The New Adventures of Pat Mills

[Timothy]

The main thing that bothers me about this forum is the constant Mills-bashing that goes on here, and this thread is another example of it.

I agree that there is a degree of Mills-bashing around, but it's also worth pointing out that for many on this forum Mills can do no wrong. It may be that the bashing grates with you in the same way that the adulation grates with others.

[nxylas]

The main thing that bothers me about this forum is the constant Mills-bashing that goes on here, and this thread is another example of it.

I agree that there is a degree of Mills-bashing around, but it's also worth pointing out that for many on this forum Mills can do no wrong. It may be that the bashing grates with you in the same way that the adulation grates with others.

I'm kind of in between. I remain a fan of his work, I'm looking forward to his Joe Pineapples story, and I think he makes some valid points about creator ownership. But...well, the politest way I can think of to say this is that he weakens his case by overstating it.

[Funt Solo]

The main thing that bothers me about this forum is the constant Mills-bashing that goes on here, and this thread is another example of it.

I'd echo others. It's not constant, and there is some balance. I love a lot of Mills' work for the comic. On the other hand, I have criticisms. Is it bashing to point out when someone (even someone you might have a lot of affection for) does something you think is unfair? Maybe it is, from your perspective. I would assume that Mills (never one to blindly honor "the man") would appreciate that people don't blindly accept his word as gospel. If not appreciate, then surely understand.

It would be nice, I suppose, to hear your counter-argument to any of the points that have been raised. It's difficult to have a discussion based on "Mills is lovely" vs. "Mills is nasty". Mills is complicated.

[Leigh S]

I am dubious of NFTs, but admit that is due to the general air of pyramid scheme that surrounds the word, and my entre lack of understanding of what the hell they actually are.  I read Pats explanation and couldnt really see how it was any different from a very liited edition run, that he can continue to monetize (though you could sell the physical copy and not the digital bit surely, thus cutting him out of the revenue stream?)

The other angle he seems excited about is "interaction" with fans, but I worry that is just franchising his characters to anyone willing to stump up cash?

AI art is not something I particularly like the idea of either - mybe for concepting it might have some uses, but thats using the prior work of others  - you could argue Pat has always had that approach when he sent his artists tons of reference - using others orior work to buid on your own. 

Both of those leave a sour taste - I see he is trying to defend the NFTs more than the AI art presently.

More of a problem for me would be any apologising for Putin, which I would hope Pat's self professed career fight against Authoritarianism would make impossible for him to dabble in.  I understand that the difference between a Mask on and Mask Off authoritarian might be smaller than you think, but that doesnt make the mask off one any better! It's clear that Ukraine were not gagging to be subsumed into the Motherland and are fighting for Freedom.  Thats the end of the debate as far as I'm concerned.  If Russias neighbours ahve all been queuing up to join NATO, perhaps Russia needs to look at itself for the main reason why that might be.

[IndigoPrime]

Er. Please tell me Mills isn't a Putin apologist.

As for AI art, that I do have a problem with, but I suspect it's the inevitable March of progress. (That it is entirely reliant on pre-existing work and can iterate at terrifying speed seems to have escaped quite a few people.)

[The Mind of Wolfie Smith]

i can't read mills any more.
i wish someone had told my young self not to have heroes - y'know, marshal law or the like.

[Richard]

Please tell me Mills isn't a Putin apologist.

I read that as hypothetical. I haven't seen Mills say anything like that.

[nxylas]

Er. Please tell me Mills isn't a Putin apologist.

Not...exactly. He's more the sort of lefty who is vastly more skeptical about Western media than he is about "Russian state-affiliated media", as they say on Twitter.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

[13school]

The main thing that bothers me about this forum is the constant Mills-bashing that goes on here, and this thread is another example of it.

I recently did a re-read of American Reaper (shock twist: it reads pretty well in one go - serialisation did not do it any favours, and the lack of a collection is a real shame) and was thinking about starting a thread here about maybe re-considering or re-assessing it. Especially as it definitely *does* have flaws, but I wonder if some of the problems people had with it were a result of its very decompressed storytelling approach and being doled out a few pages at a time each month.

