TF Views

BWprowl wrote:And current Marvel isn’t so shocking or ultra-violent as you’re making them out to be either.

I never said they were ultra-violent. I said they rely on character "deaths" and shock value events rather than idea-based stories. That was particularly in reference to the teaser of Marvel's "Everything Ends" teaser for their event next year.

So what are we even arguing about here? This started because you jumped down…someone’s throat about liking Marvel, claiming that they were publishing nothing but stupid shock-value events, when as we’ve established through this latest page of idiotic bickering, both companies do that on about that same level, and have for years.

I jumped down someone's throat? I only disagreed with Dom for saying Marvel has been focusing on idea centered writing and pushing boundaries, and that they've done it better than DC. Because Marvel decided a few years ago at one of their company retreats that they'd kill off a character every quarter as a method to boost sales (there was an article on Newsarama about it at the time, I know I've posted the link to it here a few times). Something they've stayed true to I'd point out with deaths like Human Torch, Nightcrawler, Peter Parker, Wolverine among others... Not exactly such a rich idea-based method wouldn't you agree? But instead you jumped on me for it because you know I'm a fan of Green Lantern.

Really seems like you’re projecting your bad experience with Ultimatum (itself not even ‘regular’ Marvel) onto the company’s current output as a whole. How much Marvel have you read in the last few years that you can confirm that? Because from the books I’ve read (Ms. Marvel, All-New Ghost Rider, Inhuman, Spider-Man 2099, Gillen’s Iron Man, Scarlet Spider, New Warriors), they, uh, don’t really do that all that much.

Are any of those event titles or gimmicky storylines? Because that's the topic here, not the regular issues. And again, I pointed out Ultimatum just as an example. It's hardly the only one. Did you read Original Sin that came out THIS YEAR, where they killed off The Watcher and took his eyes? Yeah, that happened.

Except for the part where I point out that I ended up enjoying it specifically because it turned out to be more than just ‘one of those types of storylines’.

Still doesn't change it was one of those storylines, even if there was more to it.

Why does the audience need to identify with a story in order for it to be good?

A better question is why would the audience want to read a story they can't identity with? That's in large part what made Peter Parker such a successful character in the first place, the fact he started out as just a regular skinny geek.

I don’t see how you manage to enjoy comic books, then. Characters are almost NEVER portrayed fully consistently between stories, save for when they’re written by the same writer (and even then…). It’s one THE major faults of the medium, but also one advantage it has, from a certain point of view: Characters are more apt to be used in different ways to tell different kinds of stories with different concepts and ideas.

Certainly we can't expect the writers to know EVERY facet of a character, but in large part, I think many writers do a pretty decent job of keeping characters consistent. I can overlook the minor things. It helps when so many of the writers grew up as fans of the comics themselves, they're already antiquated with those characters.

Maybe if you actually read it you would see something there besides your own projected bad impression of it.

Like I said earlier, I did read bits and pieces of it. I'm not projecting anything, as much as you seem to want me to be. Save for maybe Doc Ock finished college for Peter after he found out he didn't have his doctorate, I can't say that I saw anything that I particularly liked about the storyline.

Marvel has been focusing on shock value and events with very little thought the past few years more than ever.

How so? What makes you think Marvel has not been planning things? Hickman was been clearly building to something with his Avengers books. Gillen's run on "Iron Man" was truncated because the Mouse offered him a better gig with "Star Wars". If nothing else, knowing that there is a "Crisis" scale reboot on the way would explain why Hickman has been free to do what he has been doing in the various Avengers books.

Just be careful what you wish for. Marvel might be well advised to not throw the baby out with the bathwater like DC did. Once they jump on the reboot bandwagon, there's no telling what might be jettisoned. You might not like the end result. Yes, DC got rid of Cry for Justice and the New Krypton storyline and other creative dead ends, but they got rid of a lot of good history and backstory as well.

And, there was good stuff after "Flashpoint". "Blackhawks", "Captain Atom" and "Team 7" were solid, if short run, books.

Even if the worst happens, there will still be worthwhile comics.

