www.ComicBookPage.com

Maybe it just me, but lately the podcasts seem to have a tension in them that wasn't there before. I realize that people can't agree on everything all the time, but the disagreements are more noticeable and almost feel awkward at times. Those moments take away from the enjoyment of the listening to show. Like I said, maybe its just me but I have been a fan of the guys for a long time and I just want it to stay that way.

BuffDaddyBill wrote:I realize that people can't agree on everything all the time, but the disagreements are more noticeable....

I think over time John & I have diverged on how we interpret the 5-point rating scale.

We'll get together & go over that scale so that we can come to some kind of common ground on what makes up a 3/4/5.

i could have sworn there was a thread discussing rating systems somewhere but i can't find it.

BuffDaddyBill wrote:Maybe it just me, but lately the podcasts seem to have a tension in them that wasn't there before. I realize that people can't agree on everything all the time, but the disagreements are more noticeable and almost feel awkward at times. Those moments take away from the enjoyment of the listening to show. Like I said, maybe its just me but I have been a fan of the guys for a long time and I just want it to stay that way.

I was totally just thinking that, but to show how individual tastes vary, I was thinking how great it was that these guys are HONEST and PASSIONATE. I love the fact that John's analytical and sometimes linear approach is balanced against Bob's more emotional and pragmatic perspectives.

I think some of those brief flashes of 'oh DAMN!' mean that we're getting REAL opinions as opposed to scripted diatribes. How many times do you hear exchanges between hosts on other podcasts where it's clear they're not really LISTENING to one another?

I don't believe that happens between John and Bob.

Don't get me wrong as I really appreciate what the guys do and how informative the shows are and this is nothing to do with the ratings. I like the banter John and Bob have together, there just seems to be a sharper tone sometimes that seems more negative than usual. I realize I am reading (actually listening) way more in to this then I should. If the guys are ok with it, then so am I.

I hate it when Mommy and Daddy fight!

I put things up to the Siskel & Ebert paradigm. According to legend, the two were cordial, but not exactly best buds coming out of the gate, and weren't afraid to disagree about something they both felt passionate about - that being the movies. That said, at the end of the day when it all broke up, Ebert said he misses him a lot.

Trev wrote:i could have sworn there was a thread discussing rating systems somewhere but i can't find it.

We have it here:
http://www.comicbookpage.com/Podcast/Sh ... ewList.php

5: Outstanding!! One of the best I have read.

4: Great! Glad to be reading it.

3: Good solid comic.

2: OK. A few problems with execution but still worth reading.

1: Poorly executed comic. I really struggled to read through this book. Try it only if you really love the character/creator or if you can find it in the quarter bins. But maybe you'll like it more than I did.

0: Terrible Comic. I regret having wasted my money on this book.

Here are my thoughts on how I review comics…

We use a five point rating with 1 being the lowest, 3 being the dead center and 5 being the highest. Basically the scale is 1 = Embarrassingly Bad, 2= Notably Below Average Quality, 3 = Average Quality, 4 = Notably Above Average Quality and 5 = Damn Near A Perfect Comic Book Issue.

For me, a comic needs to be embarrassingly bad on a technical, nearly incomprehensible and/or an exceedingly poor value for the money/time to get a 1 rating. Basically, in some key aspect the comic simply does not work at all. I think I've out maybe five of these over the course of the 600 or so comics Bob and I have discussed on the Weekly Comics Spotlight. These should be rare as this is the far low end of the bell curve. On one occasion, Bob and I both gave a 0 rating to a comic that was so bad on so many levels that it made giving it a 1 rating seem too high.

I'll give a 2 rating to a comic that is noticeably inferior to what I consider to be an average comic. Things like poor storytelling, unclear art, too little story content are things that can and have knocked comics out of the 3 and down to a 2 rating for me. These are things that left me particularly unimpressed by the technical quality, the narrative and/or ran blatantly counter to the expectations set by the solicitation and cover of the comic. If the comic doesn't deliver what was promised by the solicitation, then it fell short of the goal the publisher set for it and I'll grade it accordingly. While it may seem like this is harsh criteria, only about 6% of the comics I've rated for the Weekly Comics Spotlight have fallen into this category.

By definition, 3 is the rating for an average comic. For me, comics start at the average quality and work up or down from there. The majority of comics are therefore going to get a 3 rating and there is nothing wrong with that. A three rating is the top of the bell curve. About 35% of the comics covered on the Weekly Comics Spotlight have fallen into this category for me.

