|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
How is that ego?
You've mentioned this example several times. When did it happen? How do you know about it?
Grant Morrison told Psycomic shortly after he left DC and moved to Marvel that in his opinion it's obvious that Sue (Richards) wants to fuck Johnny but she doesn't so she fucks Namor.
Both parts of that statement, of course, are false.
At no time in the existance of the concept of the F4 has Sue ever shown any sexual desire for her brother OR for Namor.
This was a writer who, out of ego and because he had just lost his job at one of the big two publishers, again, because of his ego, wanted to get noticed by as many people as possible so he came up with the most shocking thing he could think of to get his little comic noticed.
Now, the different between a Grant Morrison and say a Larry Hamma is that Grant Morrison is capable to get away with whatever he wants to.
If Marvel had said "fine, let him do his comic the way he wants to do it" then Sue would have indeed had sex with either her brother or Namor.
This, you have to keep in mind, would have been an out of character action for all characters involved. It would have been completely driven by the writers own understanding of the concept.
As interesting as a "Spider-Man runs into a bank and kills people with an Uzi" story might be, such a story would NEVER, EVER happen for the simple reason that such an action would go against the basics of the character of Spider-Man.
Same holds true for the F4.
The problem here is that, more times than none, characterization and character (at least in comics) tend to take back seat to popularity.
Look at Birthright.
That's one story that's build more on the writer's popularity than on actual characterization.
Here you have a writer that's decided to re-write two (if not more) character's personalities so they better suit his own understanding and desires of what he wants them to be.
Continuity is just one word that encompases many others.
Continuity includes consistancy.
This consistancy goes from "the Batcave's under Wayne Manor, not Central Park in New York" to "Spider-Man would never use a gun to kill a group of innocent people" and "Jor-El was the one that pushed the button that sent Kal-El to Earth, not Lara".
The kind of continuity you talk about is the made up continuity that hack writers who don't like to be consistant in their work have come up with to convince people that all continuity is bad.
And you've fallen for it...
quote:
These are not real people. If someone's being written by a writer then, like it or not, the writer knows how the character is thinking better than anyone else. He has to, otherwise he wouldn't be a writer and the comic wouldn't really be a worthy story.
Not necessarily.
I wouldn't let Stephen King write a Bugs Bunny cartoon just like I wouldn't let Mark Waid write an episode of Young and the Restless.
You have to understand that there's no such thing as uber-writers who can write anything and everything.
Writers are no different from pencilers, they have to work to their strengths.
If a penciler draws a better Yosemite Sam than he does Optimus Prime than this penciler shouldn't work on the Transformers comics.
If a writer does better incest stories than he does super hero stories then this is a writer that should only work at Vertigo or Max, no matter how much he'd like to do a Superman story because no matter how good his incest or other adult-themed stories may be, his Superman will always be off.
If a writer has to change a characters personality and characterization to work on that comic then this is NOT a good writer.
A writer has to respect the character, be consistant in how he uses that character.
A story where Captain Kirk has a few beers with a group of Klingons and gets so drunk that he wakes up with in bed with a three Klingon women might be interesting but it wouldn't be consistant with the character's personality.
He can't go from hating Klingons because they killed his son to singing Kumballa(sp?) with them just because the writer thinks he should.
Any writer who thinks that his view point, no matter how inconsistant with what came before may be, is the only one that matters, is a writer with an ego.
quote:
I agree that you need some public in your side if you're getting published, but that doesn't mean it's all one big popularity contest where the only purpose is getting people to buy the comics. If that was the case, then every cover would be filled with tight spandex and big breasts. This isn't entirely about the reader like you say, just like it isn't entirely about the writer. It's about telling a good story that pleases both the writer and the reader (though not EVERY reader, that's impossible) without being stopped by unnecessary anal retentive imaginary decades old rules.
But between pleasing the writer and having a story that's consistant with both the character's personality and his background, what would you rather have?
For the writer all that matters is what makes him happy. Some writers, like Morrison and Waid, have no problem altering the characters they are working on to make sure that's accomplished... and they are popular enough to get away with it.
If Mark Waid wants to take the decision to send Kal-El to Earth out of Jor-El's hand's and put them on Lara he can do it... NOT because it's a good idea, but because he's popular enough to have it happen.
