web stats

CSBG Archive

Would Mark Waid’s Daredevil Just be an Average Superhero Comic Book Back in the Old Days?

1 2 3 4 5 6
« Previous Next »

The first story, “Rock Around the Cosmos” has a very clever idea by Roy Thomas (the issue was written by Gerry Conway based on the Thomas idea), which is that after a battle against a bad guy, the Shaper of Worlds shows up and mistakes one of the bad guy’s henchmen for somebody that the Shaper should give a crap about (due to the henchmen being close to the energy given off by the bad guy’s son, who was ACTUALLY an interesting fellow).

So imagine the world being re-shaped by a no-good moron. Pretty interesting concept, right? The henchmen’s basic idea was to have the world go back in time to the 1950s, albeit a twisted version of the 1950s…

From the Wild Ones above to a twisted take on Joe McCarthy below…

Including an “of the times” treatment of black people (are we sure that this isn’t Rogue’s dream world?).

John Buscema and Joe Sinnott (Buscema doing breakdowns, Sinnott doing finishes and then inks) do a good job with the heavily Kirby-esque designs of the people in the 1950s world.

In the following issue, we get some more information about what exactly is going on…

However, besides an inspired bit where the “invisible” black community decides to take matters into their own hands…

Conway really doesn’t do a whole lot with the concept that was set-up in the previous issue.

Ultimately, the story ends with the Shaper of the Worlds just showing up to stop it all…

I like the “Was this all for no reason?”

“Uhm…yes and no, human…but more yes than no.”

Yep, the whole thing was just a goof-up on the Shaper’s part. Oopsies!

I also dig that the FF are cool with the Shaper just taking the kid and going off with him. Plus, you have to love Thing’s views on how the 1950s were better than the 1970s. “Well, you know, unless you were a minority or a woman.”

Conway takes over as the full-time plotter and scripter next issue for a pretty forgettable introduction to a story where the old Fantastic Four villain Miracle Man shows up, only now instead of having the ILLUSION of having great powers, he actually DOES have great powers thanks to scamming some Native American gods. The Fantastic Four run afoul of him when they are with Wyatt Wingfoot and his people celebrating Wyatt’s graduation from college.

While the issue is pretty forgettable as a whole, there is one page that was so over-the-top that I figured I had to share. It was showing Alicia Masters’ worry over the Thing contrasted with Mister Fantastic’s problems with the fact that Sue is still out of his life (this was during a point in time when Reed and Sue were separated)…

That’s some heavy-duty captioning!

The following issue continues with a pretty “by the books” fight against Miracle Man, although I did enjoy this interesting usage of the Human Torch’s powers…

It reminded me of early FF issues where Lee and Kirby gave Johnny new applications of his power every other issue.

But otherwise, the rest of the issue was pretty bland, although with some nice Buscema/Sinnott artwork…

And then, just like the last storyline, the issue abruptly ends when a powerful force just decides to end it…

Kind of weird to have back-to-back stories end in the same fashion.

The final issue in this little run is a story that involves Annihilus. First, Sue tries to reach Reed after something is seemingly going wrong with their son. Something interrupts her phone call and Reed freaks out. Medusa then hilariously brains Reed with a wrench…

What the what?!

Anyhow, before Sue can reach the FF, Annihilus shows up!

We then get the origin of Annihlus, and amusingly enough, it is also “some powerful being just showed up and I got to become powerful”…

A whole lot of “a wizard did it!” in these FF issues.

Not a great quintet of issues.

On the next page, we take a look at Iron Man #60-64!

1 2 3 4 5 6
« Previous Next »

93 Comments

Steve Gerber DD aw yeah

But yes, people tend to overrate old things they grew up and have nostalgia for. EVERYTHING was better back in the old days is an easy often used shorthand, but it wasn’t all Claremont/Byrne X-Men and Simonson’s Thor. They are the exceptions, because they were exceptional comic books. The average superhero book was just that, the vast majority of them, were just that, average.

Waid/Samnee/Rodriguez deserves to be in that exceptional category. These are great, well-crafted superhero comic books created by Eisner award winning masters of their medium. Let’s give props where props are due.

Stiltman’s crotch cannon is amazing.

I could be completely wrong on this, but reading that courthouse issue of DD made me think the female cop could be a potential new supporting character/potential new love interest. I have no idea why – a reread might change my mind.

You guys don’t go far back enough. DD was drawn by some of the greatest comic artists that ever put ink to pen, to paper: Wally Wood, Gene Colan, Frank Miller, some Jack Kirby and some John Romita Sr, and of course, Bill Everett. I don’t think anyone could match that crew. What doesn’t help is the modern printing process. In the early days of Dare Devil, computers weren’t part of the printing process and the colours were much deeper and richer than they are today.

Waid’s Daredevil gets criticized?I can’t stand Waid’s Daredevil but I hardly ever hear it get criticized.

Waid’s Daredevil is spectacular, but I think that your examples of “average” 70s comics serve to show that average comics today are rather worse. Even if a lot of the dialogue is dated in those old issues, just by virtue of having an “anti-lunar league,” that one issue of Action is better than any issue of Action or Superman published in the last five years.

Anonymous: I like Waid’s DD quite a bit, but I did “criticize” it in the exact same way that Brian mentions. He could have called me out by name – I don’t mind.

Ooh, neat feature.

I haven’t gotten the chance to read the other things, but it looks like an interesting compare/contrast.

One thing that I like about Waid’s work is that he (usually cleverly) works in an intro to who’s who and lets new readers in on what’s going on. As a new reader that started with Flash 92, this was extremely helpful and definitely made me a fan. It’s also possibly why his work is thought of as “old school”. Perish the notion that you bring new readers up to speed!

And I was totally going to ask you this some time, but who’s the “agent” there with Foggy? I can’t quite place that guy.

How did Bullseye hear DD if he’s deaf?

I think it’s an average comic in today’s day.

Schmaltzy cancer sub-plots and leftist-paranoid villains (white supremacists!). The art is nice, but I feel like it’s niche is that it took a usually grim-gritty super-hero and turned him into a Silver-Age DC Hero, which is unique today, I guess.

@Travis Pelkie

DD’s friend Giant Man.

I have some of those old Superman issues, and they really help me appreciate what Byrne did for Superman.

I also have the FF issue that wraps up the Shaper story. It is 100% awesome.