Part of the reason for that is Bob and I cherry pick the items each week based on what we are most interested in discussing. Typically these are titles we are particularly enjoying. As a result, most of what we review might end up with a 4 rating from me since we are more likely to talk about comics we think are better than average. About 46% of the comics we've talked about have fallen into this rating for me. Again, we are more likely to pick comics we really like than those we don't like as much.

To get a 4 rating from me, the issue has to be more than "just another comic" in some way, shape or form to move up from a 3 to a 4 for me. In other words, the issue "clicks" with me more than an average issue does or it is clearly (at least to me) superior to the average comic is some definable manner.

To get the 5 out of 5, the issue needs to be fairly close to as good as it could possibly get. Like the 1 rating, these should be fairly rare since it as the best of the best. While I may seem reluctant to give out this rating, and I am, I've given it to over 12% of the comics I've rated. The majority of these have been for non-Marvel/DC titles and I think part of that is because it is easier for something outside of one of the established universes to push the boundaries and do something really impressive.

Various things can influence how I rate an issue. And, to be clear, I'm rating the particular issue, not the storyline or series as a whole. If the issue is late and fails to successfully get me back into the story, I'll knock the rating down on those grounds. Again, I'm judging the issue as I see it, as it came out as a single issue, when it came out. Many of the issues I've read would benefit greatly from reading the entire story arc in a single sitting. Alas, if they release it in installments, I feel it is fair to judge those installments individually. I also don't cut creators much slack when I feel they are coasting on the contents of previous issues. I may love a series but if the current issue don't include the names of the characters and give me a clue why there are pages devoted to a subplot seemingly disconnected to the rest of the contents of the issue, I'll drop my rating.

Obviously few issues tell a complete story. I'm fine with that and don't penalize and issue for being part of a larger story. That having been said, it there isn't a beginning, middle and end to something in the issue then I will penalize it for the issue not being whole in and of itself. I expect first issues to set up the premise, characters and status quo and get the story started. I expect final issues to have a conclusion and an ending. Given that many comics are part of a shared universe, I do not expect finality to the end of a story, just a feeling of closure.

I'm not judging how the issue might read in a collected edition or to some particular demographic. I can only judge the comic from my own perspective and I try not to second-guess what some ideal member of the suspected target audience might think. That having been said, both Bob and I do try to point out what kind of person might really enjoy the comic, even if we didn't. Different comics appeal to different people for different reasons. Hopefully our reviews help people find the comics that are right for them.

For me, comics are a storytelling medium. Most of my comments about the art tend to be around if it is helping to pull me into the story or acting as a barrier to the story for me. There are certain art styles I prefer over others. I try to be clear when an art style simply isn't to my tastes versus one that is poorly executed. I expect stories to have an internal logic to them. The storytellers are making up the rules (or inheriting them in the case of a shared universe), and I feel they are obligated to follow those rules. Or at least address them in some sort of satisfying manner.

There is a huge difference between playing by the rules set and extrapolating things to the final conclusion. An escalation of power or power usefulness can kill the narrative potential faster than anything else. Instead, the creators should either set up the premise to rework it such that there are logical and understandable reasons why something that seems obvious to a reader isn't done. When that doesn't happen, and the writer ignores something I find to be fairly obvious, I am left feeling like the writer didn't do a great job.

Anytime I can see a future story point coming from a mile away, by definition, the writing is unsurprising and a bit disappointing. Likewise, if I feel a character should know or do something that should be obvious to the character but clearly didn't occur to the writer, I am left disappointed. Except in the case of when it seems like a deliberate move by the writer to facilitate the story as which point I feel the write was lazy and essentially cheated instead of doing the work of making the story hold true to the characters and situation.

While I focus heavily on the story content, the solicitation of the issue sets my expectations of the contents. Note that I said "solicitation" and not "marketing" as what sets my expectations. I tend not to follow the marketing push the publishers and creators put behind most titles. I don't judge the comic based on what one of the creators or the editor or publisher said in an interview. Misleading solicitations can really bias my opinion of a comic, usually not to the benefit of the issue.

There is a return-on-investment aspect to my reviews and ratings too. I can be a bit more forgiving for lower prices comics than for higher priced comics. This isn't a pennies-per-page calculation so much as do I feel the comic was overpriced compared to the current "standard price" for comics.

I try to be consistent with how I rate issues and apply the same criteria to each one. This means balancing the objective aspects of judging an issue with the obviously subjective opinions I have on that same issue. I can respect a comic that I don't like and I can enjoy a comic that I felt was somewhat poorly done. Just because I give an issue a 4 rating does not mean I'm going to get the next issue. I don't read comics just because they are well done if they don't appeal to my tastes and interests.