If a writer like Grant Morrison wants to have Sue have sex with her brother then he can get away with it for the same reason, his popularity.
It didn't happen for any number of reasons, maybe some editors got in his way and no matter how popular he is he couldn't do it, who knows. I am sure that if given the chance he would do it in a snap of the fingers.
quote:
What you just said is that that specific sector of an audience doesn't want good stories. In fact, they don't even appreciate a good story. All they want is a monthly or weekly addition to an ongoing series, nothing else. In that case, you can have 32 pages of The Bat-Man sitting in a couch and that's gonna keep that sector of the audience happy, as long as it doesn't contradict the way The Bat-Man sits (established in Detective Comics #357,6 page three panel four caption box one line seven).
If a writer makes an awesome story like you said, but he gets fired becuase an audience doesn't like that he didn't respect some unnecessary anal retentive imaginary decades old rules, then that audience doesn't deserve the writer, what they deserve is exactly what they get: to be robbed by a company that "makes" them buy comics they don't even enjoy, but that they "have" to buy because of a logo.
Well, since "good" is subjective and not a standard that everyone must follow, like say the sky being blue and water being wet, the above is just as subjective :)
quote:
I don't know anything about those cases, but if the majority of the audience thinks they can't write because they don't follow unnecessary anal retentive imaginary decades old rules, then that audience is wrong. If a writer makes sucky stories then he sucks. If a writer can't follow unnecessary anal retentive imaginary decades old rules then he's a writer who can't follow unnecessary anal retentive imaginary decades old rules, which isn't a bad thing, but (apparently) isn't gonna get him much money in the mainstream superhero business.
See, the above is just part of the popularity contest/lie about continuity being bad idea that many writers have come up with.
Writers who say continuity is bad don't do it because continuity is bad, they do it because continuity stops them from doing what they want to do.
Example:
1985, writer A does a story where Character 1 goes into a Dennis.
For the next 20 years this character starts goes to Dennis on a weekly basis, becomes friends with the help, has his own table, etc.
2005, writer B comes in and says how continuity prevents him from doing the stories he wants to do with Character 1.
He makes a big deal about how character 1's visits to Dennis have become redundant and predictable so he offers to redo character 1's first visit to Dennis WITHOUT rebooting the other character's history, just that one detail.
So writer B does a story where Character 1 goes into Dennis... and he has the story read like this is the FIRST time this has ever happened.
No one recognizes character 1, he has to wait in line to get a table, the service is all wrong and by the end of the story he decides he doesn't like Dennis anymore, he's going to Rascal's instead.
The above is, of course, a metaphor.
Writers who say continuity is bad are only looking to tell the SAME old stories that others have already done but make it look like it's the first time it's ever happened... but they don't want people to know this, so they have to not only badmouth continuity but belittle anyone that dares follow it.
Take Waid and his work on the F4.
He's going to introduce the idea of the Fantastic Three... well, a decade ago Tom DeFalco already did this idea, but clearly Waid doesn't want anyone to know that so he has to make a big deal about how continuity is wrong when in reality all he wants to do is do a Fantastic Three story without having it be compared to the one DeFalco did a decade ago, and to accomplish that he has to make people forget what DeFalco did and mock those that dare remember.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 395
300+ posts
|
|
300+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 395 |
quote:
Originally posted by backwards7:
I intend to start writing fan-fiction involving thinly diguised versions of comic book creators and editors.
Watch out for Marvel Cum Orgy where one unlucky writer gets a lesson in inking.
This is one comic book that I wish they'd turn into a movie.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 509
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 509 |
I've only written one piece of fan fiction involving a necrophilliac Nightwing and a disemboweled Batman. Some may remember it, I think it's still on my site somewhere.
I prefer to write my own stories with my own characters.
And I prefer porn and boobies above all else.
And Devin Grayson only got her job for knowing how to deep throat.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
quote:
MOTA: He's going to introduce the idea of the Fantastic Three... well, a decade ago Tom DeFalco already did this idea, but clearly Waid doesn't want anyone to know that so he has to make a big deal about how continuity is wrong when in reality all he wants to do is do a Fantastic Three story without having it be compared to the one DeFalco did a decade ago, and to accomplish that he has to make people forget what DeFalco did and mock those that dare remember.
