Mickelpers's Profile

I mean, it doesn't really help when Hickman doesn't want to focus on Spider-Man at all. Peter can be in the issue, but if the focus is entirely on the supporting cast, that just leaves him and his family very lackluster. This doesn't mean Hickman is a bad writer, or this is a badly written story, quite the opposite. But this series does deserve criticism for handling the main character poorly. Sure, letting Hickman cook is good, but after 17 issues, I am left disappointed.

Damn straight.

Gabe has singled handledly reduced the critic score overall to an 8.5. Take away his reviews, it'll sit closer to 9. There are people on here that only read 9 scores and above. Ludicrous though that may be, he's stopping people from reading this. He clearly doesn't dig the run and yet continues on this path of disdain. As his colleague implies, he is suspect indeed. But we're shills, don't you know?

All you have to do is look at the difference between ASM and USM. One is holding pretty steady in it's readership and scores whereas ASM is tanking in reviews and scores every release. If shilling for a book is reading the things that I actually like and rating it accordingly, then I don't know what being objective is.

Apparently Gabe Hernandez tends to grade things lower than usual is because he likes to compare everything to Watchmen as that's a 10/10. So this comes off as a 6/10. Again, I don't know if it's true. but that's what I heard. What are your thoughts on that reasoning?

Personally I disagree with that. you should judge every book by its own merits and not comparing it to other books. I think The Dark Knight is a personal masterpiece and is the greatest superhero film of all time. But I wouldn't say Avengers 3/4 is a "6/10" because it pales in comparison to TDK. That's just unfair and not correct. We should judge a book based on plot, pacing, art, action, characters, and dialogue. That's my Ted Talk

Basing judgement of one thing on another can be useful but when the two things you are comparing have nothing in common or you are letting your personal biases make criticism that would otherwise not be there, you have a huge problem. Comparing Spider-Man to Watchmen is a waste of time. Comparing most things to Watchmen was a waste of time until whenever Doomsday Clock started because there wasn't really any meaningful comparative story to it.

That's like taking Van Gogh's Starry Night and comparing it to nearly anything in comics. They aren't depicting the same thing. They are both art but they aren't trying to convey the same message. It comes off as disingenuous. It's not giving a fair shake to whatever you are holding it up against because of preconceived ideas that nothing can top whatever you liked previously.

I'm seconding Hex. I think that a lot of Spiderman could be on the same level as Watchmen while doing something very different. By the way, I find the notion that Watchmen or whatever comics really perfected the art form to be really disrespectful and narrow-minded, those are not the only ways to do comics.

Absolutely. Comics that are "perfect" or timeless classics, however you want to frame it, 10/10 comics are not all the same. Even if you used the same measure to compare Batman: Year One and Kingdom Come, two arguably "perfect" series, you're not giving the respect each deserves which is to view them on their own merit. These weren't written with the same ideas in mind. Comics themselves have evolved past a lot of old storytelling conventions and expanded genres not even approached in the 80s.

when i look at the user reviews I see way more people saying Gabe is wrong than actually just doing their own review saying what they like/don't like about it. I also see people discounting what is actually just one person's opinion and for some reason being upset about the book's overall score. The odd thing is that 99.9% of the writers at Marvel & DC care less about scores than everyone here and the worst you get is writers reaching out to discuss a review in a more sensible and respectful way

If you've seen any of my previous reviews, I generally do try to go pretty in depth. I know and likely everyone here knows that creators really don't give two craps about what people have to say here. That doesn't discount those voices here or uplift those on the Weird Science site simply because it makes money and we don't. The creators and the publishers care about sales but when a reviewer is giving unfavorable reviews seemingly to be against the grain for whatever reason that person may have

it can turn off a potential reader for no reason. I'm not saying to be a shill. As I said in my review, I don't support pumping up books for the sake of it but tanking is just as much of a problem. People consuming media generally look to critics more than whatever the average userbase is. They have pull. When the critics reviews don't align with the userbase there is usually a reason. Gabe can have his reasons but that doesn't make them objectively correct. He just comes off as a curmudgeon.

I'm just a guy who likes comics. Like Gabe, I want to see Spider-Man do Spider-Man things. But just because Spider-Man isn't in it beating up the bad guys every issue doesn't discount the book from being good. My opinion is subjective. His is as well. His review is up on this site, people will see it lending itself to criticism. Not everything has to be bombastic and what people have across the board enjoyed about this series is that it takes the small world building moments and highlights them.