And it's interesting, because I'm not sure what Marvel titles you're looking at (as I said, I generally avoid their events) but the books I'm reading are pretty much the opposite. New Warriors, Ms. Marvel, All-New Ghost Rider, Inhuman, as well as the now-completed Superior Spider-Man, all solid, focused, heavily idea-centric stories that rely on establishing characters and concepts and situations, rather than shock value or hype-grabbing shake-ups (Superior Spider-Man did admittedly start that way, but it quickly proved itself to be something completely different).

You forgot "Iron Man" and "New Avengers".

I'm only an occasional Marvel reader, but I'd hate to see them sacrifice 50 years of history for a short term sales gain.

They could just be flushing away dated elements and going in a new (better) direction. Marvel has been investing so much in its creators for the last decade that I have a hard time not being giddy about this.

I'd honestly love to see the big two just "end" everything and just start from scratch. And to start with some new rules in place. Namely: Dead is dead, no bringing anyone back. No backwrites or contradictions. And no more cosmic gibberwank. And time travel and/or time altering stories should be extremely discouraged. I think this would make for a much more cohesive story going forward.

In general terms I agree. But, I doubt either of us thinks it is likely.

You can always go back and read enjoyable stories, even if they don't 'count' anymore.

This. "Armor Wars" (with its Cold War time frame) is barely relevant now anyway. On the DC side, Waid's run on "the Flash" has not been relevant for at least 3 years (if I am extremely generous). But, good comics are still good comics.

The run of "Captain Atom" I mentioned above will not count at this time next year. Mark my words. But, it was, and remains, a solid read.

The difference however is the DC never made it a company policy to kill off a character every quarter like Marvel has. And Marvel keeps getting progressively worst with it.

This is a fair point. Marvel is a worse offender about killing and raising characters (especially B listers and lower).

Something they've stayed true to I'd point out with deaths like Human Torch, Nightcrawler, Peter Parker, Wolverine among others... Not exactly such a rich idea-based method wouldn't you agree? But instead you jumped on me for it because you know I'm a fan of Green Lantern.

Marvel does not even pretend they are keeping the dead guy dead any more. That is a problem.

Hopefully, it will get fixed next year.

DC is the company that stuffs tiny corpses into matchboxes, has torture technicians feed women parts of their husbands, has flamboyant assassins that eat womens' faces, has temporary sidekicks getting messily eaten by demonic crocodiles, has supervillains stabbing babies to death, and can't seem to go a week without somebody's arm getting lopped off.

Can we get an itemized list on this? Thanks.

Slott's also a notorious troll who initially said that Miguel O'Hara would be the Superior Spider-Man.

I find that I am less a fan of Slott than I am entertained by the fantrums he provokes. Not sure what that says about me.

By having the villain "kill" the hero of the story and take over his life. How is the audience supposed to identify with that exactly?

The point was defining what made a hero. It is not a question of being all foo foo and identifying with the characters. It was a question of Slott outlining what made a hero (abilities, inclinations, whatnot).

Green Lantern #36
Godhead continues, and it’s easy enough to follow the story without purchasing every other GL title. The goal of the New Gods is restated, and the result of John Stewart, Sinestro and Kyle’s encounter with the New Gods is summarized when everyone gets together to regroup and compare notes. Once again, Hal notes that it’s been a year since the events of Lights Out, and he has believed Kyle to be dead all that time.

Sinestro picks up Green Arrow’s old familiar tune and accuses Hal of essentially not being a man because he takes orders from the Guardians. It was annoying when Ollie said that, and it’s just as annoying when Sinestro says it. I do find it amusing when Sinestro says that he wants the old Hal Jordan back. Yeah, you and the rest of us reading the book, pal! And again, despite some posturing, it’s telling how quickly the normally antagonistic ring corps put aside their differences in the face of the threat from Highfather and his army.

The whole scene at the end with Black Hand using corpses to stage a circus was in extremely poor taste. I guess it’s no worse than the average zombie/black lantern storyline, but most of the time that scenario is played for horror, not laughs as it is here. But the idea of Hal enlisting the aid of the Black Lanterns against the wishes of the Guardians is typical for the character, and it will be interesting to see if they’re any more effective against the New Gods than the other lanterns have been.