Ok, when has Waid ever bitched about continuity being wrong or tried to make people forget something that happened earlier or mocked people for remembering something? Waid has always been a "silver ageist" and "continuity whore." He's one of the biggest fanboy writers in the biz. He built his rep on Flash due to his intimate knowledge of the characters and their histories and personalities.
Short of Birthright, he's never attempted a severe continuity altering decision. We're talking about the man who was supposed to revamp and charge up DC's villains in the Underworld series and couldn't do it because he "realized that the characters were perfect like they were" (I'm paraphrasing again). Yeah, like Capt. Boomerang can't use at least a costume change. ![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif)
Let me say it again: He couldn't progress DC's villains and make them legitimate threats and menaces because he fell in love with the way they were. Does that sound like a man who tries to make people forget continuity?
Waid is not one of the writers who rail continuously against continuity. The fact that you attempt to use him to make your point is most ironic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Grant Morrison told Psycomic shortly after he left DC and moved to Marvel that in his opinion it's obvious that Sue (Richards) wants to fuck Johnny but she doesn't so she fucks Namor.
Both parts of that statement, of course, are false.
At no time in the existance of the concept of the F4 has Sue ever shown any sexual desire for her brother OR for Namor.
That's just an interpretation. It could probably be a joke. These aren't real people, so if the writer says so then it's true. If the next writer doesn't like this then he may choose to ignore this interpretation or to find a contrincate way to explain how it was possible. Anyway, I'm sure that idea (if Morrison was beuing serious) would never get published. Basically what you're saying is that Grant Morrison is a hack for having that "sinful" thought in his head.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
This was a writer who, out of ego and because he had just lost his job at one of the big two publishers, again, because of his ego, wanted to get noticed by as many people as possible so he came up with the most shocking thing he could think of to get his little comic noticed.
I can't believe how simple you are in your reasoning. Don't you think that it's a bit of a coincidence that every decision you don't like that is made by a comic writer is because of ego? "Wait, what that guy just said goes against my opinion -- he must be an egomaniac!" So the writer knows that the idea sucks and makes no sense, but he writes it anyway becuase of his big ego. Has it ever occured to you that, maybe, just maybe, those ideas you despise so much are considered good ideas by the writers who make them? And maybe, just maybe, that's why they write them and not because of ego?
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Now, the different between a Grant Morrison and say a Larry Hamma is that Grant Morrison is capable to get away with whatever he wants to.
If Marvel had said "fine, let him do his comic the way he wants to do it" then Sue would have indeed had sex with either her brother or Namor.
When has Grant Morrison been allowed to get away with something like that? And by Marvel???
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
This, you have to keep in mind, would have been an out of character action for all characters involved. It would have been completely driven by the writers own understanding of the concept.
Everything is driven out of the writer's own understanding of the comic. If he doesn't understand the character, then why the fuck would he write it?!
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
As interesting as a "Spider-Man runs into a bank and kills people with an Uzi" story might be, such a story would NEVER, EVER happen for the simple reason that such an action would go against the basics of the character of Spider-Man.
Maybe that seems interesting to you, but not to me. Does Spider-Man have lots of muscle and big man boobs in the story?
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Same holds true for the F4.
And that's why Morrison's idea is never gonna get published. Heck, even if it did make sense (say Morrison explains Sue's psyche and somehow manages to make an idea like that make sense) it wouldn't get published.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
The problem here is that, more times than none, characterization and character (at least in comics) tend to take back seat to popularity.
Look at Birthright.
Ummm... weren't you using the fact that Birthright ISN'T popular as an argument against it in another thread?
And, also, didn't you just say in your last post that it's all about the audience's reaction to a story? In fact, you said that it doesn't matter if the story is good or bad, what matters is how the audience reacts to it.
Whenever I point out contradictions like these in your posts you tend to ignore me. Let's see what you do now.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
That's one story that's build more on the writer's popularity than on actual characterization.
Here you have a writer that's decided to re-write two (if not more) character's personalities so they better suit his own understanding and desires of what he wants them to be.
