It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Not entirely true.This might make me a dick but this made me laugh out loud. This whole comment is out of pocket. None of us know anything but what has been said in here. That mean you can 't pass judgement on a decision by people about there thing.
But the show is based off of the illusion that it's just a bunch of friends sitting around talking about comics. If Mike got booted because he wasn't getting along with the rest of the geeks (no matter whose fault it was, if anyone's), then that illusion would not be shattered because that kind of thing happens with friends. If Mike is getting booted because the anonymous financial backer of CGS said to boot him, the illusion is shattered.We, being comic geeks, hate change and crave it at the same time. And we love drama (otherwise X-Men, LoSH, heck its the foundation of this very medium we love to share and partake in) and it is a change in the show that we have to adjust to.
I know we all feel bit part of the community of CGS, and being on and in the forums adds to that. But it stops there. The forum is not the show. The show is the show. Draw the line in our heads and leave it at that. Let those who have handled the matter handle it. It is not our place to involve ourselves in other peoples' private affairs. The matter has been addressed. Lets move on, please...
and if you "dislike" or "disagree", cool.
I think a thread like this should have the disagree button turned off. If you're saying that a book is over-rated, it means you think it's not as good as the majority thinks it is. Obviously, people are going to disagree with you. What's the point of stating it?Over-rated comics? First, thanks for using the hyphen. It's wonderful when people use their educations!
Second, I really believe that there is no such thing. Why? Because art is entirely subjective, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And thus, one should never label a piece of art as "receiving more respect than it deserves" (AKA is over rated) because that would suggest that a particular piece of art has an unequivocally exact and intrinsic value... but no piece of art does... because it's all entirely subjective.
Hence, Random73's confusion about other works of art that:
"...other geeks seem to think are phenomenal that I just don't get..."
is PERFECTLY reasonable and ENTIRELY predictable. Why? Because Random73 has the ability to generate an independent thought. And thus, the "reputation" of a particular piece of art should be, and seems to be, completely irrelevant to Random73. Good! That's the way that it should be! Anyone who "tries to like something" because all the cool kids like it is hopelessly insecure (at best).
But the FUN part in all of this is EXACTLY what SolitaireRose wrote to start this thread: "...to discuss WHY we feel they aren't as good as people believe" or, to put a positive spin of things, to describe why we like something as much as we do. Let's emphasize the positive in art! Isn't it more fun to describe why we love something instead of listing why we dislike something?
Although I disagree strongly with SolyRose in that it is possible to "convince us that we are wrong." There is no such thing as being "wrong" about art. My opinion about my individual likes and dislikes will NEVER be wrong, ever. Nobody will ever "convince" me that the Mona Lisa is priceless. I think it's ugly and boring... and I will always reserve my right to judge art for myself, thanks.
So, no, I have no interest in changing SolyRose's mind about Spider-Man: Reign (which I also disliked immensely), but I would like to suggest that the assumption of the post (i.e., that each piece of art has an undeniable intrinsic value) is in error. Simply stated, Soly and I both dislike "Reign," whereas the folks at "Comics Should Be Good" seem to love it, and nobody is correct, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and no amount of discussion will ever change that reality.