TF Views

Shockwave wrote:Sure you do, at least on some level. If you like a character, it's because there's "something" about that character that strikes a chord with you.

"Strikes a chord", yes. That doesn't mean I have to relate to the character in some way. There just has to be something there to interest me.

Onslaught Six wrote:Like Dom, I don't need to relate to a character on that base level. I don't technically even need to give a shit about Batman's pain--I don't need to *sympathise* with him, I just need to see Batman do stuff. In a *good* Batman story, Batman is either going to act as a static character or a dynamic character. In the former case, it's usually going to be a different character who's the dynamic one. Bad guy shows up, does stuff, Batman shows up, kicks some ass, and (hopefully) reforms the bad guy in some way. He grows. Now, because this is comics, usually that doesn't happen, but in a good story, it does. Take, for example, the episode of Batman: TAS with that little girl villain whose name I can't remember. That's a good example!

In other stories, Batman will be the dynamic character because a static one--the villain--shows something to 'him' instead. I think Batman Begins is a good example here.

Now, there's obviously exceptions to all this, and maybe I'm making shit up out of my ass, I dunno.

I don't think you're making shit up. In fact, I pretty much agree with everything you said and you cite some pretty damn good examples. My whole original point was that one of the things I really like about Spiderman is that they show him having to deal with real problems that the rest of us have to deal with. I don't NEED to relate to characters on such a fundamental level to like a story, but it certainly helps me give a shit about what's going on. I dunno, I like characters I can relate to. Like I said, we're getting into the fundamental concepts of writing here. It's possible to have good characters in a terrible story and bad characters in an awesome story. Best case scenario you get good characters in an awesome story.

Because I have better and more important things to do with my time than sit around reading about characters I don't give a shit about.

It is not a question of caring about the characters. What the writer is saying is more important.

I have no interest in "Archie" as a character or a property. But, I am *very* interested in reading the idiotic wedding arc in "Archie" for the sake of morbid curiosity.

I could care less about the Squadron Supreme, but I like what Gruenwald was doing with the 1980s series. I do not like "Armor Wars" because it has Ironman in it. I like it because Michelinie is a good writer who used Ironman to say something not stictly related to Ironman.

The fact I liked "Star Wars" was not enough to keep me from dropping it when the comics went bad, nor was it enough to keep me interested when the "Clone Wars" movie was so bad.


I do not care if I can relate to a character. I want the characters to be useful.

My father claims that he didn't have to shave more than once a week until he was thirty.

I can have a beard inside of 2 weeks. Mind you, this is normally good. But, when I am trying to be clean-shaven, as I am now, it is irksome. More than 2 or 3 days, and I have noticable stubble. I think ethnicity plays a role here. I am mostly Italian and Slavic, making my heritage hairy.

like Batman a lot, see. I don't relate to his millionaire-playboy-who-had-his-parents-murdered bit, but I *do* relate to his anti-killing thing. Because then he's just like them. It speaks to me on a fundamental level. It's the same reason I like Kenshin Himura from Rurouni Kenshin and Vash The Stampede from Trigun--they've renounced killing people--not because everyone says so (And in fact, in their universes, killing other people isn't even really looked down upon much) but because they have their own reasons.

That "heroes do not kill" is one of the more annoying cliches in comics. If a hero is going to take on the responsibility of putting on a costume and fighting crime, then they should be wiling to kill at least some of their enemies. In a very real way, Batman is consenting to the Joker and others killing as many as they do. Similarly, Spiderman is arguably responsible for Carnage.

I am not saying they the heroes need to be killing machines. Low level bad guys who are more interested in basic larceny or fraud do not warrant killing. Even fundamentally rational guys, (Doctor Doom for example), do not necessarily warrant killing. (Really, would living in a world run by Doom be that bad?)

The "no-killing" rule works for some guys, like Superman. (The idea being that Superman needs to be extra careful given his power levels.) But, in many cases, it comes off as a contrived reason for the bad guys to be able to come back.


Dom
-and the new topic is.....

