Alpha Flight (Vol.4) #1 Review Compilation Thread

[Le Messor]

Glad he liked the book, but I really could not disagree with that first paragraph more.

I couldn't disagree with his spelling of 'Marianna' more.

Same here, Suzene! I saw that one and thought they were really unprofessional.

I'm noticing that we're saying anybody who disses the issues are unprofessional or bad reviewers...

Also, the 'generic city' art... worst I've ever seen was in a JLI annual. They showed my home city (Canberra), which in real life looks nothing like Generic City (that's on the west coast). The Simpsons got it more right!

- Le Messor
"Kant's principle of universalisability in ethics is often alluded to by the common question: "What if everybody did it?" But to this, there is a common rejoinder: "They don't."
~ T.V. Morris, Bluffer's Guide to Philosophy

[Wolfie]

I couldn't disagree with his spelling of 'Marianna' more.

I'm noticing that we're saying anybody who disses the issues are unprofessional or bad reviewers...

I can't speak for others, but in my case (and it's my quote you used), I say they're unprofessional if they make inaccurate statements. These guys, for example, criticized elements of the art where they were just plain factually wrong. I call them unprofessional because they criticize Dale for not portraying Vancouver correctly, and for using generic cityscapes, when in fact the script called for a very specific area of Vancouver and his rendition was spot-on. If you're going to make public statements, I think you need to make sure you're not talking out of your derrière first.

Nowadays, anyone with access to the Internet can call themselves reviewers, but honestly, I'd say only about 1 in 10 "reviews" I read are TRUE, professional reviews. I was chatting with a Marvel exec the other day, and he was remembering how he reviewed some comics of Dale's many years ago. He said just how embarrassed he was about those old reviews, and how unprofessional they were. And those reviews of his, in my opinion, were leagues ahead of what we read these days. Most reviewers today don't even seem to know who does what, for Pete's sake!! They'll blame or credit one member of the creative team for something that had nothing to do with them, and vice-versa.

As for the word serviceable (re: your comment on another thread), it bothers me because of its dismissive nature. What if I said "Michael Jackson's music is serviceable," for example? Is that accurate? No, of course not. I think we can agree that he is recognized as being talented and has proven himself over a span of many years. I can say "I've never enjoyed that type of music, so this song doesn't do it for me." AH! Now that's fine. So when someone who obviously likes more cartoony art says that someone more realistic "sucks," yep, I have a problem with that. A reviewer should be well-versed in all types of art and be able to recognize an artist's strengths and weaknesses WITHIN that genre.

If you look more closely, by the way, you'll see there are many reviews on which I don't comment. They can be negative reviews, as long as their criticisms are legitimate and supported by evidence.

[Le Messor]

I can't speak for others, but in my case (and it's my quote you used), I say they're unprofessional if they make inaccurate statements.

That's fair.
On the other side, I've read professional reviews with wildly inaccurate statements. My favourite being (spoilers for a 1994 movie here) a review of Star Trek: Generations in a local paper that included the phrase 'You know how this ends; the galaxy is saved, Kirk lives...'
I thought they'd be expected to watch the movie before reviewing it.

As for the word serviceable (re: your comment on another thread), it bothers me because of its dismissive nature.

Again, that's fair. My comments weren't based on you being bothered by it being dismissive, but I got the impression that (note my usual state of confusion) you didn't think it was deliberately so - hence why my answer. That it was.
I do think Dale's art is much better than serviceable, btw.

If you look more closely, by the way, you'll see there are many reviews on which I don't comment. They can be negative reviews, as long as their criticisms are legitimate and supported by evidence.

I just got back after a month to find sixty threads I hadn't read.
Let's just say I haven't read all those reviews, and I'm now an unprofessional reviewer of your reviews of their reviews...
Wow, how meta can we get?

Also, I've long thought we do need professional review reviewers.

- Le Messor
"Two rights don’t make a wrong, they make an airplane."

[Ben]

I just got back after a month to find sixty threads I hadn't read.
Let's just say I haven't read all those reviews, and I'm now an unprofessional reviewer of your reviews of their reviews...
Wow, how meta can we get?

Also, I've long thought we do need professional review reviewers.
[/FONT]

so, that being said, lets look at the nature of this site. It is the ultimate expression of opinions of Alpha Flight fans. That being said, we will always be skewed towards support of the title. That being said, no opinion, review, or commentary will ever be dismissed here, unless it violates site protocols (which are very liberal, but are limited by site regulations on slander, and anti-family-friendly content). Should a review be written that gives negative view on any matterial, it will be published, as long as it does not violate site regulations.