As for Waid’s Daredevil, it and Uncanny Avengers (and Haunted Horror) are my favorite books right now. It is a bit sad that (some of) the criticism amounts to ‘Daredevil is written like a comic from when comic’s were good, not like they are now, so it’s not really that good’

Macc, I know and know of some racists here in the NC foothills, and Slate.com just featured some pictures taken by a photographer that gained access to the KKK. White supremacists are no more out there than Hydra, AIM or Doctor Doom.

Also Daredevil was grim and gritty and street from 81-96, and then again from about 2001-2010.

I’ve always loved the name, Doctor Spectrum. I often use it as an alias on the internet, as a matter of fact.

The old comics were goofy fun, and overall were better drawn. No offense to the current Daredevil creative teams, but they would have to amp it up a bit to be equal to “average forty year old comics.” Man, everything looks a little more dim compared to Curt Swan and a few of the others … I forgot that the Superman books of that era looked that good, even if Swan *did* peak in the 60’s.

Macc, I know and know of some racists here in the NC foothills, and Slate.com just featured some pictures taken by a photographer that gained access to the KKK. White supremacists are no more out there than Hydra, AIM or Doctor Doom.

In just the last week, there’s been a pretty big court ruling about racial profiling and NYPD’s “stop-and-frisk” policy. The stats stink for themselves.

I keep meaning to read Waid’s Daredevil, and this only makes me want to read it more. Also, now I want to read Gerber’s DD and those Pasko issues of Iron Man.

Pasko wrote Superman; Friedrich wrote those Iron Man issues.

I think Waid’s Daredevil is a really good comic, that stands out all the more today because it has a Bronze Age kind of feel to it. It’s not trying too hard to be “adult” or “serious.” Plus, most issues of this comic book that stars a guy with superpowers and wears a costume actually involve him using his superpowers and wearing his costume – often to fight other superpowered people in costumes, even! (I really hated the trend that was so prevalent of Marvel in the early 2000s of trying to take everything superhero-y or comic book-y out of their superhero comics. But I digress.)

If these issues came out 30 years ago they wouldn’t necessarily seem out of place, but they would still be praised as being better than most stuff out there at the time. I think it sticks out all the more now because of the tone of the book compared to most other Big 2 books. But it’s still an exceptionally well written and drawn book. I’m not going to get into whether comics in general are better now or were better back in the day. Nostalgia colors my opinion of the older stuff too much to be really subjective about it.

@ Kindu

My mistake, I meant Tuska lol

“Try the red one.” is one of those few comic book moments that made me gasp out loud. (Actually, it was probably more of a curse than a gasp.) Such and awesome moment. The next issue with the psychological torture of DD was amazing, too.

And I have to admit I laughed out loud thinking about Tony Stark saying “You ate a whole block of cheese?”

I’m glad that you started this whole thing off by pointing out the logical fallacy in those criticisms; it’s the same logic that people who criticize modern music use. They say, “90% of what’s coming out today is garbage and back in the 70s they had Led Zeppelin, Talking Heads, Elton John, etc…” Those only stand out because everyone has been kind enough to let “Disco Duck” and “Fly Robin Fly” out of the public memory.

Waid’s Daredevil is a quality book, no way around it. It might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but month-in-month-out there are hardly any mainstream titles that consistently that innovative (in terms of art) and well-composed (in terms of writing).

You’re comparing the wrong comics. Yep, we know Daredevil is awesome and head and shoulders above most of today’s comics, and it’s definitely better than cheesy comics of the 70s. How about compare the average comics from today to the average 70s comic? Those Superman comics may be highly cheesy, but they tell fun stories that blow the crap out of most of today’s Marvel and DC line.

One thing that doesn’t get mentioned about the Steve Gerber run of Daredevil is how catastrophically it treated Black Widow. (Important to me because she’s my favorite character, insert angry emoticon here.) While Natasha comes off okay in the early parts of the run, explored here, it went downhill for her as Gerber tried more and more to write her out of things. Female guest stars like Moondragon and Shanna took up Natasha’s place in the book (which was actually titled DD & Black Widow at the time.)

She was written out for a few issues thanks to homelessness and an inability to get a job/fend for herself. (When Natasha’s previously introduced financial independence was meant to make her a feminist role-model, per the Bronze Age fascination w/ “women’s lib”, there’s something unfortunate in suddenly having her reduced to living out of her car to get her out of her own comic for a while.) Then, of course, Natasha was dealt with in another arc by being brainwashed, married off to, and possibly raped by the Mandrill. Again, though she was co-headlining the book, Natasha’s struggles here are sort of a footnote to the wider story, the sexual threat of the evil monkey-villain is something for Matt to cope with more than Natasha (even as Natasha is conquered by him).

The Mandrill’s origin is also introduced and while I think it was probably well-meaning, it’s pretty unforgivably racist. Mandrill is revealed to be a black man driven to hate by racial tension in America, but the fact that his powers mutate him into a monkey and are basically used solely for sexual coercion— and his secret origin is basically being radioactive and black— it’s just really, really awful. (I don’t know why Marvel continues to use this character, in all honesty.)

Anyway, there’s definitely enjoyable parts of the Gerber run from the non-obsessed-Black-Widow fan perspective, and even some nice stuff with Black Widow that I enjoy. (The tension over lethality being one!!) Still, I think the loveable kookiness of Gerber’s DD run in particular is exaggerated by nostalgic memory, thanks to a lot of his other, better works. Certainly the writers on DD immediately after him, Claremont and Tony Isabella, pointed out just how diminished Natasha had become under Gerber. I realize this is a bit of a tangent, and a long one at that, but I think any time we explore the nostalgia for the bygone days of comics, which I have a lot of fondness for even as a newer reader in my 20s, it’s also worth saying something about the treatment of women and race and how that’s evolved in the decades since. I’d like to believe that Marvel of today would think twice before publishing a story where the titular heroine is so casually “married off” to an evil rapist monkey, but, maybe not. (They did reprint that story in the Women of Marvel omnibus, after all.)

Waid sure did a great job picking rather crappy comics to compare his DD run to.

But he has not written anything in DD as awesome as Superman defeating an evil cowboy by kicking his boot at him!
That has to be one of the greatest thing I’ve ever seen!

That said, while it’s been on and off in my enjoyment of Waid’s DD run overall, the Ikari story arc is probably my favorite comic of the year so far.

