To paraphase:

"If you like books that aren't good, you obviously don't respect yourself."

Which can be logically rearranged into:

"If you like books that aren't good, you are flawed as a person."

Which basically means:

"It is possible for me to judge an individual's value as a human being based in large part on how I judge the quality of their taste in entertainment."

I love how it's the self-proclaimed Internet Smart Guys who fall into this sort of rubbish thinking, too. God forbid someone should disagree or have different ideas of what's good. And there's certainly to be no debate or disagreement in the comments!!

My fault then.
Would have been nice for you to clarify in your first response, but I admit I misread it.

"Again, not what I’m saying. It’s not an argument of one being inherently better than the other.

You can’t call something trash and, at the same time, claim you don’t understand how it could be considered bad. You just called it GARBAGE."

I disagree - as 'trash' is a term used differently when discussing pop culture/art.

Continuing my example of Dusk Till Dawn - yes it's a vampire film that disposes of plot halfway through - qualifying it as trash cinema - but it is very well shot and edited, the acting is great, and it has top sense of fun about it.
It's a film where I do have trouble understanding when someone says they don't enjoy it.

"No, it’s my stock response whenever anyone defends a comic for being mediocre, for being “not that bad”, or for being “decent enough”. It’s just really pathetic to me to see people have such little respect for themselves as an audience."

Or perhaps they just wanted a fun diversion from life for a little while and that's what a certain book gave them?
It may not have been high art, or the best they've read, but it had enough of what they like to keep them happy.
What's wrong with that?

"I really don’t care if you think I’m a snob. I’m sorry that it offends you when I don’t settle for comics that are just “okay”. I want comics that are good."

OK is a positive term though.

I don't thinks he's offended by you not liking them, more your habit of telling people off when they say they like them.

"If that seems like a stock response, maybe that’s because it’s the name of the blog. Am I a snob for holding the bloggers to the standard set by their own blog?"

Nothing wrong with that - but you try to hold people in the comments section to that standard, and they aren't the bloggers.

Wow, that’s the first time I’ve ever seen Perez’s style characterized as “too modern.”

When you get to my age, sonny, everything past 1978 or so seems 'modern.' I guess after thirty years I should stop classifying George Perez as "that kid who was on Avengers and revived the Titans," he's a revered old industry figure now. I still think of him as one of the new guys, though. It's all in your frame of reference.

I suppose I should define my terms a little better. By "modern" what I mean is this thing of treating the page as a symmetrical stained-glass window, making the panel design an art element in itself. Perez is one of the worst offenders with this. They think of the design and then fill in the blanks with art, as opposed to leading the eye from the top left to the lower right with the necessary plot points getting maximum impact. Perez and a lot of his imitators tend to design the pages from just top to bottom as opposed to top-left to lower-right. They leave a lot of real estate unused, or rather they use it for frilly decorations or useless background.

What it really does as an end result for the reading experience is slow the eye down. That's where that 'static' complaint of Joe's is coming from. It's too symmetrical. The more off-balance a page layout is, particularly the more the artist weights it in the lower right corner where your instinct as a reader is leading you anyway, the more dynamic and urgent it feels.

If Waid's script had been laid out THAT way -- the more traditional method, using a six or even an eight-panel grid, I think the old-school feel would have been a lot more obvious and it would have been a much more fun, retro kind of experience. I think if Darwyn Cooke had done this script, or maybe Michael Lark, or SOMEBODY that's still drawing old-school story-first page layouts as opposed to these decorated mural things, it would have been a lot more successful at what (I assume) the original objective was, to evoke the old hell-for-leather Haney/Aparo B&B feel. Look at what Waid wrote and compare it to Haney's scripts -- the story beats are almost a perfect match. Weird mystery, heroes meet, quick character exposition, fight, fish-out-of-water/offbeat setting, bigger fight.

Understand that when I outline these things I am not being all snooty and perjorative. The argument's about what constitutes 'good trash.' My feeling is that Waid delivered a classic 'good trash' B&B script and then and Perez let him down.

It’s just really pathetic to me to see people have such little respect for themselves as an audience.

And you decided that how, exactly? Quality is only one of many aspects of an artistic work that elicits response. If it's good, yeah, there's more to respond to, but if it's not, that doesn't mean it can't be legitimately enjoyed on some level.

I realise as a lurker (whose familiarity with comic goodness doesn't extend much past Spider-Man and the X-Men tv series) I don't have much right to speak here.
But I really do enjoy reading the various comment threads, and my heart just sinks whenever a great discussion is interrupted by the 'we can't enjoy it because it's not good' mantra. Isn't being fun a fairly vital component of comic goodness?

No, it's my stock response whenever anyone defends a comic for being mediocre, for being "not that bad", or for being "decent enough". It's just really pathetic to me to see people have such little respect for themselves as an audience.

I really don't care if you think I'm a snob. I'm sorry that it offends you when I don't settle for comics that are just "okay". I want comics that are good. If that seems like a stock response, maybe that's because it's the name of the blog. Am I a snob for holding the bloggers to the standard set by their own blog?

Again, not what I'm saying. It's not an argument of one being inherently better than the other.