Justice League 3000 #11
I guess my whole problem with this book is that snarky future duplicates of the Justice League don’t make for very compelling protagonists. They aren’t the real thing, and I don’t know that I really care a lot about their story or what happens to them. And in this issue we get duplicates of various enemies as well like Bane or Sinestro, all created by the same foundation who created the League. Giffen and DeMatteis have chosen to make the characters very flawed, so the Superman duplicate is a lecherous jerk, Wonder Woman is a one note violent pyscho, etc. And I’m really not seeing the point of these characters existence. There needs to be a reason for readers to care about them or at least to be interested in them and their world, but so far there really isn’t one. I can see why the book isn’t doing all that well.

But on the last page, finally, Blue Beetle and Booster Gold turn up, which is the main reason I’ve been reading the book and trying to get up to speed on the story. An issue or two more should tell me whether they’ll make the book worth reading or not, and whether I'll keep buying it.

A better question is why would the audience want to read a story they can't identity with? That's in large part what made Peter Parker such a successful character in the first place, the fact he started out as just a regular skinny geek.

I can't identify with Batman--I'm not rich, my parents weren't killed, and I didn't grow up in a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Nor can I identify with Simba, who is a talking cartoon lion (whose dad is also dead). Nor with Jackie Brown, who is a 40 year old black lady in a Tarantino movie. And yet I find all of these characters interesting or compelling, somehow.

Onslaught Six wrote:

A better question is why would the audience want to read a story they can't identity with? That's in large part what made Peter Parker such a successful character in the first place, the fact he started out as just a regular skinny geek.

I can't identify with Batman--I'm not rich, my parents weren't killed, and I didn't grow up in a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Nor can I identify with Simba, who is a talking cartoon lion (whose dad is also dead). Nor with Jackie Brown, who is a 40 year old black lady in a Tarantino movie. And yet I find all of these characters interesting or compelling, somehow.

Exactly. I read various fiction for escapism and enjoyment, so identifying with a character isn't generally necessary. It may add something to the story if I identify with a character or with some of his/her character traits, but it's not essential.

I get escapism, it's at least 90% of why I enjoy most of the stuff that I do enjoy, but every once in a while, I like to see a character that's going through something that I do IRL. It somehow makes me feel like maybe I'm not alone in the world. Misery loves company, I suppose?

Dominic wrote:How so? What makes you think Marvel has not been planning things? Hickman was been clearly building to something with his Avengers books. Gillen's run on "Iron Man" was truncated because the Mouse offered him a better gig with "Star Wars". If nothing else, knowing that there is a "Crisis" scale reboot on the way would explain why Hickman has been free to do what he has been doing in the various Avengers books.

Oh, I'd agree they have been planning things, I just think they haven't been so focused on idea-based writing for so many of their events.

Onslaught Six wrote:I can't identify with Batman--I'm not rich, my parents weren't killed, and I didn't grow up in a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Nor can I identify with Simba, who is a talking cartoon lion (whose dad is also dead). Nor with Jackie Brown, who is a 40 year old black lady in a Tarantino movie. And yet I find all of these characters interesting or compelling, somehow.

You're taking my comment much too literally. I didn't say anything about people not finding stories they can't identify with interesting or compelling never-the-less. My point was simply that characters that are identifiable is easier for readers to get into and to follow. And that is EXACTLY why Peter Parker was created to be just a regular kid who just so happened to get spider-powers when so many superheroes. At the time he was created, the majority of superheroes were already successful adult characters. Brain-switching him with Doc Ock kind of undermines the point of the character because he isn't as identifiable as Peter Parker is. With a character like Batman specifically, he can be a difficult character to follow. I mean, there's a reason why they decided to introduce Robin as his teenage sidekick. Simba? Really? He's not that hard to identify with at all. Sure his dad dies, but the point of his character is that he doesn't want responsibilities and ends up confronting and accepting them in the end.

Sparky Prime wrote:And that is EXACTLY why Peter Parker was created to be just a regular kid who just so happened to get spider-powers when so many superheroes.

Is that also why he's an inexplicable super-scientist genius who is able to invent a super-unbreakable webbing and a compact device to deliver it, or is it why he dates tons of beautiful women including a supermodel?

People don't like Peter Parker because they 'identify' with him, they like him because he's a wish-fulfillment super-empowerment fantasy. That's not something that translates to great storytelling.

Brain-switching him with Doc Ock kind of undermines the point of the character because he isn't as identifiable as Peter Parker is. With a character like Batman specifically, he can be a difficult character to follow.

