Stan Lee versus 90s comics · 11:39pm Sep 23rd, 2021
This really speaks for itself in some ways.
In all seriousness though, this does feel pretty damn instructive. Or is "indicative" a more appropriate word here? Hmm...
Also, I can readily see where Spider-Man gets some of his smartass banter from here. "You can think and draw at the same time?" Damn! 
As my dad pointed out, when I shared this video with him, Todd and Rob only care about the surface stuff here. There's not a thought given to WHO "Overkill" is as a character, just the gizmos covering him. The character is nothing but gizmos to them.
Stan Lee saying, "he should be tough, but not violent," gives this sketch more depth and consideration than the two industry superstars (at the time this video was originally filmed, in the 90s) ever did.
Props to you, Stan. 
I agree. Stuff like this shows that the thing that killed comics in the 90s.... were purely the fact it was JUST surface level stuff. Outside of Spawn and WildCATS very rarely was anything deeper then the stuff on the cover. Which IMO is a shame cause so many good ideas were just..... ruined because of the fact everyone thought 90s gritty and mean spirited stuff and selfishness were what folks wanted to read.
5585824
Indeed. And while I'm kind of-sort of interested in Spawn (mainly the HBO animated series rather than the comics, truth be told) I've heard very little about most any of the Image crowd. Not even WildCATS truth be told. That was a Jim Lee creation right?
5585937
Yup.
5585955
Right. That's what I thought.
Still, glad that you found something of interest in that team. ^_^
I like the idea of a hero whose entire shtick is "tough, but not violent". He's absolutely terrifying to the point of having mastered intimidation, but that's because he's a pacifist. He refuses to hurt people unless there is absolutely no other option. So he opts to scare the crap out of them and make them THINK he's so much worse than he actually is. Be an interesting concept.
5585999
It is, it really is an interesting concept for sure.
And here's another one, that didn't creep up on me until late last night. Stan at one point asks, "Who is this guy when he's not Overkill? Is he a, uh, a wimpy accountant or something?" And while that's more than likely just him joking at Todd and Rob, that would actually be a very fun thought for this ultra-tough 90s character: the whole grim and spikey, chains-and-leather ensemble is to intimidate others and make himself feel tough as well. The costume is as much for his own confidence as it is anything else. (And as one comment on the video put it, it'd even justify the name Overkill - the guy NEEDS the over-the-top look to boost his own image and make himself feel brave.)
5586305
Exactly. He's a regular guy normally, but thanks to illusion tech, gadgets and general Comic Book Logic, he appears as this massively overmuscled monstrosity of a man who's about the size of the Hulk. And yet he deliberately sticks to street crime. Because he can't scare Darkseid. He can scare a guy who's had a couple too many drinks and doesn't seem to get that this is NOT the time to pick a fight.
And the reason for the name? Other than the obvious intimidation factor, it's because he's over killing. He doesn't intend to spill a drop of blood. COULD he? Probably. But he's actively choosing to not kill.
5586306
I like these ideas. I like them a lot.
Though it does exasperate me that two guys chatting on the Internet can think up more interesting bits of characterization and insight on this sketch than the actual guys who designed it. XD
5586309
Sadly, yes. It took them 20 minutes to come up with that sketch. It took me 20 seconds to elaborate on "tough but not violence". Well, I hyperbolize, but you get my point.
And when he's off the clock, he's an absolute sweetheart, delight to be around, very kind man. It's just that when he's on the clock, well, he's Overkill, not, say, Evan James.
5586311
Understood. I think it just illustrates how, I dunno, unmotivated a lot of the Image crowd were. (Or rather, what their actual motivation was - profit over product, to put it succinctly.)
Maybe while some people who follow comics might be able to at least recognize a character like Spawn, or Savage Dragon, or Witchblade, I wonder how many of them would be able to actually describe any stories from their books, or how they've developed since issue one.
5586335
I don't even know what Cable's deal is beyond "Future Cyborg."
5586337
It's complicated. Ridiculously so.
Basically, he's Scott Summers' son with Madeline Pryor. His "cyborg" status is because he's actually infected with some kind of techno-organic virus that will mutate him into inanimate steel; he uses his psychic powers to help counteract this. As a baby he was sent into a possible alternate future where his virus could be treated and he could live normally... and he grew up to become a super-soldier and enemy to Apocalypse, and went back in time to some years before his own birth as part of some plan to fight Apocalypse and other X-villains before they grow too powerful or something.
That's the *gist* of it. The character's creation is also a hodgepodge too. Baby Cable - Nathan Summers - was just born out of the story with Madeline Pryor from what I understand. The adult, warrior Cable (conceived by executive mandate to have someone different from Xavier leading the X-Men, a "man of action" type or what) was initially going to be a whole other person altogether before someone along the way had the idea to make him a time-traveler adult version of Nathan Summers. From what I understand, Rob Liefeld designed Cable's appearance, name, and initial history, and Jim Lee had the idea to make him Nathan from the future.
5586672
That, feels, needlessly complicated.
5586718
Welcome to X-Men comics of the 90s. That's all I can really say to you there.