I mean, it sounded great: In theory.
Neal Adams. Neal Freakin' Adams! Just about the only comic artist who -- without irony -- could say "if superheroes really existed, they'd have to look the way I draw them" and have people nod and go "you know, he's right." How can you go wrong? Am I right?
Just FINALLY got to issue #1 and #2 last night.
And they were awful. Just. AWFUL.
I mean, they were so bad I'm still not convinced it's some kind of joke I'm missing out on.
The art is fine. Maybe not as tight as I'd expect, but Adams is still the master of perspective and dramatic composition. But the writing... oh man. Words fail me. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, the story almost, but not completely, totally fails to hang together. Adams art is dramatic and powerful -- but at all the wrong times for the story. Adams art has WAY more drama and power than the story requires. It sort of reminded me of that You Tube video of that guy screaming his way through a campaign speech, or putting a Smart Car engine into a Mack truck.
I hate to be so negative about the work of guy I admire so much, but.... jeez.
Anyone have a different perspective.
Please?
Replies
* Another person who I never think of as a contemporary to my dad. I swear I should make a list
Please?
Skull Brother, Skull Brother... listen to me, please.
I've been carrying Batman Odyssey #3 around with me in my briefcase for over a week now (which means I have something to say about it, I just don't know what). Now that you've brought it up, I think I can distill it into this: as a writer, Neal Adams is desperately in need of an editor. Like Jack Kirby. Also like Jack Kirby, his dialogue is so idiosyncratic as to be unique to the point of being identifiable if heard blindfolded. His art is and has always been highly experimental (see the cover of issue #3 for example), yet even when those experiments fail (see the cover of issue #3 for example), the results are fascinating.
I urge you (and everyone) to continue to observe this experiment, but to remain clinically detatched.
That is the secret to enjoyment, my son.
Ha! I actually just had the Beatles as being contemporaries with my dad a couple of days ago.
I've seen less material scripted by Adams, but there are examples, such as the final Deadman stories from Strange Adventures. Back then, at least, Adams's scripting wasn't idiosyncratic in the way Jeff describes.
I didn't have high expectations for the scripting, but as Luke points out, Adams has been credited as a plotter on a lot of stories, and one of his great strengths has always been visual storytelling (truly a lost art these days, no pun intended).
With a talented visual storyteller, you should be able to remove the dialogue and still get a sense of what's happening.
Check out this now-classic panel from Adams Green Lantern / Green Arrow run:
Even without reading it, you get the general idea -- the old guy has shamed GL (and proved GA's point -- Adams manages -- to my eye, anyway -- to make him look smug)
But the visual storytelling element is missing in Odyssey -- or at least severely out of whack. There were several times when it look like Batman was restraining himself from stabbing Robin in the eye with a fork, when the dialogue reflects that he's merely making a point in his story.
It's like he's designed each panel to deliver the maximum amount of impact -- whether or not it's needed.
To paraphrase again, this time from Spinal Tap, he's turned the whole book up to 11.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next