I’ll agree with what Brian (the Brian in the comments section) said. I haven’t read Waid’s DD yet, but I really want to, and plan to soon. However, just from what I’ve seen of it, I think it’s fairly safe to say that it’s an exceptional comic by today’s standards, no? It’s regarded as one of the best, if not the best, superhero comic book being published today. It seems to be similar in *tone* to “average” comics from 1973, or 1983, or points in-between and thereabouts.
The “average” comic book when I was a kid in the early ’90s (I’m 28), the ones I’m supposed to feel nostalgic for, sucked. I didn’t like them then,I don’t like them now. Again, “average.”I couldn’t stand most of the Image titles that were big then, but liked “The Maxx” a lot when Rob Liefeld was really, really popular. I’m mostly nostalgic for the comics I read as a kid that were published before I was born, or before I was old enough to read them. I don’t see saying “Waid’s ‘Daredevil’ would be an average comic book in the bronze age” is a criticism of *that* book, but of the shitty era of superhero comics we’ve been in for so long now. It’s a lament, saying this book that stands out as excellent and exceptional today would’ve fit right in not *that* long ago. The “good old days” certainly includes the early ’80s, and I’ll be goddamned if the early ’80s is old, with a bit of perspective. But, whatever, “The Wire” is the greatest television show of all time, and who the fuck is Frank Pembleton?

I can’t speak to the 70s books. A bit before my time. If you compared them to the 80s comics and some 90s then I can offer comment!

Anyway, I really think Waid’s DD is average. There is obvious effort and you see some intelligent scripting from time to time. However, that’s about it. DD is a bit limited in his abilities so he is that ‘street’ level superhero. A lot of Waid’s DD feels like stuff by Miller and others in the 80’s. The ideas and feel are not totally fresh or groundbreaking. I’ve read some of Waid’s DD but hardly worth buying.

Also, I agree with many here, you don’t hear too much about Waid’s DD. It’s pretty meh. Some bloggers may like it (well, the ones here but I can’t help but feel they might have some motivation to provide positive reviews for Marvel books or Marvel may ‘cut them off’ so to speak). To me, this version of DD is kinda dull and uninteresting.

Yes, Waids DD is indeed overrated. Its still a good book and I look forward to it every time, but it is not the industry defining book as most people make it out to be. To be honest, compared to Bendis’ DD run it is pretty much a step down in quality.

I don’t think Bullseye heard DD i think he has become adept at reading lips over the years. He was left with vision right? Can’t remember

One point that I think you miss is that most of the “would just have been an average comic back in the day” claims are actually comparisons based on style rather than quality.

I do agree though that it wouldn’t have stood out (as much) in the 80s when there were (almost objectively) far more quality books on the shelves. But against the 70s, which was a relatively lame period for superhero titles? Sure.

Someone’s research of New Zealand was…well, lets just say ‘lacking’.

i have been re-reading a lot of Waid’s comics recently, and will sell all of em.

It’s his preachy narrative i cant stand. (Kingdom Come) Also his portrayal of women and kids as untouchable angels is really annoying. (Fantastic Four, Flash)

and Superman sucked in the 70ies. (even the hyped “Sandman Saga” reads not good today)

I think the only time I ever found Superman readable was when Marv Wolfman was writing him back just before Crisis on Infinite Earth. The revamped Lex Luthor and Brainiac, the Lord Satanus saga etc. Before that, and based on these examples the comic was pretty woeful.

Anyone who thinks Superman fighting a super powered Moa, and the Lunar League, is better than any Superman comic written in the last 5 or 10yrs needs to either have their head examined or should be passing around whatever they’re smoking. Those 70s Superman comics are crap.

It’s weird that you say Curt Swan’s art isn’t at its best because it feels like he’s fuckin’ killin’ it in these issues.

I’ve been reading much of the runs mentioned on this website in chronological order. Stan Lee’s Marvel contributions especially early on, Stan Lee Spider-Man, FF, and Dr. Strange, Steranko’s Nick Fury, Thomas’s Avengers, Englehart’s Captain America, Avengers, and Dr. Strange, Gerber’s Defenders. Now I am on Claremont’s X-Men and Iron Fist.

Stan Lee had good ideas but he was NOT a good writer. Same for Thomas. Gerber’s Defenders and Steranko’s Nick Fury were fun. Engelhart’s Captain America and Avengers was enjoyable but was all over-the-place which made the storylines very clunky.

Reading Claremont and Byrne’s stuff really makes me appreciate comics. One thing in particular that I have seen was their hinting at things in the storylines for plot buildup without taking us away from the current story. The quality of comics those guys made were miles ahead of anything from before. It has really made me excited for the next runs in the reading list!

The Mandrill’s origin is also introduced and while I think it was probably well-meaning, it’s pretty unforgivably racist. Mandrill is revealed to be a black man driven to hate by racial tension in America, but the fact that his powers mutate him into a monkey and are basically used solely for sexual coercion— and his secret origin is basically being radioactive and black— it’s just really, really awful. (I don’t know why Marvel continues to use this character, in all honesty.)

Reread the origin a little ore carefully: the Mandrill is ethnically white, actually; it’s Nekra, the chalk-skinned hate-monger, who is ethnicaly African-American. Gerber is playing with stereotype inversion here.

It’s weird that you say Curt Swan’s art isn’t at its best because it feels like he’s fuckin’ killin’ it in these issues.

That’s how great Swan’s best was. I agree that this stuff is good, but when you see his earlier work it is even better.

I like Waid’s DD quite a bit, but I did “criticize” it in the exact same way that Brian mentions. He could have called me out by name – I don’t mind.

It is a more common criticism than just you. It wouldn’t be much fun if it was just one guy saying it! :)

Also, I agree with many here, you don’t hear too much about Waid’s DD. It’s pretty meh. Some bloggers may like it (well, the ones here but I can’t help but feel they might have some motivation to provide positive reviews for Marvel books or Marvel may ‘cut them off’ so to speak). To me, this version of DD is kinda dull and uninteresting.

True, it’s not like it won the Eisner Award for Best Continuing Series or anything like that. Or the Eisner Award for Best Writer. Or the Eisner Award for Best Penciler. Most likely just some bloggers like it, but even then only because they feel like they have to.

This has been said before, but having read a few of the DD trades my take on it is the same as Kim Thompson’s take on American Flagg back in the day. Namely, it attains a level of mediocrity that all comics should aspire to. By this I mean that it’s a consistently well crafted genre comic. If it were really at the middle of the bell curve, with 50% of comics being worse and 50% being better, we’d be really well off. The sad fact of the matter is that it’s actually better drawn and better written (and given the synergy between Waid and Samnee the distinction between writing and drawing seems sort of beside the point) than at least 75% of the comics out there, and it ranks higher if you only compare it to non-big-two superhero stuff.
So to paraphrase Tucker Stone paraphrasing Kim Thompson, we need more good crap like Waid and Samnee’s Daredevil.

I think what people may be stuck on is that Waid’s take on DD is a return to his swashbuckling, crimefighting roots and gets away from the Frank Miller approach – gritty, grim and brutal. Frankly, it’s a move that was long overdue. As good as Miller’s take was back in the day, it’s been done and done and overdone for the last two decades.

That being said, I think that Waid has crafted a very witty, entertaining book. The fact that he has taken such a u-turn in the approach to DD while not ignoring what came before is kind of amazing. The stories are outstanding and the artwork has really been very complimentary to this approach.

Waid’s DD is not that different from Miller’s. It might seem that way comparatively speaking because it’s the first run in 30 years to even make an attempt to be even slightly different. Everyone else has just been rewriting Miller’s style (and in some cases even his actual stories).

some stupid japanese name

August 16, 2013 at 7:50 am

Can someone compare the Waid/Samnee run to the Kesel/Nord run?
I could swear a lot of the same sentiment I am seeing right now was espoused 17 years ago when that run began.
It’s giving me crazy deja vu.

Screw the naysayers, this book deserves to be Eisner material based on these samples alone. Waid has more plot twists up his sleeve than a pretzel factory.

That one panel where Benson smirks at Matt just as the elevator doors close sent a freaking CHILL up my spine! I honestly did NOT see that one coming.

That one panel where Benson smirks at Matt just as the elevator doors close sent a freaking CHILL up my spine! I honestly did NOT see that one coming.

Right? So unbelievably awesome.

@Macc,Mean Gene.I couldn’t agree more.Personally,I look forward to the day Waid leaves Daredevil.I actually think Karl Kessel and Joe Kelly told better swashbuckling stories of DD than Mark Waid.

Brian Cronin absolutely obliterates the premise that DD by Waid is no better that an average comic of the 70’s. That premise can no longer be stated with a straight face.

Waid doesn’t turn DD into a silver age DC hero, he brings them back to center. He says so in this interview… http://pineconecomicsclub.com/2013/02/pccc-2-skipping-the-super-bowl-with-mark-waid/

Comics would be better if other writers took a page out of Waid’s book. Also, the art is fantastic… http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1EnKT4A0fGY/UEdAz0_-rHI/AAAAAAAAOAk/BY9G8lCZuDw/s1600/Daredevil+vol_3+_1+(Marvel,+2011)+by+Mark+Waid+and+Marcos+Martin.jpg

Sorry, I am a HUGE Waid Fan!!!

I had to come here to find the 20 people on the planet who don’t like Daredevil. :P And also a whole host of people who prove that DC is definitely doing the right thing in attempting to cater to 40-50+ men. That Curt Swan art is pretty damned good, but to pretend that Daredevil–one of the best books on the stands in terms of art–is weird. Oh well. Opinions are a funny thing.

I think Daredevil’s a fantastic book, and one of the best ones published by DC or Marvel.

more detail and trying to do movie camera angles does NOT equal better art.

Swan on the early 60ies Superman is much more compelling and very much superior to these examples.

LouReedRichards

August 16, 2013 at 11:54 am

Like others have said, I really need to start reading Daredevil!
Samnee’s art work alone would be worth it. The next best thing to having Toth or Mazzuchelli around.

@Rob Lamberti – Those are all really classic artist (even if Colan and Kirby are the only two I happen to really like), but Samnee is clearly as talented as most of those guys, and maybe even more so than a few of them.

I also think the color work on the Daredevil samples above is quite nice, rich color that sets the mood and doesn’t give everything a needless gradient effect. When used properly computer coloring can be good – esp. when compared to the rather crappy color we got in the early 70’s with all the clumsy color separations out of register and sometimes the black plate shifted so much that the inking ends up looking horribly blurred.

I’ve never been able to figure out what it is about that period of Daredevil comics, but either the coloring or the inking, or both always makes the art look gritty and grainy – not a good thing.

Those Superman stories look rather painful (story wise). The basic high concept appeal of Superman fighting a space cowboy or an Anti-Lunar League seems fun, but the execution often leaves something to be desired.

I know I’m probably in the minority, but I’ve always found Swan’s art to be incredibly pedestrian. It serves as a good watermark/baseline for a Superman comic, but while extremely competent, it just always seemed to be lacking a certain spark.

As I mentioned in a thread earlier this week, those FF issue look much exponentially better in the Essentials collection. The black and white art really helps you appreciate the inking and not be distracted by the coloring. Even when Buscema seemed to be running out of steam on the title, he still managed to do some remarkable work.

AverageJoeEveryman

August 16, 2013 at 12:13 pm

I wonder if the man who shot the Moa ran into a young scout and an old man with a floating house.

I’d argue that several of these ’70s runs were below average, not average. How does Waid’s Daredevil stack up to the best books of the ’70s: Avengers, the all-new X-Men, Conan, Tomb of Dracula, Howard the Duck, etc.?

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?431919-Best-Runs-of-the-1970s

http://www.comicsreporter.com/index.php/25_emblematic_comics_of_the_70s/

Rob: I’ve gotten a lot more ’70s comics since then, and I’ve been thinking about doing another one of those posts. Maybe I need to get on that!

I think your demonstration failed. While Superman wasn’t good Gerber is great and more memorable. Buscema’s art on FF is better than Samnee’s.
Maybe your example failed because Marvel was killing the competition back then in a way they never managed to equal since.

Those five issues of Gerber’s Daredevil were nowhere near as good as the five issues of Waid’s Daredevil I picked. Maybe his other issues were better, but not those five issues. The Ramrod issue was actively bad.

Buscema’s art was good, true. So is Samnee’s. The story on Daredevil is world’s better than those five issues of FF, though.

Two things: Didn’t Denny O’ Neil already do a story about Matt Murdock facing as an adult the main bully who tormented him throughout his childhood?

Also, I remember Danny Fingeroth did a story in Web of Spider-Man revealing that Peter wasn’t as innocent in his beatings as he thought he was. Flash Thompson basically tells him that he was arrogant and that he refused to hang out with the other kids and brought it on himself. In that story, as well as in this story, I don’t really buy it. It’s a cute twist on an origin, but I feel it’s totally unnecessary and contradicts too much of what we’ve already seen.

Also, old Superman comics are terrible except to hardcore olf-school Superman fans. I don’t think they’re a good example of the average old school comic because even in the era they were released they were terrible compared to their contemporaries. There’s a reason DC declined so much, and it’s comics like that. Even for their time they were corny.

