|
Post by bigw1966 on Dec 30, 2010 13:43:51 GMT -5
I think it is very neccessary to show heroes having doubts that they have to overcome, but they cannot do it to often as it would make the character look more the fool for not being able to learn from his past mistakes and instead continually repeating them.
|
|
|
Post by cyberstrike on Dec 30, 2010 15:18:59 GMT -5
I understand where you are coming from with the line for Good -vs- Evil needing to be more clear, but lets face it. the reader is not that innocent as to not know that those things are in no way black and white. Good and Evil are more grey area and matter of perspective than anything else. In the case of Supers, Lets posit a thought. Crazy Supervillain Causes an event that terrifies the city and to stop him he demands a billion dollars. Righchous super-heroes- show up and have a massive battle with the Supervillain to "SAVE" the city. They manage to stop the villain and win the day, but when the smoke clears, you see all of that collateral damage. a couple of buildings knocked down and untold numbers of people trapped in the rubble. A couple of others on fire. Some cars in the streets crushed under rubble from the destroyed buildings. who knows how many casualties there are. Turns out after authorities watch video footage, that much of the damage was caused by the -heroes- knocking the -villain- through the buildings or firing energy beams at him which caused destruction. In the end you have to wonder, who is the Hero and who is the Villain? Sure its easy to point to the guy in the comic because he twirled his mustache and announced himself, but in reality, villains do not twirl their mustaches and make long speeches about how evil they are. they work under your nose moving pieces in the background. Little kids can buy into the whole Black and white good-vs-evil thing, but older, smarter readers would lose interest in a second. We know there is more to things. We expect more because of it. Because the readership of comics has grown up, the comics themselves have been forced to do so also. I don't think there is a way to go back now. Alan Moore did that in Miracleman #15 and #16. Mark Millar did something similar like that in The Ultimates vol. 1 when the Ultimates fought the Hulk and the battle trashed NYC. And the Decepticons nearly destroyed the human race in Transformers: All Hail Megatron and the Autobots and the human race are still trying to clean up the mess in the current ongoing series.
|
|
|
Post by bigw1966 on Dec 30, 2010 19:52:32 GMT -5
MiricleMan Flipped.
Hulk was executed for that... supposedly but came back.
Didn't read it.
Point is, is to set an unrealistic image to uphold for the hero is a setup for failure. You cannot grow if you cannot learn from mistakes and something like that would be mega most comics neverr address that.
Good and Evil are really grey areas.
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Dec 30, 2010 20:33:56 GMT -5
MiricleMan Flipped. Hulk was executed for that... supposedly but came back. Didn't read it. Point is, is to set an unrealistic image to uphold for the hero is a setup for failure. You cannot grow if you cannot learn from mistakes and something like that would be mega most comics neverr address that. Good and Evil are really grey areas. How can you call it a setup for failure when that is how the general public views Superman and most superheroes? That is what gives these characters their longevity. Do you think a mom and dad buying a superman tooth brush for their kid is thinking about some comic book storyline where Superman might've destroyed a building and killed someone innocent. People want the challenge, but when they buy superheroes, they want super... and they want to see heroes. Do you really think realism is why people seek out entertainment? Entertainment is escapism. The more challenging, the better it is. If comics are all going to be in the vein of Watchmen, then don't hijack the name superheroes and turn it into something it's not. Just call them superfuck-ups and start a new genre. df1
|
|
|
Post by bigw1966 on Dec 31, 2010 10:50:47 GMT -5
defient, putting a Hero in a position of doing no wrong is fine. for a couple of stories. but in the case of a comic character who is basically living in a continual soap opera, the reader, if they have any fucking sense in their head will get bored with it in short order. We know to deeply in our heads that there is no such thing as a person that does no wrong. when we come to that realization about a character, then we begin to lose the ability to relate to them.
Superman is not as popular as you would think. He comes off as to goody-goody and writers have a tough time challenging him.
The characters have to make mistakes. They have to be fuck-ups sometimes. Peter Parker is a fuck up. He is constantly trying to do the right things but it never goes smoothly. THAT is why people can relate to the character so well.