Actually, I'm just going to repost this:

I wrote:because these guys can *totally* relate to Peter Parker, quick-witted super-powered genius who gets to fuck super-models, but they could NEVER relate to a misanthropic, nerdy, middle-aged asshole who shuffles around spouting about how much smarter and better he is than everyone and how these plebeians could never be on his level, oh no!

The people who can actually relate to Peter Parker probably don't need to turn to stories about Peter Parker for escapism. They're probably doing just fine.

BWprowl wrote:Is that also why he's an inexplicable super-scientist genius who is able to invent a super-unbreakable webbing and a compact device to deliver it, or is it why he dates tons of beautiful women including a supermodel?

People don't like Peter Parker because they 'identify' with him, they like him because he's a wish-fulfillment super-empowerment fantasy. That's not something that translates to great storytelling.

Of course he's a wish-fulfillment fantasy, what do you think SUPER HEROES is all about? He's still an identifiable character BECAUSE he started out as a normal geeky kid, and despite getting extremely lucky in a few areas, he's still a down to Earth character (struggling to pay bills and the like) in his personal life.

Actually, I'm just going to repost this:

I wrote:because these guys can *totally* relate to Peter Parker, quick-witted super-powered genius who gets to fuck super-models, but they could NEVER relate to a misanthropic, nerdy, middle-aged asshole who shuffles around spouting about how much smarter and better he is than everyone and how these plebeians could never be on his level, oh no!

The people who can actually relate to Peter Parker probably don't need to turn to stories about Peter Parker for escapism. They're probably doing just fine.

You're completely over looking who Peter Parker is as a character. Yes he's a science genius and had a super model wife, oh and hey he's got spider powers because that's totally in the realm of realism too, but again, the point of the character is that he started out as an average kid. You ever heard of the Parker Luck? I've always seen that as a means to keep Peter a humble down to Earth type character, rather than the uber successful type like so many other super heroes are. Doc Ock's time as Spidey was taking it more in that direction with him starting up a company in Peter's name and all.

Oh, I'd agree they have been planning things, I just think they haven't been so focused on idea-based writing for so many of their events.

Have you been reading Hickman's "New Avengers"?

The whole point of the incursions is to present a difficult problem with an obvious, if distasteful, solution. Right before the Illuminati destroyed the Great Society's Earth, Iron Man specifically stated that he expected that they would have found a better way before it came down to.....blowing up an inhabited planet full of really nice people.

Hickman covers a variant of the moral hazard, the responsibilities of people who set themselves up as lords over the fates of others and some others stuff.

Slott's "Spider-Man" run has been about defining a hero, not unlike DC's "Justice League 3000".

People don't like Peter Parker because they 'identify' with him, they like him because he's a wish-fulfillment super-empowerment fantasy. That's not something that translates to great storytelling.

Yup, the most poisonous kind of character identification.

(Not sure what it says about me, but I always figured that a real fan-wish character would likely be a bad guy. "Now, with these fantastic powers, I shall rob banks and jewelry stores and none shall be able to oppose me. Then, I shall take my fabulous horde and retire someplace much nicer than where I am now!" Not a noble plan, but definitely easier to get behind than "with great power comes great responsibility".)

Of course he's a wish-fulfillment fantasy, what do you think SUPER HEROES is all about? He's still an identifiable character BECAUSE he started out as a normal geeky kid, and despite getting extremely lucky in a few areas, he's still a down to Earth character (struggling to pay bills and the like) in his personal life.

Well, if he cannot turn all of is inventions and super-human power in to wealth enough to pay his bills, then maybe Parker is an idiot. (Place remark about comic book fans here:__________________________________________)

Joking aside, "super hero as wish fulfillment" started to go away in the 70s, 80s at the latest. At that point, the best comics tended to address issues of power beyond "it would be awesome if I could......" Superman works best as an analogue for power, not as a power fantasy. Most of the better comics avoid the latter. Gillen's "Iron Man" was about humanity and technology (and where the line between the two sits), not "you totally want to be Tony Stark because he is such a cool exec with a heart of steel, and then it is so cool when Iron Man takes his place to fight and fight with repulsor rays! He wears amazng armor, he is Iron Man!"