A number of these on the (whole) list are great, but it goes to show the shallowness of Comic Vine. The majority are "Sick, bro!"s or some arbitrary, forgettable piece from a comic less than five years old. The old stuff, the stuff regarded as classic because it is classic and not just a code-word for "something that happened in the past", is treated with only accidental reverence, like Tony finally asserted himself and said "You know, Stan Lee did make some good contributions," in the wake of Corey wanting every Mark Millar dystopia and Sara wanted every random hookup.
I'm a professional wrestling fan and try to think through it critically, so my thoughts can't be just the facts of the product. Say, if I'm going to comment on a match, I wouldn't want to write only "John Cena won." That's not really a statement on behalf of my end, but an end result. Hopefully I'd be thinking about the layout of the match, and how it was executed, and why it's important, and what it means. Comics, especially reviewed by the individual issue, should carry the same weight. We see it so often in CV's reviews: Here is the thing that happened. "Batman is cool." Maybe that's why so many of their Top 50 moments are of unimportant, faux-badass things. And maybe it's why the Off My Mind articles, interesting and fun though they may be, are always these in-canon debates and never pop questions like "Seriously, guys, how do we stop Judd Winnick from ruining this industry?"
At the end of the day there are no objective artistic criticisms, and these are all only opinions (a fact quickly pointed out by White Knights holding deep anti-intellectualism), but it's always worth nothing that opinions can still be poorly founded. Other Whiskey Media sites seem to have handled the concept well: Have fun and be silly while still holding an understanding of what makes your favorite media format tick. All our lists, for each person on the planet, will be vastly different and arguable. Every commenter would still throw in their "WHAT? YOU'RE CRAZY!" But with this site the question isn't your individual taste and preference, but your knowledge level and esteem for comics. The validity comes into question when arguments sound less like the mark of a scholar and more like a five-year-old in a Superman shirt claiming Superman is the best because he beats the bad guys up. Does that make sense?
Your podcast is funny and you're great personalities. Keep doing what you're doing, I suppose, but please don't settle.
As if he didn't fuck with existing characters enough, Lobdell continues the trend of creating gay characters not to be good characters but to be gay. It's what Glee does: create a character as a stereotype just to win GLAAD awards simply for the character's existence, no matter how awful of offensive or artistically dire the character may be.
I love the Whiskey Media family and the editors of Comic Vine, but their nonchalance about the trends killing their favorite medium is bothersome. Plenty of sites do the same. The ComicsAlliance reaction to Lobdell and Winnick isn't an angsty feminist backlash, it's fans who love the medium who want to use their minds and not eat whatever mush is presented before them. The collective bar for what constitutes good comic writing just keeps being set lower and lower and lower and people (including those who will respond to this, probably) keep trying to justify manipulative garbage instead of relishing in it.
You have to create a great character first and include any kind of sexual orientation (if any clarity is necessary at all) second, you know? I hope no one meets me, shakes my hand, and immediately starts questioning what I look for in a partner.