If all superheroes were infallable and completely altruistic and set above everyone else, then I say it now, Comics would have died long ago for lack of diversity.
These characters have to reflect some semblance of reality since they are put in a realistic environment like New york. Just because you suddenly find yourself with Superpowers, that doesn't mean that you A.) Have to automatically go and be a Hero or a Villain. B.) Have to put others ahead of yourself c.) tell anyone that you even have powers. you could just ignore it and try to live your life as normal as you always did. D.) shouldn't find a way to use your newfound abilities for personal gain.
Its great to think that these characters should always do the right thing, but its unrealistic to expect it. Even the heroes of ancient myth fucked up often. stabbed each other in the back , cheated on one another, or manipulated others to their whim.
why should superheroes be any different?
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Dec 31, 2010 13:08:45 GMT -5
defient, putting a Hero in a position of doing no wrong is fine. for a couple of stories. but in the case of a comic character who is basically living in a continual soap opera, the reader, if they have any fucking sense in their head will get bored with it in short order. We know to deeply in our heads that there is no such thing as a person that does no wrong. when we come to that realization about a character, then we begin to lose the ability to relate to them. Superman is not as popular as you would think. He comes off as to goody-goody and writers have a tough time challenging him. The characters have to make mistakes. They have to be fuck-ups sometimes. Peter Parker is a fuck up. He is constantly trying to do the right things but it never goes smoothly. THAT is why people can relate to the character so well. If all superheroes were infallable and completely altruistic and set above everyone else, then I say it now, Comics would have died long ago for lack of diversity. These characters have to reflect some semblance of reality since they are put in a realistic environment like New york. Just because you suddenly find yourself with Superpowers, that doesn't mean that you A.) Have to automatically go and be a Hero or a Villain. B.) Have to put others ahead of yourself c.) tell anyone that you even have powers. you could just ignore it and try to live your life as normal as you always did. D.) shouldn't find a way to use your newfound abilities for personal gain. Its great to think that these characters should always do the right thing, but its unrealistic to expect it. Even the heroes of ancient myth fucked up often. stabbed each other in the back , cheated on one another, or manipulated others to their whim. why should superheroes be any different? Again though, you aren't getting what I'm saying. I'm not saying drag stories back to a polarized good vs. evil. A hero can still have setbacks. A hero can still make wrong assertions and learn from their mistakes. Nothing to me is more boring that seeing complete idiots and fuck-ups in a story that neither learn from their shortcomings and do nothing about it. Ruling out modern Spiderman stories where the writing is crap from what I've seen, the Lee Ditko issues featured setbacks, mistakes, and lessons learned. The moment Peter found Ben dead, he vowed not to make that mistake. He vowed to strive to do good and he did. It's a pathetic writer that can't incorporate that into a multi-issue story. The story is the journey and how the hero figures out what to do and how to overcome. I have no interest in reading a story about a superhero rapist like Alan Moore placed in to Watchmen. A friend insisted I read the story and loaned me a TPB. I read about three issues worth in the TPB and handed it back to him. The ONLY reason that type of writing survives today is because writers and readers felt victimized and oppressed by the comics code. While there are critics of injecting dark themes and fuck-ups into stories, ultimately all it can lead to is perpetuated hopelessness and a series of comics that discourage readers. I would never assert that stories of fuck-up and morons can't be enjoyable and well written, but ultimately that type of story will not pull in the masses get the mass public to reading comics again. The Watchman movie was crap, yet it was true to the comic. The only thing the general public will remember about it is that there was a huge naked blue guy walking around showing full frontal nudity. Why? Because the general public isn't crying out for their stories to have more realism. They want encouragement. They want hope. They want to be inspired. That's why Cameron movies like Titanic and Avatar are some of the biggest movies of all time. Setbacks do occur. The hero in Titanic did die, but love persevered. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby always upped the ante when the situation was grave. When Magneto could not be beaten by the X-Men, he created a more powerful being in the Stranger to come take him off the planet. The X-Men persevered because they never lost hope and their being on the side of right eventually was right. It shows that a hero can be outmatched by a villain, but what they are doing is still right. No one is inspired by a fuck-up or a loser. No one. They are inspired by winning and overcoming even if that road is a tough and rocky one. That's one reason the clone sage was such utter crap. You left those comics in total confusion. The heroes didn't even know who they were or what cause they were fighting for. Again though, the answer is having a writer capable of that challenge who believes in it himself. That's why I am always giving Cameron movies a shot and I likely always will. df1