I like Waid’s DD, although I’m not crazy about the idea of DD violating “bro code” and banging the Black Cat without making sure Spidey was okay with it. I thought that was a major dick move and was suprised no one made a big deal about that.

It boggles my mind that there are people who don’t think Chris Samnee is brilliant. Of course, it also boggles my mind that there are people who think that Elliot S! Maggin isn’t a genius…

I know those old 70s comics were crazy, but holy shit, Superman has a third eye in the middle of his forehead! And he’s not even possessed by Pandora’s box.

Brian from Canada

August 16, 2013 at 3:52 pm

JBean, **EVERY** writer claims they are bringing the character back to center. That’s what new writers are supposed to do: return to the core ideals of the character and pick the ones that make them interesting in a way that’s different than before without discarding what’s come before.

As for the comparison, asking Waid what he thinks are average runs for comparison is like asking Brian Cronin for other comics-based sites to compare to. It doesn’t necessarily make for strong comparison, especially when everyone knows Superman was in a rut of the ridiculous.

A more apt comparison for Waid’s “return to centre” would be average “return to center” Batman comics (given that he dropped the campiness of the late sixties), or “return to center” powered Wonder Woman (who was powerless prior to the TV show), etc.

I’m not saying Waid’s are better or worse — though I do agree with the comparison to Bendis’ take, which was more thrilling as a character-based and focused on Matt as lawyer — but I think the averages don’t match up.

However, whatever your preference, the one thing each of those comics Brian and Mark Waid use as demonstrations reveals is that comics in the 70s were (a) written to be someone’s first issue, (b) accepted the ridiculous much easier and (c) were aimed at fun in a way that modern comics just forget.

(And, for the record, I love those Superman issues not only because Curt Swan’s art is energetic but because the hero isn’t simply about finding a way to outhit the enemy like today’s comics all seem to do… he was thinking of active ways to find the culprit and make them face their own villainy.)

The thing is, Waid’s Daredevil actually is much more reminiscent of the writer that came shortly AFTER Steve Gerber– Marv Wolfman. Wolfman had a really good run there, especially when Bob Brown and Klaus Janson were doing the art. Those were the stories that introduced Heather Glenn, Bullseye, D.A. Tower…. he had the same kind of long-term plot structure as Waid uses, he did the same kind of small crossovers, all of it. That’s why it feels old-school to me.

That’s not a criticism. I think Waid’s Daredevil is terrific and deserves all the praise it gets, but the ‘centrist’ position between the Gerber examples above and the modern noir take Frank Miller brought was first done by Marv Wolfman. if Waid’s channeling any ‘classic’ DD run, it’s that one. It should be showing up pretty much in its entirety in the next DD Essential volume, I think.

I’ve been hoping someone here would come up with an answer/explanation to a question I’ve been asking myself about Waid’s DD. I’m a latecomer to the title – just read the first six issues this past week and while I really enjoyed them, I found them kind of ‘light’ storywise and I’ve been trying to figure out why. I don’t mean I want a big life changing event for the hero every issue. I don’t want strum and drang. It just felt like there could have been more to the stories and there wasn’t. Or was I the only one who had that reaction? I also felt the same about the first six issues of the latest Gambit series – if you like the character (which many people don’t), it was an entertaining mash-up of “It Takes a Thief” and fantasy/sf elements, but, again, it felt light storywise. Both books were, to me, like getting really nice salads, but nothing else. Whereas, I read the SUPERMAN: THE ADVENTURES OF NIGHTWING AND FLAMEBIRD and BOTTLE CITY OF KANDOR collections and felt like I got the whole meal – and no one is going to argue either of those collections is equal to what Waid’s doing – even though they’re highly entertaining.

So, anyone have an idea as to what the difference is?

Terra-Man: Almost as bad as Serifan

Brian, you are always the lawyer. You make such a compelling case, I’m going to read Waid’s run.

As for the comparison, asking Waid what he thinks are average runs for comparison is like asking Brian Cronin for other comics-based sites to compare to. It doesn’t necessarily make for strong comparison, especially when everyone knows Superman was in a rut of the ridiculous.

Try reading other DC superhero titles from 1973. They’re pretty darn bad. The Kirby stuff and Batman/Detective were better than Superman and everything else was worse. The Superman titles were very much the “average” superhero title for DC Comics in 1973 (if anything, they likely were closer to above-average than anything). Flash, also written at the time by Cary Bates, would be the next closest other title in my mind (and I’ve read those issues, too, and they also do not compare favorably to Waid/Samnee’s DD).

Absolutely agree with Brian about the main point.

Just wanted to note how much I like the Bronze Age Barbara Gordon who has managed to keep her identity secret from Batman instead of being another of his child-soldiers, and who’s a plausible date for an older Clark Kent rather than being bonded-for-life to a much younger Dick Grayson.

T. I remember that Spider-Man story–I agree, it’s a twist, but not a good one. It doesn’t fit anything in the way Flash was portrayed in high-school and makes light of Flash’s bullying.
Guess I’ll have to see if the library has some DD In trade.

Brian is still repeating that nonsense about Rogue being racist when there’s nothing to actually support it? Seriously?

Also, old Superman comics are terrible except to hardcore old-school Superman fans. I don’t think they’re a good example of the average old school comic because even in the era they were released they were terrible compared to their contemporaries. There’s a reason DC declined so much, and it’s comics like that. Even for their time they were corny.

You know, I see this criticism a lot, and it really doesn’t hold water. The craft involved in these stories is first-rate. As others have said, even fatigued-journeyman Curt Swan art is head and shoulders above what other guys were doing– you really want to see BAD Superman art, you should check out Alex Saviuk as inked by Vince Colletta, just as a point of comparison. Likewise, Cary Bates and Elliott Maggin were doing really nice work on a lot of these stories– lighter, fun stuff, gimmick stories built around a puzzle or anomaly of some kind. Some worked and some fell flat but really, when fans complain about this stuff it always sounds to me like complaining that the Nancy Drew mysteries are too childish. We are not the target audience for these Superman stories. For more than half of his comics existence, or let’s say the newsstand-era of his comics existence, Superman stories existed as an entry point for kids into superhero comics. Most of us that came of age in the early 1970s followed a pretty similar arc– TV cartoons to DC superhero comics to Marvel comics to following individual creators. It was like stair-steps. The DC books were mostly done by talent who were used to catering to bright ten-year-olds. That’s why they feel ‘corny.’ Maggin and Bates put some snap into the dialogue and added a veneer of sophistication, but criticizing them for what amounts to not doing Marvel-style epics is silly when that’s clearly not what they were tasked with. You can look at the early Marvel books and see the same struggle, but in the opposite direction– Stan thought he was writing comics for kids at first too, and it was only when he realized he had a college audience that he started to raise his game.

