin to someone attributing "Sound and Fury" or "For Whom the Bell Tolls" to someone other than Shakespeare and missing the deeper context. The cool thing about this is there's a lot of wonderful stuff you might not have been exposed to yet waiting for your discovery and enjoyment.


Especially the EC stuff! If you haven't, do it now!

[erwinrafael]

"Watchmen panel layout"?

The 3x3 grid indeed is not an Alan Moore invention, but it became associated with him after he used it extensively in his books, most popularly, in Watchmen. Type "watchmen panel layout" in google and you would see that the nine panel grid would be the first to show up. type "nine panel grid layout comics" and watchmen would pop up.

9 and 6 panel page layout were the industry standard from the mid-30's well into the early 50's. Identifying them with Alan Moore or Watchmen is missing the reference: They used that in Watchmen for the sake of alluding to the "old-style." The arguement you've presented is akin to someone attributing "Sound and Fury" or "For Whom the Bell Tolls" to someone other than Shakespeare and missing the deeper context. The cool thing about this is there's a lot of wonderful stuff you might not have been exposed to yet waiting for your discovery and enjoyment.


Especially the EC stuff! If you haven't, do it now!

Errr...I know about that.

I know that the panel layouts were used in the 1930 and 1950s but I only used Alan Moore as a reference because that panel layout is now associated with his works. I think my post would come off as more of a snob if I reference some obscure 1950s comic book history to describe the panel layout.

Also, the 3x3 page were the industry standard back in the decades you mentioned, but this was brought about mainly because they were patterned after comic strips run in daily newspapers, which have 3 panels in one strip. Moore and Gibbons, though, used the 3x3 grid for a different effect because the grid was used deliberately to create pacing, a monotone, so that changes in pace become highlighted when the monotony was broken with a change in the panel layout. in a way, their use of that grid in Watchmen has influenced contemporary storytellers to use the grid to convey a serious and deliberate pace. A recent example is Hawkeye #13 where David Aja used the 3x3 grid in all the pages to create a very somber atmosphere in telling a story of a tragic depressing death.

And yes, I think Staples and Vaughan used the 3x3 grid in the example I provided above, not in the spirit of conventional storytelling as the old EC comics that you referred to, but for a deliberate storytelling purpose of pacing a back and forth conversation.

[X-O HoboJoe]

"Watchmen panel layout"?

The 3x3 grid indeed is not an Alan Moore invention, but it became associated with him after he used it extensively in his books, most popularly, in Watchmen. Type "watchmen panel layout" in google and you would see that the nine panel grid would be the first to show up. type "nine panel grid layout comics" and watchmen would pop up.

9 and 6 panel page layout were the industry standard from the mid-30's well into the early 50's. Identifying them with Alan Moore or Watchmen is missing the reference: They used that in Watchmen for the sake of alluding to the "old-style." The arguement you've presented is akin to someone attributing "Sound and Fury" or "For Whom the Bell Tolls" to someone other than Shakespeare and missing the deeper context. The cool thing about this is there's a lot of wonderful stuff you might not have been exposed to yet waiting for your discovery and enjoyment.


Especially the EC stuff! If you haven't, do it now!

Errr...I know about that.

I know that the panel layouts were used in the 1930 and 1950s but I only used Alan Moore as a reference because that panel layout is now associated with his works. I think my post would come off as more of a snob if I reference some obscure 1950s comic book history to describe the panel layout.

Also, the 3x3 page were the industry standard back in the decades you mentioned, but this was brought about mainly because they were patterned after comic strips run in daily newspapers, which have 3 panels in one strip. Moore and Gibbons, though, used the 3x3 grid for a different effect because the grid was used deliberately to create pacing, a monotone, so that changes in pace become highlighted when the monotony was broken with a change in the panel layout. in a way, their use of that grid in Watchmen has influenced contemporary storytellers to use the grid to convey a serious and deliberate pace. A recent example is Hawkeye #13 where David Aja used the 3x3 grid in all the pages to create a very somber atmosphere in telling a story of a tragic depressing death.

And yes, I think Staples and Vaughan used the 3x3 grid in the example I provided above, not in the spirit of conventional storytelling as the old EC comics that you referred to, but for a deliberate storytelling purpose of pacing a back and forth conversation.

3 panel strips were the syndicate standard for daily newspaper strips, not comic-books; the first comics were pages of 3 daily reprints stacked, so when new content began to be published, the 9 panel (what you're now calling 3x3) was used as the standard, enough that pre-printed 9 panel boarders with set bleed were given to early GA artists to work on. It's amazing to watch how fast and in how many different directions sequential format evolved from the mid-1930's reprint books that were basically the cheapest thing you could print and stuff around the illegal alcohol to trick law enforcement to where it went by the time Wm. Gaines took over EC. The Centaur books, the cross-over of folks like Eisner and Lou Fine from the Sunday tabloid strips . . . The publishers wanted cheap; the creators wanted Windsor McKay -- A tug-of-war that still exists in some form to the present.

Using the layout as a method of story pacing is, again, far older than Watchmen. The aforementioned Wil Eisner started doing it in the late 30's/early 40's (and breaking out of the 9 panel due to his working on the full page Sunday strips). Frequency of image skews time for the reader like perspective skews space and there are many more examples of how to manipulate both. IMO the 9 panel back-and-forth conversation is a fair approximation of film or TV and may draw more influence from and attempt to translate that medium than any other. There are much older examples, but the one that always jumps out at me is Miller using talking heads on TV screens like mini, broken-up 9 panel page overlays of the main story in Dark Knight Returns to give just enough to push the story forward and make the reader fill in the blanks. You mentioned Aja -- He's one that works on the master level of storytelling like Miller used to (IMO).

Good discussion! I love digging into this subject and hope to continue it. Really interested to hear your thoughts on the results of the Wertham/SOTI incident.

[The Dirt Gang]

Good discussion! I love digging into this subject and hope to continue it.

+1