|
|
|
Post by cyberstrike on Dec 31, 2010 15:40:35 GMT -5
defient, putting a Hero in a position of doing no wrong is fine. for a couple of stories. but in the case of a comic character who is basically living in a continual soap opera, the reader, if they have any fucking sense in their head will get bored with it in short order. We know to deeply in our heads that there is no such thing as a person that does no wrong. when we come to that realization about a character, then we begin to lose the ability to relate to them. Superman is not as popular as you would think. He comes off as to goody-goody and writers have a tough time challenging him. The characters have to make mistakes. They have to be fuck-ups sometimes. Peter Parker is a fuck up. He is constantly trying to do the right things but it never goes smoothly. THAT is why people can relate to the character so well. If all superheroes were infallable and completely altruistic and set above everyone else, then I say it now, Comics would have died long ago for lack of diversity. These characters have to reflect some semblance of reality since they are put in a realistic environment like New york. Just because you suddenly find yourself with Superpowers, that doesn't mean that you A.) Have to automatically go and be a Hero or a Villain. B.) Have to put others ahead of yourself c.) tell anyone that you even have powers. you could just ignore it and try to live your life as normal as you always did. D.) shouldn't find a way to use your newfound abilities for personal gain. Its great to think that these characters should always do the right thing, but its unrealistic to expect it. Even the heroes of ancient myth fucked up often. stabbed each other in the back , cheated on one another, or manipulated others to their whim. why should superheroes be any different? Again though, you aren't getting what I'm saying. I'm not saying drag stories back to a polarized good vs. evil. A hero can still have setbacks. A hero can still make wrong assertions and learn from their mistakes. Nothing to me is more boring that seeing complete idiots and fuck-ups in a story that neither learn from their shortcomings and do nothing about it. Ruling out modern Spiderman stories where the writing is crap from what I've seen, the Lee Ditko issues featured setbacks, mistakes, and lessons learned. The moment Peter found Ben dead, he vowed not to make that mistake. He vowed to strive to do good and he did. It's a pathetic writer that can't incorporate that into a multi-issue story. The story is the journey and how the hero figures out what to do and how to overcome. I have no interest in reading a story about a superhero rapist like Alan Moore placed in to Watchmen. A friend insisted I read the story and loaned me a TPB. I read about three issues worth in the TPB and handed it back to him. The ONLY reason that type of writing survives today is because writers and readers felt victimized and oppressed by the comics code. While there are critics of injecting dark themes and fuck-ups into stories, ultimately all it can lead to is perpetuated hopelessness and a series of comics that discourage readers. I would never assert that stories of fuck-up and morons can't be enjoyable and well written, but ultimately that type of story will not pull in the masses get the mass public to reading comics again. The Watchman movie was crap, yet it was true to the comic. The only thing the general public will remember about it is that there was a huge naked blue guy walking around showing full frontal nudity. Why? Because the general public isn't crying out for their stories to have more realism. They want encouragement. They want hope. They want to be inspired. That's why Cameron movies like Titanic and Avatar are some of the biggest movies of all time. Setbacks do occur. The hero in Titanic did die, but love persevered. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby always upped the ante when the situation was grave. When Magneto could not be beaten by the X-Men, he created a more powerful being in the Stranger to come take him off the planet. The X-Men persevered because they never lost hope and their being on the side of right eventually was right. It shows that a hero can be outmatched by a villain, but what they are doing is still right. No one is inspired by a fuck-up or a loser. No one. They are inspired by winning and overcoming even if that road is a tough and rocky one. That's one reason the clone sage was such utter crap. You left those comics in total confusion. The heroes didn't even know who they were or what cause they were fighting for. Again though, the answer is having a writer capable of that challenge who believes in it himself. That's why I am always giving Cameron movies a shot and I likely always will. df1 I know MANY people who absolutely hate both Titanic and Avatar because they felt the stories were dull, predicable, and preachy (and for the record these same people they love Cameron's earlier work The Terminator, The Abyss, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Aliens, and True Lies). Titanic works because Cameron makes you care about the characters. IMHO the only reason Avatar was a box office hit was because of it's great 3D effects otherwise it would have never have been as a big of a hit at the box office as it became. Toy Story 3 is a smart, funny, emotionally rewarding and entertaining movie that deals with growing up, change, saying goodbye, and mortality and blows Avatar out of the water. And BTW The Comedian in Watchmen was never hero and never claimed to be one. I didn't see him has one when I first read Watchmen at the age of 13 and I still don't see him as a hero (or even as an anti-hero) now. He was a sociopath period. Tony Stark battling alcoholism is more heroic to me than Iron Man beating up any of his villain. Heroism to me is about overcoming life's problems with what you got to work with and in storytelling that means taking heroes down dark paths, some heroes fall others rise.
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Dec 31, 2010 20:34:10 GMT -5
Again though, you aren't getting what I'm saying. I'm not saying drag stories back to a polarized good vs. evil. A hero can still have setbacks. A hero can still make wrong assertions and learn from their mistakes. Nothing to me is more boring that seeing complete idiots and fuck-ups in a story that neither learn from their shortcomings and do nothing about it. Ruling out modern Spiderman stories where the writing is crap from what I've seen, the Lee Ditko issues featured setbacks, mistakes, and lessons learned. The moment Peter found Ben dead, he vowed not to make that mistake. He vowed to strive to do good and he did. It's a pathetic writer that can't incorporate that into a multi-issue story. The story is the journey and how the hero figures out what to do and how to overcome. I have no interest in reading a story about a superhero rapist like Alan Moore placed in to Watchmen. A friend insisted I read the story and loaned me a TPB. I read about three issues worth in the TPB and handed it back to him. The ONLY reason that type of writing survives today is because writers and readers felt victimized and oppressed by the comics code. While there are critics of injecting dark themes and fuck-ups into stories, ultimately all it can lead to is perpetuated hopelessness and a series of comics that discourage readers. I would never assert that stories of fuck-up and morons can't be enjoyable and well written, but ultimately that type of story will not pull in the masses get the mass public to reading comics again. The Watchman movie was crap, yet it was true to the comic. The only thing the general public will remember about it is that there was a huge naked blue guy walking around showing full frontal nudity. Why? Because the general public isn't crying out for their stories to have more realism. They want encouragement. They want hope. They want to be inspired. That's why Cameron movies like Titanic and Avatar are some of the biggest movies of all time. Setbacks do occur. The hero in Titanic did die, but love persevered. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby always upped the ante when the situation was grave. When Magneto could not be beaten by the X-Men, he created a more powerful being in the Stranger to come take him off the planet. The X-Men persevered because they never lost hope and their being on the side of right eventually was right. It shows that a hero can be outmatched by a villain, but what they are doing is still right. No one is inspired by a fuck-up or a loser. No one. They are inspired by winning and overcoming even if that road is a tough and rocky one. That's one reason the clone sage was such utter crap. You left those comics in total confusion. The heroes didn't even know who they were or what cause they were fighting for. Again though, the answer is having a writer capable of that challenge who believes in it himself. That's why I am always giving Cameron movies a shot and I likely always will. df1 I know MANY people who absolutely hate both Titanic and Avatar because they felt the stories were dull, predicable, and preachy (and for the record these same people they love Cameron's earlier work The Terminator, The Abyss, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Aliens, and True Lies). Titanic works because Cameron makes you care about the characters. IMHO the only reason Avatar was a box office hit was because of it's great 3D effects