TF Views

Dominic wrote:"Death of Superman" was "hype comics 101".

Single image spash pages? Check.

Poly-bagged variants? Check.

Hype? Check.

All true, and yet it still turned out to be a good story. So was the Funeral storyline, and so was the return. The story lived up to the hype, for once.

After a year+ of hype and "awesome", I damned well expect more than "Superman came back.....with a mullet!"

We've been over this ground when talking about Knightfall. If you go into a story like this looking for nothing other than a major change in the status quo at the resolution, you're completely missing the content of the story itself, much of which is pretty enjoyable.

"Sidekick temporarily takes the master's job" is much less impressive than "sidekick grows up to fill the master's shoes".

I generally agree, but regardless it could be interesting to see someone else fill Batman's shoes for awhile, particularly his original sidekick. It's just that the stories were weird Morrison plots that weren't all that compelling, at least to me.

Dominic wrote:*cry*

No. I meant, "falling back on in-fiction logic and completely missing the point of what O6 was saying".

The in-story reason for an alternate universe character making the jump does not matter as much as the fact that said plot-point comes off as really fucking stupid.

See now, that, I see as missing the point. How can the in-story plot not matter as much as a particular plot-point? That's totally ignoring the story in the first place, with out which you wouldn't even have said plot point. Again, just because a story involves a certain type of plot point does not inherently make it a stupid story. Otherwise, that's like judging a story based on the cover. The cover is not going to give you a clear picture of what the story is actually about. So why would you judge a story for a particular plot point when that's only a small part of the overall storyline? You're not even judging the story on its own merits that way, which is the truely stupid part of this whole discussion. I shouldn't have to make a distinction that the story itself shouldn't be ignored.

-not sure if "Exiles" is the best defense either....

Ever read it?

I remember the whole "Death of Superman" schtick and I remember thinking at the time that it was going to stick. This was largely due to the Reign of Supermen where it looked like they would have another character fill the role. Later when he came back in the "Metallica and Justice for All" costume along with the red and blue lightning things it just seemed ridiculous.

Later, when Captain America died no one I know ever expected it to stick. And really that's the problem with comics. And why O6 routinely says "Comics are stupid". Because they are. And this is why. Because, why should I read a story that's sole purpose is shock value? It's just such an obvious publicity stunt to sell more comics at this point. No one ever realistically expects comic book characters to stay dead because these characters are so iconic and such cash cows for the industry that killing them off permanently would be business suicide. And, the public knows this and really doesn't buy into it.

Shockwave
-Wonders how many people really expect any changes to stick in comic books.

Shockwave wrote:And really that's the problem with comics. And why O6 routinely says "Comics are stupid". Because they are. And this is why. Because, why should I read a story that's sole purpose is shock value? It's just such an obvious publicity stunt to sell more comics at this point.

Killing off a character for nothing but shock value when you know they're just going to bring them back in about a year is stupid, I'd agree. That still doesn't make simply using certain discussed plot elements stupid though. There are some very good stories that involve time travel, alternate dimensions and the like. You can't say they are all stupid.

Of course not all of them are. But I can name an overwhelmingly large amount of bad ones and, at best, a handful of good ones. (Valiant's "Unity" crossover is a decent example, and gave the Shadowman character a purpose and a cool character element.)

For some bad examples, though? A big example I can think of is Bishop from X-Men. In premise, it's kind of neat--guy sent back to stop the apocalypse of his own future. But then years passed and they finally got around to that moment, and it all fell apart into a mess and sucked ass.

I don't even need to say anything more than "Clone Saga" to drudge up bad memories, do I?

Most stories that involved Earth-1 got to be so confusing and contradictory that DC had to create an entire miniseries that destroyed and simplified those stories, and has had to repeatedly do so over the last 30 years--what's that tell you?

The fact is, ongoing fiction was never meant to last for the length of time that these franchises have, and they suffer for it. Extremely so. We have to have arguments over what comics "count" anymore, and that's a ridiculous argument to have.

Onslaught Six wrote:For some bad examples, though? A big example I can think of is Bishop from X-Men. In premise, it's kind of neat--guy sent back to stop the apocalypse of his own future. But then years passed and they finally got around to that moment, and it all fell apart into a mess and sucked ass.

So Bishop's plan fell apart? I don't see how that makes him or any of the good stories he's a part of suck. Those are still good stories even if Bishop ultimately failed at what he was supposed to do.

I don't even need to say anything more than "Clone Saga" to drudge up bad memories, do I?

At least you have one infamous example of a bad story here.

Most stories that involved Earth-1 got to be so confusing and contradictory that DC had to create an entire miniseries that destroyed and simplified those stories, and has had to repeatedly do so over the last 30 years--what's that tell you?

How is that a problem with the story of CoIE itself though? Whether or not DC feels the need to rejuvenate their franchises again and again over the years is not a lasting effect of that story, rather, it's the business decisions they've gone with to keep and attract readers. You're looking at things around the story but not at the story itself. And CoIE was a success for what it set out to be.