Well it's great that you all can appreciate a social commentary out of a poorly written comic with horribly uninteresting characters, but I cannot. Characters are defined when they do stuff. The stuff they do is the plot. The plot provides the commentary the writer is making. If I don't care about or don't like the characters I won't care about what they're doing and at that point could care less what the writer is saying. Again, I just have better things to do with my time than read the exploits of uninteresting characters.

Dominic wrote:=I am not saying they the heroes need to be killing machines. Low level bad guys who are more interested in basic larceny or fraud do not warrant killing. Even fundamentally rational guys, (Doctor Doom for example), do not necessarily warrant killing. (Really, would living in a world run by Doom be that bad?)

So how then are the 'heroes' morally superior if they take it upon themselves to become judge, jury and executioner? More to the point, how would the situation be anything but one criminal killing another criminal? There has to be a moral line that heroes do not cross.

In the first Batman movie, back in 89, Batman killed the Joker at the end. It felt very much like a betrayal of the character, and it was. The fact that he will not kill is one of the fundamental underlying concepts behind Batman at this point. He exists because his parents were gunned down in front of him. He's never going to become like the killer who did that.

The "no-killing" rule works for some guys, like Superman. (The idea being that Superman needs to be extra careful given his power levels.) But, in many cases, it comes off as a contrived reason for the bad guys to be able to come back.

That's more a problem with the nature of an ongoing comic book series than with the main character. A super-hero movie can afford to finish off the villain because there isn't likely to be more than a few movies, and therefore plenty of villains to choose from. In an ongoing series, some of which have run for decades, popular villains can't be wasted, and so a way has to be found to keep them around. Yeah, it's absurd when the Joker escapes from Arkham for the 900th time, but what can you do about it?

I sometimes wonder if the ultimately repetitive nature of capture/escape is one thing that wears down comic book audiences. How many times can you read about Batman fighting the Joker or Superman debating Luthor before it all starts to feel like deja vu?

If I don't care about or don't like the characters I won't care about what they're doing and at that point could care less what the writer is saying.

If you do not care what the writer is saying/doing, why bother to read at all? Why is it important to like or care about the characters? As long as they are being used well and the story has some kind of point beyond "hey look, it is ______ doing stuff", I am happy.

So how then are the 'heroes' morally superior if they take it upon themselves to become judge, jury and executioner? More to the point, how would the situation be anything but one criminal killing another criminal? There has to be a moral line that heroes do not cross.

Much of this comes down to how one defines "criminal". I will say that criminals break statutory law. But, is statutory law really the only or highest power one can follow?

The motive for the killing also matters. Killing for convenience, or recreation, is much different than killing for the purpose of protecting others. It should not be done casually of course. But, if Batman (for example) is going to make himself responsible, (especially in an extra-legal sense), for the people of Gotham, then kililng the Joker is arguably justified as it protects residents of Gotham from (at least some) further harm.

In the first Batman movie, back in 89, Batman killed the Joker at the end.

Actually, the Joker fell. Batman may not have caught/pulled Joker back up, but how could he have?

He exists because his parents were gunned down in front of him. He's never going to become like the killer who did that.

Again, it comes down to motives though.

To use another example, Spiderman is arguably responsible for Venom's crimes. Even putting aside the fact that Venom is using Spidey's old suit, the fact is that Spiderman is the reason Venom kills in most cases. The fact that Venom knows where Spidey lives and sleeps could also justify Spiderman killing Venom.

I sometimes wonder if the ultimately repetitive nature of capture/escape is one thing that wears down comic book audiences. How many times can you read about Batman fighting the Joker or Superman debating Luthor before it all starts to feel like deja vu?

It is not just the capture/escape cycle that wears me down. it is the "huge changes forever....until they are undone" cycle. If Batman makes a drastic decision about the Joker, as he did in "A Death in the Family", it needs to stick.


Dom
-is enjoying the god awful Captain Atom story in "Action Comics" way too much.

Dominic wrote:

In the first Batman movie, back in 89, Batman killed the Joker at the end.

