Moonstone Forums

It is fairly well known that yes, the Phantom become more serious in the 80s, both the character himself and the general tone of the strip, due to the falk that maestro Falk started consentrating more and more on events based on the real world situation of the day.
I love the Peter David miniseries, and Mark Verheiden's DC run is one of the reasons why I became a fan in the first place.

However, while I have still not read Mike's story (but now that issue 13 is out, I have no excuse for waiting any longer to buy it, so look for my review before too long), I would like to say that I applaude anybody who is willing to go back to the character's roots, where he was this mysterious, dark nemesis of evil who the bad guys could never really get an upper hand on (if Mike have managed to capture this spirit remains to be seen, but I am certainly hopeful). Still, he did have a wonderful, dry sense of humour, that the strip sadly lost later on, when co-creator Ray Moore died.

What Ben Raab did to the character was interesting, and vice versa to Emma, I loved his stories. It felt a little like seeing the Phantom of the thirties fight crime in the new millenium. It would have been great if Mike could do as Raab, who updated the Sky Band, and bring some old Phantom villains out of retirement.

Ben also wrote one of my favorite Egmont stories, "The Invisible Phantom", which really shows how cool this figure can be; the undefined magic and mystique of the only comic book hero I deeply care about summed up perfectly in this 30 page tale of suspense. If Mike is eager to capture the mystery of the Phantom, I highly recommend he tries to track down a copy of this one, or even ask Ben if he has a copy of his original script so he can read it, as the Phantom's never appeared so much like the wraith he is supposed to be as in this story.

Thanks, Dougy! I didn't know that...neat.

Hey, you're both pros making a living at it. That in itself is no easy feat and an accomplishment to be applauded.

If two issues constitutes a run LOL. Hey, look... it's comic books and comic books are meant to be fun. We've all gone to work and slaved hard and taken pride in the end result, but all likely mailed in days too.
Me, I try to enjoy each comic for what it is, not what it isn't - and with the understanding that they'll be more misses than hits. But it's still all good fun!

Funny you should say, because I did just that - and not to diss the folks who no doubt worked hard to produce the story arc that I thought missed the mark. Rather, it was because I enjoy the Phantom and enjoy him written in a particular vein... so I wrote it myself ... a much healthier exercise than ragging the pro online like so many do without hesitation.

I wonder how much readers appreciate message boards and willingness of creators to participate. In all previous Phantom comics (and all other comics for that matter), if a reader wanted to question a writer or an artist, they could do it three ways...face to face at a convention, in a letter (with return address if a response was desired) or in the letter column in which the editor had the option of carrying or not carrying the letter. Again, these were accompanied by names and address (often published for all readers.)

Today, fans can discuss things on boards with artists, writers, editors etc. actually joining in and answering questions, listening to suggestions and explaining their reasoning and wishes.

Fans, trolls, and even frustrated writers and competitors alike can be cruel, rude, and take anonymous potshots at the creators who are willing to discuss their work. Unlike a convention encounter, they are not face to face, so often no measure of courtesy is observed.

Sometimes, (thankfully not always), this results in someone who might say "This is crap.",  "Your work sucks" etc. when in a better circumstance they might say, it wasn't what I was looking for, or I wish you would consider...

Remember there is a difference between a fact and a value judgement. Because something doesn't conform with your expectations or taste doesn't necessarily mean it's terrible. There are more than one case of creators who we would like to hear from who don't frequent the discussion boards because of terrible manners. And I don't blame them, why work hard to make a good product that many fans like and then subject yourself to toxic posts?

In other boards in particular, I've seen fledgling writers who likely are talented prospects tell famed established writers they are hacks.  I've been told by someone a continent away that people who are actually my close friends laugh at me behind my back.
I've seen ugly instances of name calling to others who disagree with their opinion...all these by fans of a comic character.

I don't think you need to be a writer to criticize writing or an artist to criticize art, but if you are, you might have a better understanding of the entire process.

I contend that Lee Falk would have appreciated Moonstone's efforts and would be horrified by the lack of manners by some posters and fans of a character that Billy Zane described as "Super Humane."

When I listen to a CD by a favorite recording artist, I don't expect every cut to be a masterpiece. I don't gush over every Phantom story by every publisher, but I try to have some understanding of the efforts made by the creators. Unlike Egmont who has a huge resource of very impressive international talent, Moonstone is a small publisher with a small budget. They are an underdog with a big heart.

And they're putting their heart into it,  presenting some quality work, taking some big risks with creative projects, learning as they go, bringing in new fans, and giving us one of only three sources of new Phantom stories...and they have some things coming up that will please a lot of old and new Phantom readers. (Not everyone of course, even Lee didn't do that.)

Bravo Mr. Rhoades~! You know I think you're the first person in two hundred years to understand that. Artists have no place to criticize artwork, not even their own. The same goes for writers, only the people who view or read their productions as either someone who's simply enjoying the image or story- or even a hard core fan can really criticize the artist. Imagine Michalengo criticizing Da Vinci's work and vice versa. "I didn't Make it for you, I made it for those people ovcr there!"
Still I think positive or "negative" feedback if there is such a thing, is the only thing said artist's and writers hone their craft for. What's the point of constructing a Hero in Marble (or Ink) if no one stops by to see it and say "It's Okay... I suppose."

