Wrecks
Standout Worker
Posts: 145
I Am Offline!
|
Post by Wrecks on May 11, 2010 4:44:21 GMT -5
Are they really pointless? Or something that helps make them more enduring to you? Personally, I find that a character with a flaw or flaws is more interesting then one without flaws. Cause if one doesn't have a flaw, then they just don't seem as interesting. Maybe even a little too perfect or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by G on May 11, 2010 7:13:31 GMT -5
Are they really pointless? Or something that helps make them more enduring to you? Personally, I find that a character with a flaw or flaws is more interesting then one without flaws. Cause if one doesn't have a flaw, then they just don't seem as interesting. Maybe even a little too perfect or something. I feel like this is a thread that may be a bit polarizing because I totally understand both sides of this and I pretty much get who is where and on what side and maybe even to what degree. I think there is a common middle ground here that most of us are okay with. But at opposite ends, do we want heroes being rapists, drug addicts and power corrupted souls who abuse their power for their own personal wishes or are we against/for the other side where we have the goody-goody no flaws types like the Original Superman who fights crime and shows no outwardly human issue flaws and is someone we want to be a role model for our kids? There appears to be a fine line on acceptable/boring as opposed to interesting/reckless. Is it creative or is it an easy out to give characters flaws? Sure it seems to give characters more depth when they have issues to overcome. But at what point does it go from enhancing a character to abusing the craft of comics? Or should there be no boundaries and we should just let free creative expression reign? |
|
|
|
Post by bigw1966 on May 11, 2010 13:12:31 GMT -5
It is the hallmark of all narrative fiction, whether it be books, film, tv or comics, that all stories are built around conflict.
Now the conflict can be outward conflict like Man-vs-Machine or Man-vs-Nature or even Good-vs-Evil.
then there are the conflicts that come from within. Man-vs-Himself. These generally are more interesting than the first group I wrote, unless this part is mixed in with all of the others as part of the over riding narrative.
Characters MUST have flaws. It is their flaws that make them relateable to us. Its that ability to relate that puts us in their shoes so that we become emotionally invested in them.
If Reed Richards, the smartest man in the Marvel Universe was infallable, would we give a crap about him? No, we wouldn't. It is the fact that he is so brilliant and still screws up that we can relate to him.
We all secretly think we are smarter than we actually are.
He fills that portion of ourselves.
Perfection is impossible. Sustaining perfection even moreso.
You can never know everything because something new is always being invented.
Consider also that Heroes exist in everyday REAL life. And they have the exact same flaws and weaknesses. the same challenges and the same events that cause us stress as we do.
Just because your Super, it wouldn't become easier I think. It would become much harder.
|
|
Wrecks
Standout Worker
Posts: 145
I Am Offline!
|
Post by Wrecks on May 11, 2010 18:56:40 GMT -5
Well said. Now a hero that does rapist acts, I wouldn't even really see him or her as a hero.
|
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on May 11, 2010 19:32:49 GMT -5
The Bible is a very enduring example of a book where people consider the hero Jesus Christ to have no flaws. A hero doesn't have to have flaws. The story can educate and inspire and still show conflict. I like to see writers get imaginative about how a hero can and does overcome. Was Green Lantern destroying a whole planet a flaw? No. It's exploiting a trust that readers had in him so the publisher can get a few cheesy sales. It didn't make for a good story or provide a lasting appeal.
df1
|
|
Wrecks
Standout Worker
Posts: 145
I Am Offline!
|
Post by Wrecks on May 11, 2010 19:34:25 GMT -5
Of course they wouldn't give Jesus any flaws. He's the Son of God. Why would Bible writers want to give him any flaws?
|
|
|
|
Post by bigw1966 on May 12, 2010 9:00:11 GMT -5
Green Lantern is a poor example. I think Hubris played a part in that particular tale.
The bible is not relevent to this.
There is no such thing as an individual who is free of flaws.
Also, Flaws do not have to pertain to anything that is outward. It could mean shortcomings, ora failure to understand things. Or the inability to notice something is bad and then work to overcome it.
Take Ultimate Cap for example.
He is far different than his 616 counterpart. But, is he that way because he is just an asshole? or is it because he continues to wake up in an unrecognizable world where nobody and nothing that he recognizes even exists anymore. so he just gets angrier and angrier as more situations present themselves. Its like this modern world is just one fight after another.
So now this characters flaws and the reason for them have been revealed. so now the story can focus on how to get him back to being the man he felt he once was.
This BTW is what Loeb is trying to do in New Ultimates. Hopefully he doesn't blow it like I expect him to.
You have to have flaws. We all have them. It could be as little as picking your nose at the dinner table or as big as letting greed cause you to destroy all those around you just so you can get what you want.
Or you could be a pathological lier or a rapist. Or a person that has no moral standard or feels no sympathy. These are all flaws. More commonly known as character traits.
Without them, any character is just a lifeless piece of cardboard.
|
|
|
|
Post by defiant1 on May 12, 2010 14:40:43 GMT -5
You are both missing my point. The new testamant is a story that is compelling to millions of people all over the world and yet it feature a character that is presented as being free of flaws. A writer does not have to make a character blatantly flawed to be interesting. A character can have quirky behavior and still be interesting. That isn't necessarily a flaw. He might have a reason for being quirky.
Of course there are basic plots of "Man vs. Man", "Man vs. Nature" etc. There are also documentaries that are educational. The movie Titanic pulled in a lot of informational content into the plot that was suitable for a documentary.
I personally have no interest in the Watchmen character that was a rapist. Just as I have no interest in sports related movies as a general rule, it's just not a topic I care to see in a drama. Tony Stark as a drunk bored me. Marvel finds new ways to bore me when they turn the heroes I read about into dumb asses.
I think Gwen Stacy made Spiderman a cool book. It wasn't worth a damn after they killed her. I see nothing wrong with a character growing, overcoming, and ultimately conquering their flaws even if they are within the parameter of the norm. You don't have to sink to the levels that comic writers do to make a story interesting and good.
df1
|
|
Wrecks
Standout Worker
Posts: 145
I Am Offline!
|
Post by Wrecks on May 25, 2010 17:24:09 GMT -5
I agree with the last bit Defiant.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigw1966 on May 26, 2010 10:22:44 GMT -5
Sadly, comics will not allow the characters to actually move beyond their flaws because they feel it would make the characters less interesting.
|
|