Actually, the Joker fell. Batman may not have caught/pulled Joker back up, but how could he have?

He didn't just fall. Batman used one of his grapples to tether the Joker to one of the gargoyles on the top of the cathedral as the Joker was trying to climb a rope ladder to a waiting helicopter. The gargoyle broke loose, ultimately dragging the Joker off the ladder and causing the Joker to fall to his death. Batman was directly responsible for the Joker's death, whether he meant to kill him or not.

Dominic wrote:Much of this comes down to how one defines "criminal". I will say that criminals break statutory law. But, is statutory law really the only or highest power one can follow?

The motive for the killing also matters. Killing for convenience, or recreation, is much different than killing for the purpose of protecting others. It should not be done casually of course. But, if Batman (for example) is going to make himself responsible, (especially in an extra-legal sense), for the people of Gotham, then kililng the Joker is arguably justified as it protects residents of Gotham from (at least some) further harm.

Again, it comes down to motives though.

To use another example, Spiderman is arguably responsible for Venom's crimes. Even putting aside the fact that Venom is using Spidey's old suit, the fact is that Spiderman is the reason Venom kills in most cases. The fact that Venom knows where Spidey lives and sleeps could also justify Spiderman killing Venom.

Self defense is one thing, but deliberate murder, whatever the motive, is morally wrong. It would be a tremendous act of hubris for Batman to assume the right to decide who lives and who dies, no matter how many lives it might save. It would be hard to debate this without getting not only into the morality of murder, but of the death penalty as well, so I'll let it go and just say that I disagree. Suffice it to say, we don't need to see supposedly morally upright super heroes solve their problems by resorting to murder.

[quote="andersonh1]I sometimes wonder if the ultimately repetitive nature of capture/escape is one thing that wears down comic book audiences. How many times can you read about Batman fighting the Joker or Superman debating Luthor before it all starts to feel like deja vu?[/quote]

I see an in!

This is partially why manga and anime appeal to me, to a degree. Let's take a very common example: Dragonball. Yamcha shows up within the first few episodes of the original series. Goku, in short, kicks his ass (more or less.) And then Yamcha...becomes a good guy. This is a 'very' common anime/manga trope and I think it deals with the Ongoing Series problem far better than American comics. Kenshin beats up Sanosuke in the second or third volume of the manga, and from that moment onward, Sanosuke is a good guy. The character of Jin-E shows up, kidnaps Kenshin's girlfriend, and runs off. Kenshin beats the crap out of him, but he won't kill Jin-E because That's Wrong. So Jin-E kills himself to save his honour. Now Jin-E is dead, but it doesn't sacrifice Kenshin's morals as a character.

Another recurring antagonist is Shinomori Aoshi, who Kenshin beats the crap out of once, and then lets him go--because Killing Is Wrong. And he shows up maybe two or three more times after that. The few times that an antagonist character is brutally injured and hospitalized, or sent to jail, they'll usually *stay there.* There's one bit where a villain, Chō, is defeated and arrested, and (I believe) he makes a bargain to sell out a few of the bad guys in exchange for his freedom.

I'm not saying manga & anime are *better* than American medium because of this, or anything, and they have their own flaws, but this seemed like a nice place to jump in.

Dominic wrote:

If I don't care about or don't like the characters I won't care about what they're doing and at that point could care less what the writer is saying.

If you do not care what the writer is saying/doing, why bother to read at all? Why is it important to like or care about the characters? As long as they are being used well and the story has some kind of point beyond "hey look, it is ______ doing stuff", I am happy.

Characters just doing stuff isn't enough to make a good story. That wasn't my point. Example: I like Spiderman. I would find a story arc involving Spiderman relating to Toxin with the writer making some point about the difference between "Justice" and "law". What I would not like to see is a 6 issue arc involving Spiderman washing his pants. For another thing, I read for entertainment, which doesn't always require the writer to make any sort of a larger "point". Another part of my point is that, for me, "good" writing requires at least 2 things: 1: Interesting characters 2: doing interesting things. For me, it's character driven, I don't require that the writer be preaching some "message" to me.