Interesting discussion...but it may be off topic for me to mention that Michaelangelo and Leonardo did in fact criticize each other.  I would imagine that they respected each other despite their personal dislike for each other.

It's also interesting that Michaelangelo's figures had an exaggerated muscularity that was very modern for 'traditional' tastes.  Leonardo was more naturalistic. (The drawings on the walls were called cartoons even then.)

Kinda like some readers today prefer older more realistic, non muscular proportions for the Phantom like Ray Moore and Wilson McCoy depicted.
Modern comic artists in general including Graham Nolan and most of Moonstone artists subscribe to the heroic exaggeration which would make Arnold Schwarzenegger look smaller by comparison or at least normal.

But I digress... I never claimed or agree with your statement  "Artists have no place to criticize artwork."
I said "I don't think you need to be a writer to criticize writing or an artist to criticize art, but if you are, you might have a better understanding of the entire process."

Being an artist, a writer and a musician doesn't disqualify me from using my critical faculties when looking at the work. It does not, however, make my critique more or less valid than someone who does not participate in that aspect of  the creative process.

Still, artists really like their work to be appreciated by their peers. When I was at one of the Berndt Toast Gang dinners as Sy Barry's guest, all of the artists were blown away by John Buscema's exhibit. I liked John, but he was a terrible critic of his own work. I took an old Hercules comic I had to him for him to sign it and he said it was so bad it embarassed him and refused to look at it. He was wrong-the work was incredible.
Don't think he was rude though, he made me a sketch of Conan and gave me suggestions for teaching my art classes.

So, as I was saying, a critique from an artist is no more valid than one from a viewer, but one from an art historian might carry more insight.

Another example can be found in films. I am not impressed by how many stars a movie gets as how much it entertained me.
An actor would appreciate the casting, the setting, the direction, the cinematography, the pacing, the script, the acting etc.
For me, if I enjoy the film, it works for me.
I think the same thing can be said for comics. An anatomical mistake in a drawing that otherwise works well in a superficial way may not interfere with the reader's enjoyment, but it may offend an artist's sensibility.

I think artists are always their own hardest critic. You always look at somethign you've done, at least I know I do, and you think "wow, that is rubbish! How am I going to fix that?" I think it's a drive every artist of any faction has to be better at what they do, be they a musician, illustrator, painter or ship builder.

Touche. You said it better than anyone. I used to love letter pages - and as a teenager, strived to have a letter published in each of my favourite comic books. But then, unlike now with anonymous e-mails and catchy message board IDs, when one put a signature to it, it was a thoughtful and RESPECTFUL response... because an endorsement as simple as a signature held one accountable! I still adhere to that approach and tried to say as much when I wrote this:

Thanks, Mr. Rhoades. Here's hoping others are reminded of how hard comic book creators work to entertain us.

I once heard  the writer Neil Postman say in an interview. "If you don't want your work to be criticized, then don't put it out in the public sphere."  And I completely agree.


While I do sympathise with creators who get  posts from cranks on MB who are just there to cause mischief. I have no sympathy whatsoever for a writer/artist who can't take criticism.  Or who at the slightest criticism takes umbrage. I read a rant from Chuck Austen on a comic forum where he actually named posters who criticised his work.
And I thought, buddy if you don't want to be taken to task for your work, get a job working in an office. The only people who would care about the work you put out is your boss.

I mean like really grow up. That's the nature of the beast.  Two of my favourite authors are Brian Michael Bendis and Ed Brubaker.  I've seen them both take criticisms from fans but have gone on to make their work better. Instead of whinning about how the big bad mean fans don't appreciate their hard work.( Bendis has been upfront stating he doesn't like a$$ kissers). The criticism actually encouraged them to put out a better product.

I like comic books. But I am not charity. Books are expensive starting at 3 dollars an issue. And I don't think there's anything wrong with fans showing their disatisfaction or conversely praise.  I do think and I have no sympathy whatsoever for artists who think they are above criticism or should only get heaps of praise.

My boss doesn't pat me on the head everyday. If I mess up, and put out shoddy work. I get called on it. He doesn't care how much time and care I put into it. If the work I put out is shoddy and not up to standards I get corrected on it. I think that's the standard for the rest of the world. I don't see why artists should be immune from this.



As an aside, I'd like to commend Mike for his proffessionalism. When he could have adopted a 'How dare she criticize me!' type of attitude.

He handled my comments like a mature adult.

Off topic for a moment, I don;t understand why Bendis is such a highly regarded writer. Sure, I enjoy his books, Ultimate Spidey is lots of fun, House of M was OK, and the rest of the stuff I've read from him is fairly good, but personaly i don't think he's up there with your Jeph Loebs or your Mark Miller's. Someone really needs to explain it to me. ;p

While I certainly can't say I was happy to read your comments, I do appreciate the fact you took the time to post constructive criticism. Hopefully, you'll be hooked in those "3 more issues". :grin: