Millar, Hitch, Bendis, Turner, Frank... no argument here. I don't get why these guys have the reputations they have, because their work is by and large very poor. Chaykin, Loeb, Gibbons, and Jansen, I haven't seen enough of their stuff to really make much of a comment either way.
Jim Lee, yeah, I can buy that. I like his art on certain things (the X-Men for instance), but generally, his rep overwhelms the output. Same goes for McFarlane, who's work is iconic for the 90s but he's not exactly a legend.
For James Robinson, I have only read a handful of things from him, namely some of his Superman, and Cry For Justice, plus a full fill-ins here and there. I for one really liked Cry For Justice. I totally dug the earnestness of everything, the seriousness of the dialogue and proceedings. The stuff which some fanboys called "camp," even though it clearly is not camp. His Superman stuff, I have not much of it at all, but I very much appreciated The Coming of Atlas and the few issues I have read.
Grant Morrison is a tough cookie for me. His work is very frustrating to me because sometimes it comes off really well and sometimes it's incomprehensible. For instance, I really liked Final Crisis. But Superman Beyond was garbage, and so was a lot of his Batman stuff. I think that Morrison really has the best of intentions to make something new and different and unique, but it doesn't always work very well. Sometimes it doesn't work at all! But I agree whole-heartedly with your assessment with the obnoxiousness of his fans and his reputation, where the concept of "oh if you don't get it you're not reading deep enough" or "oh you just need better drugs" or whatnot. That's a crock of crap. Sometimes a story is just crap, plain and simple. It strokes the egos of his rabid followers to get off on their own intellectualism through supporting him. It's like people who look down their nose at you because they use an iPhone -- intellectual eltism with its basis in consumerism rather than reality.
Also, I call BS on The Beatles not having the same thing. They certainly do. Total crap drug band!
Alex Ross, "familiarity breeds contempt," certainly, I can see that. I am a sucker for his Iron Man because his Iron Man is AWESOME. But I agree with you guys's arguments here regarding over-exposure.
Regarding Toth, about the only stuff of his I have ever read was Eclipso, and his work was well suited to that character. But Eclipso was sort of a loosey-goosey feature anyway, so it seemed to fit.
Joe Kubert works for certain superhero characters, but not all. I adore his work on Hawkman, but when he would do the entire League or something, most everyone else would look strange. I think the fatc that even in the Silver Age Hawkman had a certain barbarian vibe to him which Kubert nails out of the park (same as his work on Tor looked great because it was a fantastical setting rather than a traditional superhero/science fictiony setting). And you guys are right about War comics, because when Kubert does Rock, it's the epitome of the genre (in a good way). JRJr draws with a lot of power, so I appreciate his work on certain characters -- Iron Man, for instance (not to harp on Shellhead). I really enjoy his work on Avengers right now, same as I liked his work on Eternals, because of the strength of the characters.
Now now Michael, say what you really feel about Geoff Johns. Don't hold back on our account. Your feelings on Johns are well-known my man, so no need to rehash it here. But I will say this: regarding the Rogues as "new characters with the same name," I call BS on that. The Rogues (with the exception of Captain Boomerang from Suicide Squad) had little to no characterization from the very start. By the time Waid was on the title, they were interchangable thugs. He GAVE them character! The retcon of Barry Allen's parents? I thought it served the story and served the character of Professor Zoom being a complete and utter lunatic asshole. The DC Universe as the most boring place in the world? You mean the DCU in the late 90s and early 2000s?
As far as Johns taking shots at the Internet Fanboys, I dunno, my thought is just to repeat to yourself it's just a comic, I should breathe and just relax.
I know I am not like that, so I don't care if he makes the joke or not. You know you are not like that, so my advice to you is not to care!
I did not hear that anecdote about George Perez saying Johns "broke him," but Johns said that he would send scripts to Perez, and George would say "Wow there's a lot of guys on this page... can I add this guy?" So I don't know how much of this is actual bad blood.
Scott, remember that Kirby would not be nicknamed "King" if his name was different. "Horrible spinal injury?" When did we start talking about Marc Silvestri? Sorry, I'm a Kirby supporter and considering the number of detractors I have found online in the last few years, I don't think his reputation is overstated at all. How can you say that comics don't try to show you the picture outside of your window, and then slam Kirby? I don't see how that works.
My take for over-rated besides those mentioned herein? Dan Slott, for one, who lets his politics dictate way too much of his work. His continual jobbing out of Iron Man during Civil War stunk to high heaven. Scott Kurtz, creator of the webcomic PvP, whose horse is so high, Yakima Canutt couldn't survive that horsefall. Warren Ellis, who is so caught up with how awesome he is to write things that make sense half the time.
Awesome ep, dudes! Great back and forth!