That's what every good Superman writer has done in the past. Denny O'neil and John Byrne, for example. If it wasn't for guys like these the character would be exaclty the same he was 60 years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Continuity is just one word that encompases many others.
Continuity includes consistancy.
There can be consistancy without a strict continuity.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
This consistancy goes from "the Batcave's under Wayne Manor, not Central Park in New York" to "Spider-Man would never use a gun to kill a group of innocent people" and "Jor-El was the one that pushed the button that sent Kal-El to Earth, not Lara".
That last one is ridiculous. What's the problem if someone changes that detail?
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
The kind of continuity you talk about is the made up continuity that hack writers who don't like to be consistant in their work have come up with to convince people that all continuity is bad.
Example?
BTW, all comic continuity is made up.
"who don't like to be consistent"? I bet that's because of ego, too.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
And you've fallen for it...
D'oh! It's all one big conspiracy, isn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Not necessarily.
The writer DOESN'T have to know how the character thinks????
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
I wouldn't let Stephen King write a Bugs Bunny cartoon just like I wouldn't let Mark Waid write an episode of Young and the Restless.
You have to understand that there's no such thing as uber-writers who can write anything and everything.
That's true, but what you have to understand is that just because you don't like a writer's interpretation of a character doesn't mean it's not valid.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Writers are no different from pencilers, they have to work to their strengths.
If a penciler draws a better Yosemite Sam than he does Optimus Prime than this penciler shouldn't work on the Transformers comics.
If a writer does better incest stories than he does super hero stories then this is a writer that should only work at Vertigo or Max, no matter how much he'd like to do a Superman story because no matter how good his incest or other adult-themed stories may be, his Superman will always be off.
Grant Morrison has proven several times to be an excellent superhero writer. His Animalman series was way ahead of it's time and his JLA revitalized the concept.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
If a writer has to change a characters personality and characterization to work on that comic then this is NOT a good writer.
If he changes them with no basis then he's a bad writer, but if he finds a way to change them that makes sense then he's a better writer than the one that simply sticks to the previous writer's interpretation. That's how characters evolve, not because meaningless details like who pressed the button are being respected.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
A writer has to respect the character, be consistant in how he uses that character.
Right, he has to be consistent. If he wants to make the character change he has to have a basis for making it.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
A story where Captain Kirk has a few beers with a group of Klingons and gets so drunk that he wakes up with in bed with a three Klingon women might be interesting but it wouldn't be consistant with the character's personality.
It would if it's properly explained.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
He can't go from hating Klingons because they killed his son to singing Kumballa(sp?) with them just because the writer thinks he should.
Any writer who thinks that his view point, no matter how inconsistant with what came before may be, is the only one that matters, is a writer with an ego.
Everyone has an ego, what you mean is that he has a big ego.
When have Mark Waid or Grant Morrison ever said that their interpretations of the characters they write are the only ones that matter? Knowing those writers, they probably welcome somebody changing the character after they leave.
The fact that an interpretation of a character is different from the one before doesn't mean it's not consistent. Like I said before, if the writer is good then he's gonna explain how it's possible.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
But between pleasing the writer and having a story that's consistant with both the character's personality and his background, what would you rather have?
Whichever makes a good story.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
For the writer all that matters is what makes him happy. Some writers, like Morrison and Waid, have no problem altering the characters they are working on to make sure that's accomplished... and they are popular enough to get away with it.
They are WRITERS. They do it simply becuase they believe they can tell a good story. What's the fucking point in making a story if only you are gonna enjoy it? There's a reason why Morrison and Waid have a better name than Lefield and McFarlane. Lefield and McFarlane have reached at some point insane levels of popularity, but that kind of popularity based on "coolness" and man boobs isn't significant for two reasons: a) It doesn't hold, and b) They are not respected by serious writers and serious readers. Morrison and Waid have a good name in the industry because, unlike the other two, they are actually writers and they know what they're doing.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
If Mark Waid wants to take the decision to send Kal-El to Earth out of Jor-El's hand's and put them on Lara he can do it... NOT because it's a good idea, but because he's popular enough to have it happen.
Again, isn't Birthright "not popular" and doesn't it suck because of that?