Gabe is weird (and Sus) but being one of the few reviewers that isn't a shill and just hands out perfect scores like candy at Halloween doesn't make his reviews "weird" The amount of perfect scores being given out these days is what is weird! Also - Gabe is SUS! Take the guy below - 451 reviews and his average score is a 9.6/10! That means if he gives a book a 9.5/10 it is below average for him! I get that he is a fan (which is awesome) but is that being a critic?

I get what you mean. I hand 10s easily too I guess but thats because I only review things that I liked (unless something annoys me deeply so i feel the need to make a bad review) Even then I think his (Gabe Hernandez) reasonings to give bad reviews are weird. He criticizes dialogue and suporting characters a lot which I don't understand for example. I agree its great to have critics with a more "severe" view tho.

Pumping 10s is just as frustrating as people who tank scores with 1s but I think it's the random inconsistency from Gabe that people have a problem with. He's becoming the Armand White of comics reviews. Everything good is bad, things that are objectively bad aren't seen as poor then every once in a while he throws a curveball and rates a good book fairly. What I don't agree with is to have someone simply to have a harsher view. You don't have to fill that role just to prove a point.

Gabe is sort of a joke. I don't think his reviews are adding anything, because I don't think he's taken seriously.

I agree that both extremes are kind of irrational, but the problem is that Gabe Hernandez reasonings for not liking a comic book aren't fair at least. I read the entire review, and it just comes off as nitpicky. Art is subjective, and there are books that I like but other people don't. It's the same thing other way. But at least make the reasoning more "objective" or "fair" if that makes sense @WeirdSciencejim

everyone's reasoning is their reasoning and different people go into a comic with different backgrounds, likes, pet peeves, etc. It's gabe's opinion and you all seem to check out Gabe's reviews so you know what his reviews are like - the idea that a person thinks it's odd that he takes into account dialogue and side characters is odd in and of itself to me - there are sites that give percentage score to the letterer.

Also, don't discount the fact that there is a site that reviewed this issue that tells their writers they can't go under an 8/10 and if they do, they have to make it up with another review all to keep the free/early review copies. You do notice that as we get further past Wednesday morning, a lot of the overall scores go down a bit. It's also funny that everyone attacks Gabe (which he 100% loves btw) and yet there is a site that pumps out A.I. written reviews each week & gets no flack!

I've always said comic book criticism is terrible as a whole. Gabe's just a rather loud example as to why.

that's your opinion and 100% biased -something i am sure you would accuse Gabe of!

All opinions are biased. There's really no need to defend Gabe here, idk why you've decided to do that now. Comic book critics are a joke, but that doesn't mean we can't laugh at Gabe specifically. You said he likes it anyhow.

why i defend him? He reviews things on my sites! I have always had an open door policy for anyone who wants to write reviews and even if i don't agree with a lot of Gabe's scores, they are his and there are no ads or whatever so there is zero reason to make scores lower or higher . And as far as comic book critics being a joke - a lot are now, but that wasn't always the case - I stopped reviewing books after 3000+ written reviews because you put the effort in and get shit on anyway

and a lot of user reviewers are a joke as well - there are good and bad reviewers in both sections - most people don't give a shit about comic reviews anyway and most sites just gave up doing it because it wasn't worth it to them.

This is just weirdly defensive in a way that you haven't been in the past, from my recollection. I'm basically asking: what's changed? If you put an opinion out there you have to expect a reaction, good or bad. On the other side of things, consumers have to find a critic that most represents them, so that their reviews might actually be a determining factor in whether they ought to consume something. Gabe doesn't seem useful in that regard to me, or to a lot of people here, so we write him off.

this is the first time I've really commented on it! I joke around and call him "Sus Gabe" and on a podcast we do i have a "Sus Gabe's Sus Take of the Week" but when 99.9% of comic reviewers give high scores with little to no reasoning everyone is ok with it - there is even a site that obviously has used AI to write their reviews for months now - and nobody says a word, but because Gabe's score's are lower, he is the guy people crap on.

most people would look at all this as a good thing (like a clickbaity way to drive more traffic to the site) but i never cared about clicks or views, i just like letting people review comics. To be honest, though, the past year or so since Gabe started reviewing stuff, the traffic has gone through the roof so somebody is interested

I trust Gabe more than any other reviewer. I'd love to see this much flack for a hack like geek dad. Dude gives 10's to anything. You can shit on a plate and as long as he gets his comps he will give you a 10. Go after shills like that. Not someone who will give an honest score whether you like the score or not.

Haha, love this comment!