The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[Punchy]

If you only allow 7 and up for good comics, then you're limiting the scores you can give to comics you like. How do you feel about a star system, does *** make a bad review?

Out of 5? Average.

To be honest, I don't think we've ever reviewed a proper 5/10, most books are either really good or really bad.

[Zero]

So 3/5 is average but 6/10 is a bad comic?

[******]

I think it's funny that you Brits seem to think calling something average is a compliment.

It's a backhanded compliment at best.

Hence, 6 = average = suck

A book in the 7's is good, but not very good and there's a probability that some reviewers panned it which makes it a YMMV type of thing.

A book scoring 8+ has transcended that barrier, hence that is the marker for considering something a recommended Review Group selection.

[Zero]

I don't think average is a good thing. I think average is as much of a waste of time and money as bad because it usually means that there's some talent being wasted on a comic starring Ms Marvel and/or Gravity.

I'd say average is a competently drawn and written comic that doesn't stick in the mind or impress anyone. I'd say it's a paper version of a Chris Tucker movie or a Creed song. There are things that are objectively worse but obviously there are things that are better so why waste your time?

[thefourthman]

Well to address all of you at once.

Punchy, after complaining that reviewing a kid's book on a different set of criteria is bullshit, it is eyebrow raising that you would performance score things because you think the group is pissy, that is neither fair to yourself or the book.

Zero (and to a certain extant Eli) - Average will change with the quality of the books being published. Is Incognito Bad Influences an Average book compared to the majority of the books being published? No, it is more than average. Is it average compared to the output we have seen from Brubaker (and by extension Phillips)? I argue it is less than average, being an inferior product from the team. If I am reviewing a Vertigo book, I will have higher expectations than if I am reading a Marvel or DC superhero book. It's just the nature of the beast, whether that is fortunate or not is a matter of opinion.

Eli, it's a philosophical debate and thus will never have an appropriately satisfactory answer. Pirsig went on a journey to discover the nature of Quality and found out more about himself and his relationship to his son. To a certain extant, all critics use different values for every item they discuss. The review you posted of Superman by Ebert reads differently than the review he wrote in Decemeber of 1978. There are many reasons for that, Motion Pictures are different now than they were then, so looking at the movie now requires that information. He may have different views on Donner or Reeve or may be informed by the less than capable sequels in the franchise.

Brubaker and Phillips do create create work that is better than the majority of the rest of the comics on the shelf. However, that puts their work in a different place. I scored the first book an 8, I think I would stand by that today, even though I might be more willing to give the entire mini a 9 or a ten, that issue doesn't work as well as the whole series does together. Punchy even qualified his score saying it was a 9 cause Sleeper and Criminal are 10s. Bru and Phillips have given us more, thus a ten from them is not the same as a ten from anyone else. It is more like a 12 or a 13. It would be disingenuous for me to score this book the same as I scored the first one, it is not as good of a book. (And I made my score with out looking at my previous score and the group as a whole scored the book lower than the first book, as it should be, to the degree you felt will be largely individual)

We talk about ymmv and stuff, because as much as objectivism is a goal of critical thinking, it is always merely a goal because the pursuit in and of itself is subjective.

[******]

Grading on a scale for creators is silly, IMO. You end up doing things like scoring an issue of Incognito the same as issues of Gorilla Man and Marvel Apes.

[BlueStreak]

I'm a little curious to see what people would consider to be 1 thru 10 books. It'd be a nice comparison of people's taste and subjectivity.

[thefourthman]

Grading on a scale for creators is silly, IMO. You end up doing things like scoring an issue of Incognito the same as issues of Gorilla Man and Marvel Apes.

I believe grading them the same as every other book is silly. You end up giving everything 9's and 10's instead of acknowledging the difference in quality of each book.

[thefourthman]

I'm a little curious to see what people would consider to be 1 thru 10 books. It'd be a nice comparison of people's taste and subjectivity.