otherwise it would have never have been as a big of a hit at the box office as it became. Toy Story 3 is a smart, funny, emotionally rewarding and entertaining movie that deals with growing up, change, saying goodbye, and mortality and blows Avatar out of the water. And BTW The Comedian in Watchmen was never hero and never claimed to be one. I didn't see him has one when I first read Watchmen at the age of 13 and I still don't see him as a hero (or even as an anti-hero) now. He was a sociopath period. Tony Stark battling alcoholism is more heroic to me than Iron Man beating up any of his villain. Heroism to me is about overcoming life's problems with what you got to work with and in storytelling that means taking heroes down dark paths, some heroes fall others rise. The people who think Avatar & Titanic are preachy are the people who are anti-establishment anyway. A certain percentage of people will be like Moore who admired he was an anarchist. My problem with the Comedian is that he was accepted into the fold and tolerated. Titanic and Terminator are essentially the same plot. I liked Titanic because it was a complete twist on the Terminator storyline with the same message of hope. Avatar was essentially Pocahontas or as some say Dances with Wolves. The same story can get told three times and yet even with Avatar' dismal start (snowstorm coincided with it's opening week), people went back in droves. The negative reviews and comparisons to the other plots you speak of did not keep people away. When you get down to it, I can look at most movies and say that I've seen the same plot a dozen other times. Who looks at the upcoming death of an FF member and thinks that is the least bit innovative? The movies with a message of hope will always outlast ones of despair. Fargo that did well will be long forgotten while "It's A Wonderful Life" (which had a poor start) perseveres. I'm not saying bring back heroes so that we can restrict the storytelling methods out there. I'm saying bring back heroes so that the comic industry will survive. The anarchy, despair, death, and fucked up heroes are turning off readers and they are leaving the hobby. If a parent had a way of knowing that a comic would be wholesome, instructional, and better for their kids than a video game, more would be buying comics. df1
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on Dec 31, 2010 20:39:44 GMT -5
Sorry! Tony Stark battling Alcoholism is indeed overcoming difficulties. I never liked the way the story read, but the hero did persevere. We don't need to revisit that story and have Tony Stark die in a drunk flying accident after he got the monkey off his back. We don't need future storylines about him screwing up again while drunk. When they do stuff like that, it undermines every ounce of importance the original storyline had. They could have him be like someone I know and become too self-righteous and try to stop everyone from drinking simply because he had a problem. I know people who have done that.
df1
|
|
|
Post by G on Dec 31, 2010 21:18:02 GMT -5
On some of the things others have mentioned, I like the longform soap opera aspect also. But, Considering how long these books have been around and the weird time ratio in comics, its nearly impossible to run a continual lifespan of events for these characters. It becomes far to unweildy. Perspectives change and outlooks become more diverse as we both age and become more enlightened. This has an effect on how we will enjoy something. This is a reason that I would like to see one creative team stay on a book for longer periods of time. I've enjoyed both parts of this discussion and I meant to get to this sooner, but I have to take a bit of exception to this because for the longest time this was working quite well and it had me coming back to see where the story was NOW as opposed to this is "story #1, story #2, story #3....etc", it had a ongoing feel to it that if you didn't get a few issues you could jump back on and catch back up. I thought it worked great....and forever. And it made me feel like there was a bigger universe out there besides the story being told. Now I feel like the timelines are all jumbled up and stories just happen to pop up wherever, whenever and because this is part 1 of the story and that is part 4. Rinse and repeat with not much ramifications of what happened before or what will happen afterwords. I don't think it is limitless as it appears to a lot of people today. It worked great for a couple of decades. Now it's like it cannot happen again. This has become accepted thinking as we wait for part 1 of the next story arc. This wouldn't be that hard to do again. The hardest part is just wanting to do it again. I don't even care if we had a little bit of both going. But having pretty much 90% one way and 10% the other just doesn't do it for me personally. And I'm all for creative teams staying with a book if their making good stuff up. But if you're staying on a book and it's became more a meal ticket than any thing else. I don't care what you do with it anymore. You ain't really growing anymore.
|
|