[net.comics] xmen annual

dub@pur-phy.UUCP (Dwight U. Bartholomew) (09/07/84)

> Well, I just read the X-Men annual, which was the absolute worst comic I
> have read in years. Unbelievably bad art, and a moronic story.
>
>                                          David London
>                                          ...!ihnp4!oddjob!london
<MILD SPOILER WARNING!!!!!>
	Well, I, for one, liked the new X-men Annual.  The artwork looked
different because it was intended to be different.  It seems to me that
annuals, in general, are drawn by people who do not draw the regular
series and, as a result, the artwork looks terrible.  Why?  Cause they're
trying to draw the characters we know and love, but they don't draw these
characters all the time.  <didn't i just say that?>
	Anyways, in the X-men annual, this failure is evident right
at the beginning and the ending (where the X-men are supposed to be
drawn in the usual manner.)  As soon as Illyanna's story starts up,
the characters take on the resemblance of Saturday morning cartoon
shows, but that's ok!  It was supposed to be a make-believe story
and the way the X-men were drawn reflected this.
	The end result was an annual that I enjoyed looking at (relative
to other annuals I've read.)  To top it off, the whole point behind
Illyanna's story was very serious (unlike in "Kitty's Fairy-tale" which
was just supposed to fun and off-the-wall. <see xmen #153>)
	I particularly liked the panel at the end where Kitty and
Lockheed at staring at each other.

			       Dwight Bartholomew
UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs  } !pur-ee!Physics:dub
      { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } |purdue!Physics:dub

hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (09/10/84)

<spam, smap, samp, sapm, psam, pams, pmas, ... *choke* >

| > Well, I just read the X-Men annual, which was the absolute worst comic I
| > have read in years. Unbelievably bad art, and a moronic story.
| >
| >                                          David London
| >                                          ...!ihnp4!oddjob!london
| <MILD SPOILER WARNING!!!!!>
| Well, I, for one, liked the new X-men Annual.  The artwork looked
| different because it was intended to be different.  
| Dwight Bartholomew

Obviously Mr London has never read the Dazzler Graphic Novel, which
continues the exponential plunge in characterization which has afflicted
that poor woman.  Relax, David.  There has been worse, and will be worse.
You should have someone dig up a copy of Giant-size Avengers #4, for
a real example of the lows a comic can hit.

The artwork (in Xmen) was intended to resemble that of Trina Robbins, and it
did so.  My wife, who keeps up on these sorts of things, informs me
that (at last rumor) Ms Robbins and Mr Leialoha share living arrangements.

Looks like her style is catching, or maybe SL asked her to help him out
of the tight spot he was in.  He has never been known for meeting tight
deadlines, which is true of many of the "craft before commerciality" folks.

On the other topic, I thought the story was an excellent example of how
BAD a storyteller Ilyana is.  :)  (You CAN'T think Claremont would flub
a premise, or take the easy way out of a writing assignment, COULD you?)

By the way, did anyone notice that Claremont has lost the ability to tell
how much power a person has?  I mean, Ilyana's power has shown markedly
different qualities in New Mutants and Xmen recently.  First, she is called
a "Sorceress of power greater than Belasco" then she has to whimper
plaintively, "My powers aren't really that strong in this plane of existance"

Come on, Chris, design a character BEFORE you use it as deus-ex-machina.

Hutch