While I am not ready to go through each grade point, here is what I would call a ten:

Planetary #22
Suspenseful, smart and able to work on its own. It was the first issue of Planetary I ever read and pretty much the acme of what a comic can be.

and a one:

Fallen Son: The Death of Captain America - Spider-Man
Stupid, pointless, nigh incomprehensible drivel.

[******]

I believe grading them the same as every other book is silly. You end up giving everything 9's and 10's instead of acknowledging the difference in quality of each book.

That's why you type out all those words, IMO.

[thefourthman]

That's why you type out all those words, IMO.

And I have long said that a score is an arbitrary break down of a review. If you can't tell whether or not I recommend the book from the words, then what is the point of the review. I acknowledge that some people like Cat-Scratch like the score as a summary, but that is what first lines and last lines are for. The words to me will always be more important, but at the same time, if I call Criminal #1 a 10 and Incognito #1 a 8, to give this book an 8 just because it is better than other books currently available is, imo, dishonest. It was nowhere near the caliber of Incognito #1. The only thing that could raise it to an 8 is that other books suck (which I don't believe they do to that extant)... I gave Superboy #1 a 9 last week and imo (coloring aside) - I would still say it is a better book than this one. I expected less from it (even given its writer) and got more. I expected more from Bad Influences and got less.

[thefourthman]

Expectations are a valuable part of quality. If I like books by Brubaker, I am more likely to buy his books. If a book doesn't meet the expectations I have for a Brubaker book, then it is not of the quality I expected going in... regardless of the quality of everything else on the shelf, it has diminished itself given the expectations it had going into it.

[******]

And I have long said that a score is an arbitrary break down of a review. If you can't tell whether or not I recommend the book from the words, then what is the point of the review. I acknowledge that some people like Cat-Scratch like the score as a summary, but that is what first lines and last lines are for. The words to me will always be more important, but at the same time, if I call Criminal #1 a 10 and Incognito #1 a 8, to give this book an 8 just because it is better than other books currently available is, imo, dishonest. It was nowhere near the caliber of Incognito #1. The only thing that could raise it to an 8 is that other books suck (which I don't believe they do to that extant)... I gave Superboy #1 a 9 last week and imo (coloring aside) - I would still say it is a better book than this one. I expected less from it (even given its writer) and got more. I expected more from Bad Influences and got less.

But by giving it a 6 you're saying it's no better than Marvel Apes or Gorilla Man based on your previous reviews. If that's what you really think of it that's fine, it's your opinion, but if not you're being disingenuous by grading it based on preconceived notions rather than actual content. (Not that most everyone here isn't guilty of that from time to time.)

[thefourthman]

For example, I have long posited and still do that Star Wars (A New Hope) is no better of a movie than Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

They are both poorly acted, contrivances abound in both movies, they lack the focus of the other entries in the series that are not directed by Lucas, etc.

The biggest difference in opinions on the two films come from old school Star Wars fans. We see the first movie with rose colored glasses, it brings a certain amount of child hood fun nostalgia with it.

Many Children who saw both movies around the same time do not see a difference in quality for the movies. They recognize the child like fun in both because they are not fondly remembering the first film and are not looking at the newer film through adult eyes. However, our expectations given to the newer film somehow make it worse in our older eyes. When given a more objective view the films are of the same qualitative character, that is to say that neither is particularly good as a film.

(As an aside, one could say that Star Wars (A New Hope) was revolutionary for its time, given its budget and the leaps what would become Lucasfilm made in special effects film making for the movie. However, in that respect Phantom Menace may be more technically good as those same leaps have been added to and refined - one is somewhat "revolutionary" in its effects, while the other is more cohesive and refined in the same field, it is hard to judge which wins in this aspect of quality... one was a landmark, the other is more professional)

[******]

Expectations are a valuable part of quality. If I like books by Brubaker, I am more likely to buy his books. If a book doesn't meet the expectations I have for a Brubaker book, then it is not of the quality I expected going in... regardless of the quality of everything else on the shelf, it has diminished itself given the expectations it had going into it.

If you're constantly judging things based on expectations you're setting yourself up to fail.