(for one thing, I was definitely surprised to discover that the story comes to a firm conclusion - one of the few Mills serials to do so. It may not be a great conclusion, but it doesn't just fizzle out like Savage)

But honestly, at this point in time it feels like threads here on Mills and his work, whatever the starting point, only ever go one way.

[Funt Solo]

The main thing that bothers me about this forum is the constant Mills-bashing that goes on here, and this thread is another example of it.

I recently did a re-read of American Reaper (shock twist: it reads pretty well in one go - serialisation did not do it any favours, and the lack of a collection is a real shame) and was thinking about starting a thread here about maybe re-considering or re-assessing it. Especially as it definitely *does* have flaws, but I wonder if some of the problems people had with it were a result of its very decompressed storytelling approach and being doled out a few pages at a time each month.

(for one thing, I was definitely surprised to discover that the story comes to a firm conclusion - one of the few Mills serials to do so. It may not be a great conclusion, but it doesn't just fizzle out like Savage)

But honestly, at this point in time it feels like threads here on Mills and his work, whatever the starting point, only ever go one way.

Maybe you're right - but I enjoyed a lot of American Reaper. I didn't think it was without its flaws, though.  I'd say it shouldn't hurt to start up a thread on that topic.

For all that some folk are suggesting this is a one-sided thread (or forum), I felt that it had already done this: "Mills loves NFTs and they're shit", followed by "Actually NFTs aren't totally shit", followed by "Oh, right, I see." All of that before anyone popped in to say that it was all one-sided hating for no reason. It may *feel* as if it's all Mills-bashing, but is it really?

[IndigoPrime]

I don't think the forum is Mills-bashing per se. Most of the problems people have will Mills come down to the same things: his constant slamming of Rebellion, his inconsistent stance on creator rights, and his recycling in the comics he writes that are most visible with people on this forum. However, I'd argue because he is so constantly vocal about everything, that's why he becomes a discussion point. Rarely do we have to wait long before there's another comment where he's bashing Rebellion for something or other, claiming the company is disingenuous or somehow has a vendetta against Mills and his work, and so on.

As Funt says, it's not like this is one-way traffic either. That would be more of a concern. Typically, I'd say these threads more often turn into interesting discussions about things like Rebellion's attitude towards contributors, creator rights, new technologies, and so on.

As for American Reaper, I'd say the big problem for me was the format. It just took up too much of the Meg. Because it didn't really click with me, its decompressed storytelling dominating the publication didn't exactly put me in a position where I felt increasingly favourable to it, let's say. But the broad strokes of the story worked well enough, and its finite nature was good to see. (And I don't mean that as damning with faint praise. I like it when stories end, even if there's always a door ajar for the future.)

[Richard]

I liked American Reaper, although I've never re-read it. Can't quite believe it's already ten years old. Maybe I should read it again. It had a strong premise.

[Dandontdare]

I liked American Reaper, although I've never re-read it. Can't quite believe it's already ten years old. Maybe I should read it again. It had a strong premise.

It did, but what always put me off was that I felt like I was in a focus group for a movie pitch. I don't mind movies based on comics but I don't like comics that only seem to exist because they desperately want to be movies.

AS for Slaine, the story has descended into an incomprehensible ramble, but for some time I've just enjoyed it as a showcase for some jaw-droppingly beautiful art. I liked the way he tied up Savage and ABC warriors continuity, but don't need any more.

[sheridan]

I recently did a re-read of American Reaper (shock twist: it reads pretty well in one go - serialisation did not do it any favours, and the lack of a collection is a real shame) and was thinking about starting a thread here about maybe re-considering or re-assessing it. Especially as it definitely *does* have flaws, but I wonder if some of the problems people had with it were a result of its very decompressed storytelling approach and being doled out a few pages at a time each month.

I think the main problem was exactly the opposite - it wasn't a few pages, it was about twice the amount of pages as any other story running at the time (and due to the 'decompressed' nature, told about two pages worth of story in the time).