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
If a writer like Grant Morrison wants to have Sue have sex with her brother then he can get away with it for the same reason, his popularity.
Oh, yeah? In what issue did that happen?
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
It didn't happen for any number of reasons, maybe some editors got in his way and no matter how popular he is he couldn't do it, who knows.
But didn't you just say he could get away with it?
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
I am sure that if given the chance he would do it in a snap of the fingers.
Probably, if he wasn't kidding about it.
Knowing Morrison, maybe he has another motivation for doing a story like that: fucking with people like you. I'm serious about this, Morrie is very capable of doing something like that, and I think it would be hilarious to read the reactions he'd get.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Well, since "good" is subjective and not a standard that everyone must follow, like say the sky being blue and water being wet, the above is just as subjective :)
But you just said, "it may be the best story ever, but that doesn't matter".
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
See, the above is just part of the popularity contest/lie about continuity being bad idea that many writers have come up with.
Ah, the secret conspiracy. I look forward to reading the next paragraphs.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Writers who say continuity is bad don't do it because continuity is bad, they do it because continuity stops them from doing what they want to do.
Take over the world?
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Example:
1985, writer A does a story where Character 1 goes into a Dennis.
For the next 20 years this character starts goes to Dennis on a weekly basis, becomes friends with the help, has his own table, etc.
2005, writer B comes in and says how continuity prevents him from doing the stories he wants to do with Character 1.
He makes a big deal about how character 1's visits to Dennis have become redundant and predictable so he offers to redo character 1's first visit to Dennis WITHOUT rebooting the other character's history, just that one detail.
Oh my Gob, WITHOUT rebooting???
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
So writer B does a story where Character 1 goes into Dennis... and he has the story read like this is the FIRST time this has ever happened.
No one recognizes character 1, he has to wait in line to get a table, the service is all wrong and by the end of the story he decides he doesn't like Dennis anymore, he's going to Rascal's instead.
The above is, of course, a metaphor.
I'm glad. I was worried there for a second that Dennis might have to close.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
Writers who say continuity is bad are only looking to tell the SAME old stories that others have already done but make it look like it's the first time it's ever happened... but they don't want people to know this, so they have to not only badmouth continuity but belittle anyone that dares follow it.
Take Waid and his work on the F4.
He's going to introduce the idea of the Fantastic Three... well, a decade ago Tom DeFalco already did this idea, but clearly Waid doesn't want anyone to know that so he has to make a big deal about how continuity is wrong when in reality all he wants to do is do a Fantastic Three story without having it be compared to the one DeFalco did a decade ago, and to accomplish that he has to make people forget what DeFalco did and mock those that dare remember.
"mock those that dare remember"...
Like Mulder?
That's just fucking hilarious. I mean it. Did you come up with all that by yourself or did you read it in some website about conspiracies?
There's one big flaw in your story, though. I don't like strict decades old continuities. Am I part of this big conspiracy, too? In that case, you should watch out what you say around me. Maybe I'll send Kurt Busiek and Alan Moore to get you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17,868 Likes: 16
Son of Anarchist 15000+ posts
|
|
Son of Anarchist 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 17,868 Likes: 16 |
My ego can kick your ego's ass.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081
... 10000+ posts
|
|
... 10000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,081 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 28,009
Inglourious Basterd!!! 15000+ posts
|
|
Inglourious Basterd!!! 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 28,009 |
 My ego would just eat all y'all.
Uschi said:I won't rape you, I'll just fuck you 'till it hurts and then not stop and you'll cry. MisterJLA: RACKS so hard, he called Jim Rome "Chris Everett." In Him, all porn is possible. He is far above mentions in so-called "blogs." RACK him, lest ye be lost! "I can't even brush my teeth without gagging!" - Tommy Tantillo: Wank & Cry, heckpuppy, and general laughingstock ![[Linked Image from i6.photobucket.com]](http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/JoeMama13/RedSoxBanner05.png)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
You are all off-topic. If this continues, I will have no choice but to begin public bannings.
Thank you sincerely for your subservient compliance,
Fhqwhgadshgnsdhjsdbkhsdabkfabkveybvf
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 259
Goddess of the Universe 200+ posts
|
|
Goddess of the Universe 200+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 259 |
I write SHAZAM! fanfic.
