Why are old comics so charming?
>>152143293Because they don't pretend to be something they are not. Writers now just can't think the right way in terms of comic storytelling, they write as if for a TV show and they also can't plot fighting scenes. Also they are shitty writers overall
>>152143293because they were made with SOVL
>>152143293You cut them some slack because you can tell what they were during that era. There's a genuineness to it all, a fun and inventive spark so that dark moments hit but weren't all there was to it. The true heart of the story was still positive and that lights you up in turn because of how hard times might be for you.Nobody is out there reading Ultimate Fantastic Four to escape the world. Ben Grimm going to a baseball game with his blind girlfriend? That's the stuff
>>152143293The art was solid (kinetic poses, bold inks, and flat coloring) and the words were bombastic. This combination gives it a quaint feel when you read them.>>152143468>Because they don't pretend to be something they are not. Not quite. Sometimes, Stan Lee comics would boast their supremacy (e.g. "The World's Greatest Comic Magazine!").While today's storytellers are no good, these guys weren't that great at it either. They had the usual problem of stating in words what could be/is shown in the art. It was primitive.
>>152143293They had fun with what they were doing.And they were not made by people who are considering themselves only slumming it until they can springboard to a tv/film writing or production gig.
It was mostly aimed at kids and full of bonkers over-the-top clichés cranked out on an assembly line by top-of-the-line professional stylists. It's like pro wrestling for the semi-literate.Simplicity of content enlivened by sophistication of technique.
>>152144460>They had fun with what they were doing.It was more like they took their job seriously.
It depends. Sometimes they're stupid in the right ways, and sometimes they're just stupid.
>>15214329320th century entertainment for 8-12 year old boys was written at a higher level than modern entertainment that’s ostensibly for adults.Things have regressed in other ways too. I listened to some episodes of The Green Hornet and they actually did montages in audio form with a complexity you don’t hear in audio drama today. The expectation was that a kid could follow that. These shows were cereal commercials for children.
>>152144815And had fun while doing it.
>>152145384Maybe some of them, sometimes.
>>152145399That’s more than any modern writer has done.
>>152145404It's probably the same today. The difference is the ones today aren't as talented and the rest have pure disdain for the genre and audience instead of taking the job seriously.
>>152143293Because they're corny and melodramatic.
>>152143293They could make up new guys at will and people loved it. If nobody liked the dude, they were gone or sent to the Avengers. Today they throw the same dirty piece of spaghetti against the wall over and over again and you get a book with seven relaunches They (Marvel at least) weren't held down by decades of continuity or the sliding timescale. Again, with Marvel there was actual change, not the illusion of change. reed and Sue got married, Spider-Man graduated from high school. Cap adjusted to life in the 60's-70's. Rick Jones went from a ham radio operator or some shit to a professional sidekick and so on.
>>152145816>They (Marvel at least) weren't held down by decades of continuity or the sliding timescale. Again, with Marvel there was actual change, not the illusion of change.It is interesting going back to the first decade or so of Marvel and seeing it was moving practically in real-time, that seemed to slow down by the time Stan was no longer directly working on the books and Jack Kirby had left.
>>152143293They're unapologetically hammy and the art was spectacular. When it's done parodically, it's not as charming. I really hate it when they try these days. It just comes out unfunny and phony. While my favorite comics came out in the 80s, they lacked a lot of this charm.
