Main Menu

2000 AD in Stages

Started by Funt Solo, 23 July, 2019, 10:57:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Richard

The only good thing about Big Dave was that Steve Parkhouse did a really good picture of a lion for it once. Otherwise it was utter shit, and I thought at the time and still think now that it didn't belong in 2000AD. (Or anywhere else either really.)

AlexF

I still get a kick out of trying to work out what, if anything, counts as satire in Big Dave. Was there a similar narrative somewhere out there in 1993 that basically did Big Dave but took itself seriously? I suppose Morrison and Millar maybe thought that this is what the Daily Mail + The Sun thought a true British hero should be like?
With that in mind that one cover and some of the pin-ups for Big Dave are both clever and funny. Wading through the actual episodes, not so much.

That said, I fear it's a better overall example of comics than BLAIR 1, which is definitely satire but equally definitely not funny.

Am loving Funt's wade through of the 90s. Bad comics make for good commentary!

Has it been remarked generally that Rob Williams' 'Titan/Enceladus' epic functions as a sort of apology for Inferno, as if to say 'look, there IS a way to tell a coherent revenge story about Titan judges'?

TordelBack

Quote from: AlexF on 01 May, 2020, 02:12:20 PM
Was there a similar narrative somewhere out there in 1993 that basically did Big Dave but took itself seriously? I suppose Morrison and Millar maybe thought that this is what the Daily Mail + The Sun thought a true British hero should be like?

That is exactly the premise of Big Dave: here's what it would look like if the picture of the world endlessly promoted in the Sun etc. was real, and their target reader was putting it all to rights. To-wit: being gay is being weak, contemptible and a Dick Emery character; everyone foreign is bad and probably gay; Terry Waite is a True Brit with True Grit; Diana and Fergie are psychopathic slags; all the problems of the world could be quickly sorted by a Manchester lad and his man-eating dogs if the Nanny State would only let him do his thing.

It's not a bad concep for a gag strip, but somewhere along the way it seemed to stop mocking the instigators and start revelling in their material instead.  It didn't help that Viz trod the same ground at the same time with 10 times the subtlety and 100 times the readership.

QuoteHas it been remarked generally that Rob Williams' 'Titan/Enceladus' epic functions as a sort of apology for Inferno, as if to say 'look, there IS a way to tell a coherent revenge story about Titan judges'?

If so, I'm still waiting.

IndigoPrime

Quote from: TordelBack on 01 May, 2020, 05:00:50 PMIt's not a bad concep for a gag strip, but somewhere along the way it seemed to stop mocking the instigators and start revelling in their material instead.
That's the problem with it. Satire is tricky. Dredd is often darkly comic and satirical. But the strip as a whole doesn't punch down — and you get that when it's done well/properly (i.e. basically everything in the Smith-edited era, and much of the classic era), the production itself doesn't hold hostile and problematic views. I never got that from Big Dave. It felt — and still feels — like it just basically was the thing it was ostensibly lampooning. It's not even a case of trying to be subtle as a brick — it's just bad writing. Who you look at in particular what Millar was doing at the time in other 2000 AD strips, such as Robo-Hunter, it doesn't look like an accident, nor a case of misinterpretation either.

TordelBack

I might disagree that Dredd doesn't punch down. Frequently the oppressed citizens and their mutie brethren are as much figures of fun as they are victims, ignorantly gawping at their Tri-Vees, stuffing their faces, turning on each other, complaining about everything and voting turkey-like for Christmas. I know there are many, many counterpoints, but the stupidity and uselessness of the unwashed masses is a recurring source of humour.

Tjm86

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 01 May, 2020, 05:13:10 PM
... it's just bad writing. Who you look at in particular what Millar was doing at the time in other 2000 AD strips, such as Robo-Hunter, it doesn't look like an accident, nor a case of misinterpretation either.

ISTR somewhere that Millar is alleged to have held his Tooth writing days in complete contempt as a stepping stone to America.  Certainly a lot of what he wrote supports that allegation.  I mean, I know that the casual homophobia and exploitational sexual attitudes of the 90's infected Tooth for a while but even by those standards what he wrote was offensive, trite and something that I generally avoid like the plague.

IndigoPrime

Quote from: TordelBack on 01 May, 2020, 05:39:00 PMthe stupidity and uselessness of the unwashed masses is a recurring source of humour.
There's a difference between a satire on the masses not getting their collective arses in gear and enacting change (actual satire) vs a comic running around yelling POOF every five seconds. But, yeah, Dredd does sometimes punch down — I just don't get the feeling the strip does that relentlessly, nor that it — as you said of Big Dave — "revels" in that nastiness, and certainly not nearly in the same way. (Dredd feels like a warning. Big Dave was like an arsehole on the bus screaming at gay people and foreigners.)

Quote from: Tjm86 on 01 May, 2020, 07:36:19 PMISTR somewhere that Millar is alleged to have held his Tooth writing days in complete contempt as a stepping stone to America.
In a sense, it's curious that worked. His material was so awful that it's surprising he's as big as he is now.

Greg M.

I don't think Millar's success is surprising - but I also don't think it's wholly down to his writing ability. Some of it is - he's a very competent writer with a very strong populist streak (which also manifests as a certain meand-spiritedness in his writing) and an unerring ability to give the masses what they want. But a fair bit of his success comes from the hucksterish Stan-Lee-for-the-21st-century persona he's created - he's a brilliant salesman.

