Ah, so it was the way it absorbed and regurgitated the commenting system, ok.
anderson wrote:Agreed, though even Law and Order (which admittedly I've seen very little of) hasn't run as long as some of the longer-running soaps. Young and the Restless just hit 40 years recently, and if you want to talk about comics, Spider Man has just hit 50 years of continuous publication I believe, and Batman and Superman have been running for 75 years+. There's no real comparison. And with the comic book characters, there have often been multiple titles running every month. The amount of stories out there about Spider Man or Superman is staggeringly huge. That raises issues of creativity and repetition, and whether or not it's even possible to avoid reusing plots or avoiding some of the more "out-there" plot ideas. When a writer is searching for a plot, it's got to be challenging to continually come up with something different with seven decades of material already in existence.
Law & Order ran 20 years, tied for the longest-running prime time drama with Gunsmoke (The Simpsons has since run longer than both, the Law & Order franchise has run as long as that). To me, that is longer than the majority of audiences will stick with a TV show or think about a comic book, that's generational.
My point is this: yes, undoing a character's death is a literary cheat, but given the fantastic nature of comics and the sheer amount of published material, I'm willing to suspend my disbelief a little more than I would be for other genres. I have different standards for different forms of storytelling. And rightly so, because any given literary universe is going to set its own rules.
To me, that's a problem with the medium, that's a failing it's now stuck with where it wasn't like this when I was a kid, where stories from Denny O'Neil held the medium up to a higher standard - I can have suspension of disbelief on Ra's Al Ghul because there's at least a foundation for it, it made that character special, and it added to the drama - and the funny thing is that those were just regular books, we got 'em in back issue for a quarter a piece in the '80s. Now it's become the norm, foundation be damned. Seems like the books aimed higher in the stupid cheap rag days than they do now.
James Bond was machine-gunned to death at the beginning of "You Only Live Twice". He was back not 10 minutes after the credits rolled. Was that a cheat? No, that was a pre-planned plot device, not only for use in telling the rest of the story but also to jerk the audience around a bit. You probably couldn't get away with that type of theatricality in Law and Order, but in a James Bond film, it works. The Dark Knight Rises shows Batman dying while saving Gotham City from a nuclear explosion. Only somehow, Alfred sees him alive and well at the end of the movie. How did he escape the blast? We don't know, and yet because he's Batman and he's generally prepared for most contingencies, we accept it. Spock is able to return from death thanks to some unique circumstances which the audience accepts because the rules of that universe, as presented in ST 2 and 3, allow it to happen.
To be fair, James Bond films had been transforming into a cartoonish joke by that point. And it's not like James Bond is shot in bed in You Only Live Twice, then we don't see him again for 2 films, then he crops up 3 films later. You could get away with faking a character's death in Law & Order if there was some foundation for it and it was explained as being necessary - say, a witness entering relocation has to fake his death to avoid being killed. Law & Order SVU once faked a character's death like that, but the end of the episode let the audience know what the score was, so that when she returned several years later it was passable; but L&O also had an assistant DA, main credits character mind you, kidnapped and beaten until she choked to death on her own vomit and left in a trunk by a scumbag, and that wasn't survivable.
The end of The Dark Knight Rises is crap in a hat, they set up mountains of foundation saying Bruce Wayne cannot survive the explosion at any distance he could reasonably get to, they show him in the cockpit on the scene just before it blows up - the only half-plausible argument out there is that he's in a remote control cockpit, having separated from the ship earlier, but the visuals prove that can't be the case with a shot of the city moving background through the cockpit window AFTER the last chance to eject over land in the exploded building, and worse, moving lights over the cockpit and Bruce from the front a moment before the bomb goes up, the autopilot argument the film makes later is failed by this false dramatic "no way out" foundation they laid through visual statements.
Spock's death is a cheat, there's no question, it's sci-fi miracle, but the storytellers at least laid a foundation for why this singular example would fit within that story ahead of time and they leave that hint for the audience intentionally.
Different genres, different rules. The more fantastic the genre, the more the audience will allow themselves to accept, provided whatever ground rules are set up for that universe are observed. An "anything goes" story with no rules isn't going to succeed dramatically, I would think.
That's how it feels to me, as a relative outsider to the IDW comics, anything goes is the norm now where when it hadn't been before - before AHM 12 there weren't a lot of notable characters getting fake-deaths in the few books I had seen, and since then it's become exceptionally commonplace to the point where there's no threat of danger when everyone is definitely going to survive. Pipes is dead and dead and dead because we saw his spark get snuffed out, but I won't be surprised if he shows up in issue 17
based on the IDW soliciting blurb provided about taking the Lost Light into the gates of Heaven or Hell
and so it's difficult to find connection with a series where every character is essentially immortal.
That being the case, a writer has better be absolutely clear when he's ending a character's story arc once and for all. Because there's always going to be another writer who follows him, who will have their own ideas and stories they want to tell, and if there's any wiggle room, then using that character is fair game.
See, to me that's a symptom of the problem, and now writers have to put the cart before the horse when creating life-or-death tension for their characters.
So the Joker should have been left in the 40s? This goes right back to and makes my point about the long-running nature of many comics. How many new stories and concepts ARE there, if a book has been running for 50 years? And surely you have to factor audience turnover into the equation, though in this day and age with reprints and the internet, it's much more difficult to count on the ignorance of the audience when it comes to a character's history.
The Joker in the '40s is a character that takes place in an age without story arcs, it's easy to bring him out of that time because each Golden Age story is self-contained as it figures out what it's becoming. There are infinite stories and concepts to tell, it's the soap opera nature of comic books to put characters in peril AND THEN KILL THEM for dramatic effect only to bring them back a year later, if they want to tell stories with those characters, they can either tell "what if" stories or just NOT KILL THEM OFF IN THE FIRST PLACE. How many reboots does the entire DC universe go through and they still have to pull these shit stunts anyway?
Anyway, you make an interesting argument overall, I read the whole thing but only quoted the stuff I really could add thoughts to. I think you and I are in a "shades of gray" scenario here (using that metaphor a lot lately) where we agree on a lot of this stuff, just at different levels we're willing to tolerate certain things.
Dom wrote:The art was a needed departure from what had been in place for decades, and Figueroa nicely blended the movie with the origional style.
All except the "nicely" part.
That is fine. But, acknowledge the back-written nature of some parts of that ongoing narrative.
That is a meta issue outside the narrative, the question they framed was about the narrative itself. You are not wrong in your point, but it's outside the scope of their question.
And, if the medium is going to be stuck in low grade, why the hell should we bother with it?
Right. I don't bother with soap operas because they're trashy, and this is why they're trashy. If comics are going to be like that, what is the point?
For the record, if Rewind comes back on Roberts' watch, I will not call it a back-write. I will assume that Roberts planned for Rewind to survive his apparent demise.
I'll not be terribly surprised, there's a few cheap outs there as I mentioned prior, but I'll be disappointed because the emotional drama in that moment, the sacrifice Rewind knows he's making and then the painful choice Chromedome makes in response to shoot the pod will all be rendered meaningless, those feelings the fiction evokes will be moot and I'll be left wondering why I spent my time and money on issue 15 when none of it mattered.