The fact is, ongoing fiction was never meant to last for the length of time that these franchises have, and they suffer for it. Extremely so. We have to have arguments over what comics "count" anymore, and that's a ridiculous argument to have.

And this is really an entirely different argument, one I also don't entirely agree with. I know you're not exactly one for maintaining continuity, but I believe that can actually strength the franchise. But to the point of this discussion, you're not looking at the stories themselves and their own merits.

Sparky Prime wrote:

Onslaught Six wrote:For some bad examples, though? A big example I can think of is Bishop from X-Men. In premise, it's kind of neat--guy sent back to stop the apocalypse of his own future. But then years passed and they finally got around to that moment, and it all fell apart into a mess and sucked ass.

So Bishop's plan fell apart? I don't see how that makes him or any of the good stories he's a part of suck. Those are still good stories even if Bishop ultimately failed at what he was supposed to do.

...the story fell apart. Not "Bishop's plan." I mean the story sucked shit through a straw. Years of buildup for what? The ending to

Spoiler

Looper?

And this is really an entirely different argument, one I also don't entirely agree with. I know you're not exactly one for maintaining continuity, but I believe that can actually strength the franchise. But to the point of this discussion, you're not looking at the stories themselves and their own merits.

Those merits are largely "not having to deal with bullshit that other mediums would find laughable."

All I'm saying is, Batman: The Animated Series went through four seasons without bringing anybody back from the dead and without sending anybody to any alternate dimensions or back in time. Christopher Nolan did three long-ass movies and did the same thing. Why do the comics find this so difficult?

(Yes, Batman: The Brave And The Bold had lots of alternate dimension and time travel shenanigans. But that's exactly what they were--shenanigans. That was a goofy show that didn't take itself seriously. When Batman goes to an alternate dimension in that cartoon, you laugh because it's absurd, and this is a cartoon where he fights dudes with names like Crazy Quilt. When he does it in comic books, you're apparently supposed to take it seriously.)

Shit, it's not even like comic books in general are endimic to this. Nobody travels through time in Sandman. (Arguably, mind, they wouldn't need to, because they would've already experienced it, being immortal and all.) Nobody comes back from the dead in Transmetropolitan--when people get shot in the face, they die and they stay dead. Shit, this even happened in Watchmen--Rorschach doesn't come back to life. Nobody timetravels in at the last second to stop him from dying. (You want to see how this kind of shit looks to non-comic book fans? Look up WatchmeX some time.)

When things like that happen, it feels cheap because then it's of no consequence. That's what readers want--they want consequences. They want what they read to actually matter. And it's not even limited to stuff like this--for some people, it's ridiculous that Batman would capture the Joker and put him in jail, or Arkham Asylum, over and over and over again. Why? Because then that story they just read doesn't really matter, because there's no consequences. Now, I'm willing to suspend my belief and some of the explanations that've happened before--but I had an argument one time with a guy who said he preferred Punisher to Batman for that very reason. "Batman puts the Joker away in an asylum where he'll just break out in two weeks and kill more people. Punisher won't take that shit. Punisher will straight up kill the motherfucker. That's why Punisher is better."

So we're at an impass. Shitty timetravel and alternate universes and broken continuity and rewriting things and retconning crap and writing stories that erase other stories because of things like sales numbers...those break the immersion for me. That's what sucks about comics for me. I hate that they're so stupidly transparent about it, too. Captain America movie coming out next month? Guess what! Steve Rogers is alive and in the suit again! Big fucking surprise! Maybe to you, that looks fine and dandy, but to an outsider--to someone who doesn't entrench themselves in Comic Book Bullshit--it looks riggoddamndiculous. You read a Wikipedia summary of 616 Steve Rogers and it looks idiotic. Let me just quote this little bit:

Captain America: Reborn #1 (Aug. 2009) reveals that Rogers did not die, and that the gun Sharon Carter had been hypnotized to use had actually caused Rogers to phase in and out of space and time, appearing at events in his lifetime and fighting battles. The Skull returns Rogers to the present, where he takes control of Rogers' mind and body. Rogers eventually regains control, and with help from his allies, defeats the Skull in the fourth and final issues of this miniseries.

I...

what.

I'm not even kidding when I was expecting something seriously less ridiculous than that. Not only was the chick who shot him under hypnosis but it's also a magic time phasing gun. And then "The Skull" (because apparently "Red Skull" wasn't a stupid enough name) somehow timetravels him to the present and voodoo possesses him or something.

Comic books are fucking stupid.

Onslaught Six wrote:(Yes, Batman: The Brave And The Bold had lots of alternate dimension and time travel shenanigans. But that's exactly what they were--shenanigans. That was a goofy show that didn't take itself seriously. When Batman goes to an alternate dimension in that cartoon, you laugh because it's absurd, and this is a cartoon where he fights dudes with names like Crazy Quilt. When he does it in comic books, you're apparently supposed to take it seriously.)