Colin YNWA

Quote from: Greg M. on 01 May, 2020, 09:07:09 PM
I don't think Millar's success is surprising - but I also don't think it's wholly down to his writing ability. Some of it is - he's a very competent writer with a very strong populist streak (which also manifests as a certain meand-spiritedness in his writing) and an unerring ability to give the masses what they want. But a fair bit of his success comes from the hucksterish Stan-Lee-for-the-21st-century persona he's created - he's a brilliant salesman.

Exactly this. Mark Millar is a solid writer but with a deep sense of marketing and what makes the world tick. When I'm being particularly snarky no artist imperative, or drive, rather a commercial brain and a willingness to craft what will sell with amerciless precision. He writes pitches for movies not stories he needs to get out of him (utter speculation of course). This fully explains the cynical writing he did in 2000ad - alas his craft and precision wasn't honed at this point so we get raw less guileful Millar.

All that said fair play to him as whatever his motives are he clearly hits the mark if deliberate or not.

Funt Solo

Perhaps riding the wave of talent that came before him? At any rate, he's clearly become very successful. I find it difficult to hold it against him that he cut his teeth on Tooth: especially when he's self-disparaging.

Here's a couple of clippings from an interview he did in M323 (2012), where Calum Waddell is asking the questions:

Quote
Q: Nemesis also caused a fair bit of controversy – in the light of Big Dave, American Jesus and Kick-Ass it must be safe to say that you enjoy stirring things up a bit...

A: Yeah, I mean, you're absolutely correct. But everything I've ever written has caused furore somewhere. I don't seek controversy out, though. For me to be interested in something it has to be a little different. I get bored quite fast so I do things for my own amusement.

Quote
Q: Let's go back in time – what are your memories of your stint with 2000 AD?

A: It is funny actually because I only got into 2000 AD after I began working on it. Growing up I was reading American comics – and that was mainly because my brothers handed me what they were looking at, which was all Spider-Man and Superman. So I didn't realise how good 2000 AD was until much later on – and I hate to say this but I think I wrote some of the worst 2000 AD stories ever. I think I was lucky to get in there because it was at the time when Alan Grant, John Wagner and Pat Mills were busy working in the States. So they needed new writers and the guys running the magazine at the time – Richard Burton and Alan McKenzie – were really lovely to me. They were so patient with me and they helped me along. It was really hard for me because a good half of what I wrote was rubbish and the other half was just okay. I remember writing for 2000 AD and reading stuff like The Cursed Earth saga for the first time. I mean, wow, I never even got close to doing something that great. When I began working on CLiNT magazine I told people that I saw its readership as being '2000 AD and Empire'. I wanted to blend both magazines together.



++ A-Z ++  coma ++

IndigoPrime

I've not read that much of his post-2000 AD output, TBF. I have Red Son, which was lauded as amazing at the time, and I found it... fine? His Ultimates was, when I read it, quite good, but then I went in quite deep with that when the line launched, and am... less keen when I head back to it today.

I recall quite liking Kick-Ass, but also having quite a lot of issues with its characterisation and treatment of certain people. Oh, and I did read Jupiter's Legacy, but can't remember what I thought of it, which... probably isn't a great thing.

Good, I suppose, that he's at least aware his 2000 AD work was mostly dogshit. (I will defend 'Long Distance Calls' until the cows come home, however.)

Greg M.

Quote from: Colin YNWA on 01 May, 2020, 09:12:39 PM
This fully explains the cynical writing he did in 2000ad - alas his craft and precision wasn't honed at this point so we get raw less guileful Millar.

Yes - Millar writes what he thinks an audience wants, and in his prime, he knew exactly what an audience wanted. 2000AD, of course, was before his prime. As noted in the interview excerpt Funt Solo quotes, Millar wasn't a 2000AD fan prior to working on the comic: I think I've said it before, but this means his stories are a kind of warped funhouse-mirror version of 2000AD. From that perspective, they're a fascinating insight into what 2000AD looks like to someone on the outside - a den of amoral lead characters and ultraviolence, delivered with an 'up yours' attitude.

Richard

Quote...a den of amoral lead characters and ultraviolence, delivered with an 'up yours' attitude.

To be fair, that's pretty much what 2000AD is meant to be, just not the way Mark Millar did it. But his answer to the second question quoted above is disarmingly honest and self-deprecating, and he acknowledges that the people before him did much better, so I can forgive him for Big Dave. Plus I quite enjoyed Silo, even if he did rip off a scene from Die Hard.

Jim_Campbell

Quote from: Richard on 01 May, 2020, 10:26:17 PM
even if he did rip off a scene from Die Hard.

And The Shining, if memory serves. Morrison at least had the decency to generally rob from obscure-ish and eclectic sources... barring some some shameless thievery from Claremont-era X-Men in Zenith, which at least had the rationale of being theme-appropriate homage.
Stupidly Busy Letterer: Samples. | Blog
Less-Awesome-Artist: Scribbles.

Funt Solo

And maybe War Games, according to ... myself:

QuoteSilo
Perhaps inspired by a scene in WarGames (1983) featuring the two-man rule and definitely borrowing heavily from both The Shining and Die Hard, this is tonally a blend of 70s and 80s horror movies. Dark, bloody and somewhat confusing.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++