You can't call something trash and, at the same time, claim you don't understand how it could be considered bad. You just called it GARBAGE.

Cinema and Porn are two different things - If a porn did make great cinema, than it failed in what it set out to acheive."

Yeah, you did, because that wasn't my analogy. My whole point was that they are two different things.

The hell of it is I can't think of a modern equivalent of Jim Aparo who'd be a good fit for this. But that's what the book needs.

With that said, I'll get into a bit more specific discussion of what I did like about B&B. (The writing. I never feel like I'm really qualified to discuss art, much in the same way that fish don't discuss meteorology.)

The "hook" is spectacular, one of the all-time greats. The corpse in space is such a brilliant, incongrous murder mystery that I'd think you could do a whole anthology based on giving writers that hook and letting them run with it. The way it ties into Batman, getting him (and potentially other heroes) involved is also quite clever. (And while you complain about the characterization in the Vegas scenes, the dialogue here brings out Hal and Bruce quite well, I thought, without hammering it into the reader's face.)

The fight scene was less thrilling, but I think that it might work better in re-reads, and from a pacing stand-point, I have to approve. It throws out a) the idea that villains are watching Batman and Green Lantern, and b) lots of hints about the villains' modus operandi and motivations. That's a lot of stuff to put in one fight sequence, and I think that since we don't know what's being hinted at, it came off as more confusing than entertaining. I'm willing to reserve judgement until I find out what's going on (mainly because I loved that hook.) It does suffer, though, from a seeming lack of motive on the part of the villains; why are they attacking then and there, apart from wanting to get a quick fight scene in?

The Vegas scenes--the characterization was sketched quickly, yes, but I don't think that's so much a fault as an operational limitation; Waid is trying to keep the plot moving, and really only needs to put in a few reminders/refreshers on how these characters think and operate. Anything longer would take time away from the plot...I hesitate here to slam other writers, but I do think a flaw of modern comics is that they frequently pause the plot for "character moments", which add depth at the expense of pacing. I'm a pacing Nazi, so that might be why "one-note" characterization in a fast-moving plot is good for me, and bad for you. (Like Sutekh, "Your evil is my good." Ooh, Doctor Who moment!)

The re-use of Roulette is something I'm not a fan of, just because I'd like to see more new villains and less recycling of the back catalog, but at least she's a villain that hasn't suffered from over-use, and Waid makes sure to familiarize new readers with her backstory well. (I'm also an exposition Nazi as well as a pacing Nazi.) The second villain attack works much better than the first, as we're already familiar with their M.O. and it seems much more motivated than the first.

The Book of Destiny, while absolute nerd porn, is a great MacGuffin once you think about it. What villain wouldn't want to get ahold of a book that tells the future? (Actually, any sane one--the Book of Destiny has always been portrayed as showing an unalterable truth; it's useless if you read about your future, since you can't change it. Drive you crazy just thinking about that.) But by that same token, the revelation that the Book says Batman's going to lose and the Book is never wrong is a good cliffhanger, without having to be purely physical.

So, for anyone who managed to keep reading to the end of this, a more specific, concrete, and less simply, "Gee, _I_ liked it!" version of why I think you were harsh on the Brave and the Bold. Bet you regret asking now, huh?

"Check the name of the blog. “Comics Should Be Good”. Not “It’s No Big Deal if Comics are Mediocre, because There’s Lots of Mediocre Art and This Wasn’t Even Trying to Be Good in the First Place”. "

This does seem to be your stock response whenever anyone defends a comic for being entertaining and diverting. I don't consider it a sin that a comic is escapist fun rather than High Art, and I find no small degree of snobbishness in your constant insistence that finding entertainment in pop comics written for the sole purpose of entertainment is somehow "unworthy of the medium". There are different kinds of "good." Is 'Brave and the Bold' #1 the same kind of "good" as 'Sandman' #1? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean that all comics have to aspire to being the next Great Work, anymore than it means that 'Terminator' is bad because it's nothing like 'Remains of the Day'.

Actually his biggest weakness is hair (especially curly hair). Even when I really like Perez's art, I usally dislike the hair.

"Well, I hate to break it to you, but it sounds like you already do. You’re the one who’s calling it trash."

What's wrong with trash entertainment?
Dusk Till Dawn is trash, but it's more entertaining (and better made) than a lot of other films that came out in the same year.
The upcoming Grindhouse is garunteed to be trash, but I'm looking forward to it more than any other film due out this year.

No I didn't - I think your analogy was faulty.

Cinema and Porn are two different things - If a porn did make great cinema, than it failed in what it set out to acheive.

for an issue with some extremely intruiging cover of buddy on it, we sure did get a lot of....black adam and the marvels going through the motions. yes, yes, you all hate each other, blah blah punch etc. yawn.

animal man, however? he got what, 3 pages? and the final page with him on didn't even feel like a "to be contnued, kids!" page...it just ended out of nowhere. i had to double check that there weren't pages stuck together or something.

Now I'm off to kick a puppy or something.

Oh and by the way, I totally agreed with you about this week's 52. Very disappointing. Though I thought it was fun how those aliens gave Animal Man a tune-up.