For the record, Grant Morrison can do plots like that and get you to take them seriously. But of course, very few writers are Grant Morrison.

When things like that happen, it feels cheap because then it's of no consequence. That's what readers want--they want consequences. They want what they read to actually matter. And it's not even limited to stuff like this--for some people, it's ridiculous that Batman would capture the Joker and put him in jail, or Arkham Asylum, over and over and over again. Why? Because then that story they just read doesn't really matter, because there's no consequences. Now, I'm willing to suspend my belief and some of the explanations that've happened before--but I had an argument one time with a guy who said he preferred Punisher to Batman for that very reason. "Batman puts the Joker away in an asylum where he'll just break out in two weeks and kill more people. Punisher won't take that shit. Punisher will straight up kill the motherfucker. That's why Punisher is better."

Your friend sounds pretty edgy, be careful not to cut yourself.

Batman’s not killing is a defining characteristic that has been used well in a lot of stories. Hell, check out the ‘Under the Red Hood’ film sometime: first of all the entire plot concerns, hah, a long-dead character coming back to life, but the story in this case uses it as an opportunity to deconstruct the idea of a character coming back to life and how messed up everything would be if such a thing happened, and because at the end of the movie, Batman and the titular Hood all but sit down and just discuss Batman’s no-killing rule after he gets called out on it. Seriously, this is the best Batman movie since Return of the Joker (which, incidentally, ALSO did right by a plot about a thought-long-dead character returning to life!)

(If I can derail things a bit further, may I just say that I absolutely LOVE the ending of volume 1 of the comic version of Under the Hood, before they actually explain how Jason came back, when Bruce asks him how, Jason basically just says “It doesn’t matter, this story’s about what would happen if I came back to life, so here I am.”)

So we're at an impass. Shitty timetravel and alternate universes and broken continuity and rewriting things and retconning crap and writing stories that erase other stories because of things like sales numbers...those break the immersion for me. That's what sucks about comics for me. I hate that they're so stupidly transparent about it, too. Captain America movie coming out next month? Guess what! Steve Rogers is alive and in the suit again! Big fucking surprise! Maybe to you, that looks fine and dandy, but to an outsider--to someone who doesn't entrench themselves in Comic Book Bullshit--it looks riggoddamndiculous. You read a Wikipedia summary of 616 Steve Rogers and it looks idiotic. Let me just quote this little bit:

Captain America: Reborn #1 (Aug. 2009) reveals that Rogers did not die, and that the gun Sharon Carter had been hypnotized to use had actually caused Rogers to phase in and out of space and time, appearing at events in his lifetime and fighting battles. The Skull returns Rogers to the present, where he takes control of Rogers' mind and body. Rogers eventually regains control, and with help from his allies, defeats the Skull in the fourth and final issues of this miniseries.

I...

what.

I'm not even kidding when I was expecting something seriously less ridiculous than that. Not only was the chick who shot him under hypnosis but it's also a magic time phasing gun. And then "The Skull" (because apparently "Red Skull" wasn't a stupid enough name) somehow timetravels him to the present and voodoo possesses him or something.

Comic books are fucking stupid.

I really shouldn’t be reading this at work, that’s too funny.

It’s like, you know that they knew they were going to want to bring Steve back eventually, so why did they have to tack on so many obvious retcons to make it happen? They couldn’t have planned around it? Like Dom keeps mentioning, look at Final Crisis/Return of Bruce Wayne (which, I believe not coincidentally, happened around the same time and featured a rather similar plot): Right there at the end of Final Crisis, Morrison shows Bruce back in caveman times, which is exactly where ROBW picks up, and goes with. If I recall, they’d already established that Darkseid’s Omega Beam thingies send people flying through time too, so they had that ready to go. This was *planned*, despite the use of time travel, and they were able to go from point A to point B in a (relatively) organic way, rather than having to tack on all this extraneous goofy bullshit the way the Captain America plotline apparently had to.

So basically, I think that stories involving time travel/dimension hopping and the like *can* be good, they just have to actually be planned around it and using it as an element of the story, rather than just falling back on them because they’re bullshit easy methods of bringing characters back and resetting the status quo. I don’t get mad when Marty uses time travel to stop Doc from dying at the end of Back to the Future Part I because that’s *the entire point of the story*. On the other end of the spectrum, you’ve got Lockon dying at the end of the first season of Gundam 00, then we find out he had a twin brother who ALSO calls himself Lockon ready to go once they decided they wanted to do a second season. That doesn’t even involve time travel or anything, and *that’s* some goddamn bullshit.

You know, I think this may be why some people gush all over themselves over Firefly/Serenity. Because it's Science fiction that doesn't involve any of this shit. There's no time travel, no clones, no alternate universes, no returning from the dead. Once a character dies they stay dead. Even stories written about characters that are dead after the fact take place before they died so there's no retcon.

Even the damned original Star Wars movies did that! It's not like it's hard!

(Okay, Obi-Wan is a ghost, but that's the Force.)