Sure, Superman stories are aimed at us older fans now, and these are certainly going to suffer in comparison on that basis. But when I was eight years old these were AWESOME. They only started to look corny as I aged out of them.

i tried an issue of DD (Matt and several orphans were trapped in snow) and i liked it a lot, typical Waid storytelling. Haha.

what would you guys prefer? fabian nicieza and scott lobdell, I had to endure their stories for the xmen when i was collecting the titles in the 90’s. it was only sheer love for the characters that made me buy the books.

Waid’s Daredevil is average now

“I thought you would leave the plebian puns to the likes of Daredevil”

Shows how much DD’s character has changed over the years

What comics are considered the best in this time period? O’Neill/Adams Batman? I think if you’d restricted this to Marvel books and chosen a period based on a classic the standard would be somewhat better. Maybe the average Marvel comic contemporary to The Dark.Phoenix Saga. I’d discount DC because I think it’s harder to make a comparison with pre crisis comics, as Greg Hatcher said the majority were written for a different audience.

That said I do think Waid’ s Daredevil would come out above average, it’s a very good run.

Waid’ & Co’s DD has been my favorite Big 2 super-hero comic of recent years. It doesn’t have a lot of competition (Gillen’s Journey Into Mystery & Aaron’s Wolverine & the X-Men come closest), but I genuinely enjoy the comic to a degree that other titles don’t match. Waid’s character work and the stories’ twists make the series a standout. The art has been fantastic as well; Samnee’s staging and talent for both action and expressive figures fit the book perfectly.

Most mid-’70s Big 2 super-hero comics are pap. The good stuff stemmed from talented artists using styles than were innovative or uncommon (Neal Adams, BWS, Berni Wrightson), writers breaking away from the norm and including their own idiosyncrasies in the comics (Steve Gerber, Steve Englehart), and creators using elements of other genres (Denny O’Neil). The good stuff was very much the exception. It’s a testament to their talent to say Waid & Samnee stand with the best super-hero storytellers of that era.

I’d say Curt Swan hit his peak in the early ’70s, not the ’60s. You know, when he began working with Murphy Anderson on the “Kryptonite Nevermore” story. For a few years I would’ve ranked them as a top 5 artistic team–a step behind Adams/Giordano and Buscema/Sinnott.

This could be the subject of another posting, debate, or poll: “What year did Curt Swan hit his peak?”

A look at comics 40 years ago:

http://stevedoescomics.blogspot.com/2013/08/MarvelAugust1973.html

But I’m not sure why Brian choose 1973 as the point of comparison. Many Marvel comics were in a lull then. They improved a few years later.

But I’m not sure why Brian choose 1973 as the point of comparison.

Because it’s a solid 40 years ago?

Those Iron Man issues; “there MUST have been a better way”. Characters like that are so annoying.

You know, I see this criticism a lot, and it really doesn’t hold water. The craft involved in these stories is first-rate. As others have said, even fatigued-journeyman Curt Swan art is head and shoulders above what other guys were doing– you really want to see BAD Superman art, you should check out Alex Saviuk as inked by Vince Colletta, just as a point of comparison.

I just want to make clear, I’m not bashing the art. Swan did lack a certain amount of dynamism, but he was a very good artist. One of the best.

Likewise, Cary Bates and Elliott Maggin were doing really nice work on a lot of these stories– lighter, fun stuff, gimmick stories built around a puzzle or anomaly of some kind.

This is where I disagree.

Some worked and some fell flat but really, when fans complain about this stuff it always sounds to me like complaining that the Nancy Drew mysteries are too childish.

I actually hate those types of complaints as well, so I want to make clear, I’m not bashing these Superman stories for being childish. Many of my favorite superhero stories of all time are extremely childish. I actually prefer superhero stores more when they go in the childish direction than the extremely adult direction.

We are not the target audience for these Superman stories.

I totally get and appreciate that. But even when I WAS the target audience for these stories, I found them excruciatingly awful and extremely corny when I read them.

For more than half of his comics existence, or let’s say the newsstand-era of his comics existence, Superman stories existed as an entry point for kids into superhero comics.

Again I get that. To put it into perspective, I am a big fan of pre-Weisinger Superman. To me Weisinger is when Superman really went into a downward spiral creatively and never recovered fully. Pre-Weisinger Superman was as childish if not more childish than Weisinger and Schwartz-era Superman and I can enjoy them immensely to this day. The same goes for Golden Age Batman. I even like those Jack Schiff edited Batman stories that everyone claims to hate nowadays where Batman turned into gorillas and they were always dealing with aliens in broad daylight. I also enjoy Bob Haney’s Teen Titans a LOT more than Wolfman/Perez’s Teen Titans, despite the formber being blatantly targeted at children while the latter is undeniably going for a more adult, Marvel-like approach.

I don’t dislike those Superman comics because they’re childish and I am not the target audience. I dislike them because I think they are terrible and corny for ANY age, even the target audience of 10-year old children. I agree with Arnold Drake, when he complained to the bosses at DC about Weisinger’s Superman, saying they were “aimed at terribly complicated, involved, cerebral five year olds, of which there are only 3 in the whole country.” I feel the post-Weisinger Superman before Byrne took over was aimed at those same kids but slightly older.

Most of us that came of age in the early 1970s followed a pretty similar arc– TV cartoons to DC superhero comics to Marvel comics to following individual creators. It was like stair-steps. The DC books were mostly done by talent who were used to catering to bright ten-year-olds. That’s why they feel ‘corny.’ Maggin and Bates put some snap into the dialogue and added a veneer of sophistication, but criticizing them for what amounts to not doing Marvel-style epics is silly when that’s clearly not what they were tasked with. You can look at the early Marvel books and see the same struggle, but in the opposite direction– Stan thought he was writing comics for kids at first too, and it was only when he realized he had a college audience that he started to raise his game.

Again, I’m not saying they have to be grand sweeping mature epics. I enjoy plenty of DC done-in-ones that were aimed at children throughout its history. I also enjoy the early Marvels when it was much more childish and less sophisticated, before they hit their creative stride and started aiming at older audiences. My problem with this era of DC especially the Superman line has nothing to do with the target age of the audience.