One of my goals with the podcast is to not replace or diminish the experience of reading a comic book. I try to talk about my thoughts of a comic book issue without reveal too much about the contents of the issue itself. Ideally, not a single specific story point would be revealed in the course of the discussion. This is a point that Bob and I have very different opinions on.

Once story points have been introduces into the discussion, yes, I have been discussing them. And, yes, we do discuss some things that are clearly spoilers. Sometimes we talk around a reveal, other times we don't. I try to limit any story points, both major and minor, being revealed to ones that I have to reveal in order to discuss something I feel needs to be discussed. It isn't that I don't try to recap the contents of the issue but that I explicit try to avoid doing just that.

Regardless of if something is a "spoiler" or not, the creators of the comic book spend a great deal of time and energy crafting a story. Revealing aspects of that story outside of the confines and context of the story is tantamount to stealing the thunder of the creators. This strikes me as a very inconsiderate thing to do to both the creators and to the potential audience.

There are some podcasts out there that do very detailed reviews of comics and are so in depth that I feel as if I've essentially read the issue just by listening to the podcast. I have no problem with those podcasts and enjoy a number of them. The Tom vs. podcast is brilliant. But that is not the kind of podcast that I want the Comic Book Page podcast to be. I'm disappointed every time I feel we cross that line of revealing too much of the contents of a comic book issue. Bob's feeling on this are different and I understand that.

I know that I can seem very critical of comics at times. I figure that it the creators put in serious time and effort creating it, the least I can do it put forth some effort in giving some substantive feedback on the issue. Hopefully, any criticism is constructive, clearly articulated, backed up with the reasoning behind it and fair. To that end, I have gotten into the habit of jotting down some bullet point notes to compensate for my increasingly poor memory. Do I think too much about the issues we review? Maybe, but I'm okay with that.

Bob and I are going to have different opinions on comics and different opinions on what it means to review comics. That is fine. I don't mind when Bob has a different take on a comic than I do. It would be a boring discussion if we always agreed on everything. No doubt some of you reading this will disagree with some of the way I review comics. I'm fine with that so long as any disagreement is done respectfully and that has never been a problem on this forum.

I noticed something similar, but I mostly took it as John being as precise as possible, nothing more. As an audience member, I probably don't need those extra decimal places of precision as I get the gist of what both gentlemen are saying early on. But it doesn't bother me much, since I've heard real contention on many other podcasts.

BTW, I just want to say I like the way you guys review comics. For me, it's the best balance of technical analysis versus artistic appreciation. In contrast, I really dislike typical movie reviews, because they don't take into account that technical or structural flaws in movies might not detract from the overall enjoyment. On the other hand, superbly made movies can be a total drag.

And your tone is not pretentious at all, as evidenced by the fact that you can recognize that someone may appreciate a book that you yourself aren't entirely fond of. What you guys do is what I wish many others, including myself, would learn from.

I love how John and Bob rate the comics and talk about what they like about each issue and what they dont. What I also like is how they stay on point with what they are talking about. Too many podcasts diverge off topic a little too much in my opinion and sort of bores me. I see this podcast as one of the very best. I look forward to the next back issue spotlight you guys come up with too. I love those.

JohnMayo wrote: There are some podcasts out there that do very detailed reviews of comics and are so in depth that I feel as if I've essentially read the issue just by listening to the podcast. I have no problem with those podcasts and enjoy a number of them. The Tom vs. podcast is brilliant. But that is not the kind of podcast that I want the Comic Book Page podcast to be. I'm disappointed every time I feel we cross that line of revealing too much of the contents of a comic book issue. Bob's feeling on this are different and I understand that.

I don't think we're that far apart in spirit. Sometimes I want to really talk about particulars in an issue that really had an effect on my enjoyment of it (and thus my rating) and it's hard to do that without giving away certain plot elements.

The main difference I think John & I have is that I think revealing a certain amount of the story makes it an engaging conversation about that particular issue as opposed to being a generic discussion that while targeted at a specific issue could apply to many different comics.

I am a bit behind with my podcasts and just listened to #176 and I now understand why this thread came into being. Things were definitely a bit a niggly on #176 but without a difference of opinion the podcasts would grow stale so I dont mind.

Comic books are such a subjective thing that I always take reviews as nothing more than a guide. If I hear or read a review on a book I have read myself and that review reflects my own opinion I give that reviewer more credence in the future.

I have discovered some amazing books through this forum and the podcasts.

Vive la difference