Sure, Superman stories are aimed at us older fans now, and these are certainly going to suffer in comparison on that basis. But when I was eight years old these were AWESOME. They only started to look corny as I aged out of them.

It was different for me. The Schwartz era Superman of the 80s along with some of the Weisinger digests were some of my first comic books, and I found them corny even as a kid.

[…] cool characters that rarely get written into good comics, while over at CBR there’s a great takedown of nostalgic and negative comparisons, centred around Waid’s Daredevil. Old ain’t always better, folks, so check out the New […]

Yeah, I agree with T.

If we want to compare those Superman stories with anything done by Marvel Comics, we should compare them to Marvel Team-Up or something like that. MTU was also done-in-one, gimmicky, and contrived as hell. But even as a 10-year old I’d notice the difference.

MTU was dynamic and cool, while those Superman stories gave off an “old fart vibe”. They were not really kid-friendly, but an old-fashioned 45-year old’s idea of what kid-friendly is. I agree that they have a nostagic vibe too, and I can read them now with a smile on my face. But at the time of publication they seemed like granny’s comics.

Crisis on Infinite Earths did happen for a very good reason. DC Comics bleed off readers for the best part of the 1970s. Including young kids.

Because it’s a solid 40 years ago?

Why not 30 years ago? Why not 25? Are those not old? I bet if you were comparing it to the mid-80’s or so it wouldn’t look as laughably far off. Particularly if you did like Marvel stories and not “Superman battles a Moa” type stories that are regularly mocked here. Heck, 50 years ago would have been really old, and probably would have been a fairer comparison, because Marvel was producing some good stuff then.

This is not to say that I don’t think Waid’s DD isn’t above average to excellent for now or then. Just that the evidence for a point I agree with is so skewed that it’s hard to take it seriously. (And really…is Mark Waid the only comic historian still out there? C’mon.)

As for the sidebar on the “Peter deserved it” in high school retcon, I don’t know if it really says that, or if it’s just the justification you’d expect from a bully like Flash Thompson. Do bullies ever think they’re just jerks doing bad things, or do they blame the victim? Now, because Peter is the character who may be most into self-flagellation it may come off like Flash is right. The story may have needed someone like MJ to go “that’s a load of crap” or Liz Allen to say “no, we were just insecure” and for that reason the story may fail, but I’m not sure it was trying to change comic history.

While usually bullies are full of it when they accuse the victim, I reckon that Flash may have a point. There are some Spider-Man stories where people at school try to be nice to Peter, and for some misunderstanding related to Spider-Man, Peter appears to give them the cold treatment. Specifically, I remember the last Ditko issues with Peter entering college. Peter repeatedly looks like a jerk because people don’t know he is worried about Aunt May dying.

@ T.

I think the distinctions are less clear than are suggesting.

First, Cary Bates and Elliot Maggin were not the same guy. They had the same assignment, but they differed in terms of talent. Given more freedom, Maggin was able to produce some pretty beloved novelizations. Bates, in contrast, produced the Trial of the Flash. I’d suggest that Bates was well-suited to being a Bronze Age DC creator and Maggin had another level.

Second, Mort Weisinger was not hardly a complete disaster. His comics could not have been more commercially successful. they were as personal (in their way) as any indie comic and they introduced a lot of beloved elements to the Superman mythos. Weisinger was a weird dude and his his quirks rubbed off on Superman as surely as William Marston’s attached themselves to Wonder Woman. However, I am not someone that considers quirks to be a bad thing. The decline of Superman titles began when Julie Schwartz took over and felt obligated to apologize for his old friend.

Third, Curt Swan was amazing. That was especially true in combination with Murphy Anderson. However, penciling two titles per month year-after-year did him no favors. His figures became overly stiff and his monsters got to looking awfully generic. He was taking almost as much off the table as he was putting on it by the mid-70s. Part of what was so amazing about “Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?” was seeing Swan working near the peak of his powers one last time.

First, Cary Bates and Elliot Maggin were not the same guy. They had the same assignment, but they differed in terms of talent. Given more freedom, Maggin was able to produce some pretty beloved novelizations. Bates, in contrast, produced the Trial of the Flash. I’d suggest that Bates was well-suited to being a Bronze Age DC creator and Maggin had another level.

I didn’t like either of their writing, honestly, but I could tolerate Bates more. Even though I didn’t dig his writing when doing the Schwartz house style of Superman, it was still way better than the writing under the Weisinger house style. And his Trial of the Flash I respect for its sheer ambition, even if the execution wasn’t always there.

Maggin though, I really couldn’t stand. He really ramped up the Space Jesus aspect of Superman that I totally can’t stand, and that often turns up in movie adaptations now. And his stories were so worshipful in-story of Superman, a tendency that a lot of lesser writers after him played up in later decades, not only with Superman but now with the whole DCU. Now we have the religious iconography expanded to Wonder Woman and Batman, as the three of them are often called The Trinity now. And we get so many stories of “A-list” heroes being worshipped and lionized even by other superheroes. It’s annoying to read stories about heroes that read more like hagiographies than compelling epics, and I feel Maggin was a big part of setting that awful tone not just for Superman but much of the rest of DC.

Second, Mort Weisinger was not hardly a complete disaster. His comics could not have been more commercially successful.

Sure they were as commercially successful as they could have been. That’s the problem. The 90s were as commercially as successful as they could have been too for the comic industry. And look what happened after. What the 90s were to X-Men and Image specifically and comic industry as a whole, Weisinger was to the Superman line. Weisinger was just gimmick after gimmick after gimmick, and sure he pumped up the Superman franchise short-term to stratospheric heights, much like Harras did for the X-line in the 90s, but those same gimmicks also ruined much of the brand for many people and created a lot of the not-so-fondly-remembered trappings and tropes that keep many people away from the franchise now.

He diluted the mythos with Supergirl, Krypto, Super-pets, and a ton of other gimmicks. The things he added to Superman, while fondly remembered because they are so ingrained, were pretty dispensible. Recurring girlfriends with L.L? We could live without that. Legion of Super-Heroes? It’s a cool concept, but it doesn’t have to be in the Superman mythos. In fact, I think it would have worked far better as a standalone concept than as part of Superman’s mythos. All the colors of kryptonite? Pass.

Sure there were occasional great stories of Weisinger, but rather than credit him for those, instead I view them as flukes. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Instead I imagine how much more frequently there would have been great Superman stories if Weisinger wasn’t there.

Every time now that there’s a Superman adaptation or a mainstream news article about Superman, there’s always this question about how to make Superman relevant for new generatiosn, because he’s too corny, too stiff, too powerful, etc. But the guy Seigel and Shuster introduced was anything but a stiff, corny, godlike boy scout. Every supposed problem that Superman has with relating with modern audiences comes from Weisinger. All the timeless aspects of Superman that still connect with modern audiences are from Siegel and Shuster.

The decline of Superman titles began when Julie Schwartz took over and felt obligated to apologize for his old friend.

Maybe the COMMERCIAL decline began under Schwartz, but the seeds were sown under Weisinger’s creative direction to me. He was a very short term thinker who maximized the short-term at the expense of the long-term.

While usually bullies are full of it when they accuse the victim, I reckon that Flash may have a point. There are some Spider-Man stories where people at school try to be nice to Peter, and for some misunderstanding related to Spider-Man, Peter appears to give them the cold treatment. Specifically, I remember the last Ditko issues with Peter entering college. Peter repeatedly looks like a jerk because people don’t know he is worried about Aunt May dying.

This is true, but think back to the first Spider-Man story in Amazing Fantasy #15. What Flash claimed simply wasn’t true. Peter is standing alone longing for friendship and company in the very first panel, looking at the other kids longingly. He tries to ask a girl out, she laughs in his face. Flash Thompson passes by and knocks over his books. Peter then approaches the car full of kids and invites them to a science exhibit with him, the one that gave him his powers. They laugh in his face and peel off in their car, leaving him to cry by himself and attend on his own.

So the idea that Peter was arrogant and aloof and superior and didn’t want to be friends with them, which caused them in turn to be mean to him simply wasn’t true. He started out very much wanting to be friends and made overt, concrete gestures to do so, and was constantly rebuffed and humiliated for his efforts. He did become more arrogant and aloof and confrontational as the series progressed and his confidence increased thanks to being Spider-Man, and there were incidents like what happened when he started college, but that was after years of unwarranted mistreatment by his peers. Sure it probably didn’t HELP matters, but it sure didn’t CAUSE the original mistreatment.

That’s what bothered me about the Fingeroth story so much. Flash gave that excuse and it was treated as so valid in-story. Pete didn’t even put up a defense, and it was presented in a way that the reader was obviously supposed to see it as having merit, yet from the first Spider-Man story there was evidence against such an interpretation.

T makes some fair points about Weisinger; though I think it’s a matter of taste more than objective fact. But, again–

He was a very short term thinker who maximized the short-term at the expense of the long-term.

…that was the industry he was in. So did every other editor in the business, including Stan Lee. The idea of actual FANS that stuck around for years, that kept track of the stories, was a completely foreign notion. The idea was that the readership turned over every four years. That was why you reiterated basic things, used captions like “Clark (Superman) Kent,” recycled old scripts, et al. Weisinger and Schwartz didn’t change as fast as the industry did, they really had no clue how to cope with the changes Marvel brought to superheroes in the 1960s. But neither did anyone else. So they tried to graft it on to characters that style was never meant for and it ends up looking like a clown nose on a marble bust. I love the Kirby JIMMY OLSEN but even as I kid I thought it was kind of a weird culture clash. The other Fourth World stuff looked a lot better because it was pure, it didn’t have a wad of Superman continuity pasted in to it and editors telling Kirby he was doing it all wrong. (Another great example of this is Kirby being ordered to use Deadman.) They clearly had no idea how to utilize Jack Kirby’s talent, which at that time was almost synonymous with Marvel-style superheroics.

That’s the history of pop culture. Look at any big innovation and you’ll see a bunch of lame imitations getting it completely wrong for a year or five after. Star Wars and the boom of lame-ass space dogfight films that came after. Secret Wars and Crisis and the line-wide crossover– Eclipse even tried one at one point for God’s sake. Watchmen and Dark Knight and the grim-n-gritty’ing of the entire DCU. The wave of ‘put a new guy in the suit’ stories that plagued superhero comics in the late 80s, early 90s after Rhodey as Iron Man. Etc.

Not to go on and on. But my point is that several of these things you are grumping about are natural processes, a consequence of the slow wave of change that was overtaking the industry as superheroes changed from a kid’s genre to a hobbyist’s specialty. It’s a bit like shaking your fist at the weather.

Greg – You make very good points, but I do believe even within the context of the industry Weisinger was especially bad with his shortsightedness. Take for example this parody of Superman done by Roy Thomas in the 60s:

http://drawnonadime.blogspot.com/2008/01/not-brand-echh-part-2.html

Also, Roy worked for Weisinger firsthand so he should definitely know.

Rogue gets called out for being racist because she is Southern, and everyone knows all white people from the South are racist. Racism, bad. Stereotypes based on where someone is from? Not only fine, but totally logical.

Well, I read this entire article and didn’t get any insight that I couldn’t have gotten by just reading those comics myself. Did I miss something?

[…] Would Mark Waid’s Daredevil Just be an Average Superhero Comic Book Back in the Old Days? (goodcomics.comicbookresources.com) […]

We are a gaggle of volunteers and starting a brand new scheme in our community. Your site provided us with useful info to work on. You have done an impressive process and our entire neighborhood shall be thankful to you.

Mark Waid’s Daredevil is very ‘of its time’. It hasn’t aged well, even in the year and a half or so that it’s been on this Earth, and the farther removed we become from those early Mark Waid issues… the worse it looks.

Conversely, I can go back and re-read those Kevin Smith / Brian Bendis / Alex Maleev / David Mack / Joe Quesada runs… they haven’t aged a day.

Mark Waid is a hack. The stories he has told in the pages of Daredevil simply do not stand on their own. They weren’t stories that needed to be told. They weren’t even stories that he was inspired to tell. They were an exercise in style over substance – which I’ll hasten to note is the EXACT thing people (rightly) accused Andy Diggle of! In the same way that Diggle’s run was ‘grimdark for the sake of being grimdark’… Mark Waid’s run is pseudo-retro hipster pretense… for the sake of pseudo-retro hipster pretense. It appeals to a contrarian subset of comic readers exclusively… and absolutely nobody else.

I really cannot wait for this man to leave my favorite superhero book alone. After collecting literally every issue of Daredevil from the first issue to the present… I haven’t purchased a single issue since Waid’s involvement, and patently refuse to purchase any until he leaves. Bringing in Karl Kesel – whose run is probably the SECOND worst in DD history – is not going to ameliorate that situation.

Leave a Comment

 

Categories

Review Copies

Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.

Browse the Archives