I've been told I write good SHAZAM! fanfics*, even though not one of my SHAZAM! fics are based on "current" DCU continuity. I even have a couple of my own Yahoo fanfic groups: Fawcett Universe (modern, slightly manga-esque versions of the Fawcett Heroes) and an Earth-S group where the Crisis on Infinite Earths never occurred.
(Yes, I've been told I'm a good writer, but not by anyone on the DCMBs, and one of the fics I wrote for the Shazam! Earth-S Lives on group at Yahoo was deleted and labelled a "racist diatribe").
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 22
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 22 |
Do you have a link ShazamGrrl
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
I'm Not Mister Mxypltk said:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Grant Morrison told Psycomic shortly after he left DC and moved to Marvel that in his opinion it's obvious that Sue (Richards) wants to fuck Johnny but she doesn't so she fucks Namor.
Both parts of that statement, of course, are false.
At no time in the existance of the concept of the F4 has Sue ever shown any sexual desire for her brother OR for Namor.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's just an interpretation. It could probably be a joke. These aren't real people, so if the writer says so then it's true. If the next writer doesn't like this then he may choose to ignore this interpretation or to find a contrincate way to explain how it was possible. Anyway, I'm sure that idea (if Morrison was beuing serious) would never get published. Basically what you're saying is that Grant Morrison is a hack for having that "sinful" thought in his head.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>This was a writer who, out of ego and because he had just lost his job at one of the big two publishers, again, because of his ego, wanted to get noticed by as many people as possible so he came up with the most shocking thing he could think of to get his little comic noticed.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can't believe how simple you are in your reasoning. Don't you think that it's a bit of a coincidence that every decision you don't like that is made by a comic writer is because of ego? "Wait, what that guy just said goes against my opinion -- he must be an egomaniac!" So the writer knows that the idea sucks and makes no sense, but he writes it anyway becuase of his big ego. Has it ever occured to you that, maybe, just maybe, those ideas you despise so much are considered good ideas by the writers who make them? And maybe, just maybe, that's why they write them and not because of ego?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Now, the different between a Grant Morrison and say a Larry Hamma is that Grant Morrison is capable to get away with whatever he wants to.
If Marvel had said "fine, let him do his comic the way he wants to do it" then Sue would have indeed had sex with either her brother or Namor.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When has Grant Morrison been allowed to get away with something like that? And by Marvel???
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>This, you have to keep in mind, would have been an out of character action for all characters involved. It would have been completely driven by the writers own understanding of the concept.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Everything is driven out of the writer's own understanding of the comic. If he doesn't understand the character, then why the fuck would he write it?!
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>As interesting as a "Spider-Man runs into a bank and kills people with an Uzi" story might be, such a story would NEVER, EVER happen for the simple reason that such an action would go against the basics of the character of Spider-Man.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe that seems interesting to you, but not to me. Does Spider-Man have lots of muscle and big man boobs in the story?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Same holds true for the F4.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And that's why Morrison's idea is never gonna get published. Heck, even if it did make sense (say Morrison explains Sue's psyche and somehow manages to make an idea like that make sense) it wouldn't get published.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>The problem here is that, more times than none, characterization and character (at least in comics) tend to take back seat to popularity.
Look at Birthright.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ummm... weren't you using the fact that Birthright ISN'T popular as an argument against it in another thread?
And, also, didn't you just say in your last post that it's all about the audience's reaction to a story? In fact, you said that it doesn't matter if the story is good or bad, what matters is how the audience reacts to it.
Whenever I point out contradictions like these in your posts you tend to ignore me. Let's see what you do now.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>That's one story that's build more on the writer's popularity than on actual characterization.
Here you have a writer that's decided to re-write two (if not more) character's personalities so they better suit his own understanding and desires of what he wants them to be.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's what every good Superman writer has done in the past. Denny O'neil and John Byrne, for example. If it wasn't for guys like these the character would be exaclty the same he was 60 years ago.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Continuity is just one word that encompases many others.
Continuity includes consistancy.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There can be consistancy without a strict continuity.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>This consistancy goes from "the Batcave's under Wayne Manor, not Central Park in New York" to "Spider-Man would never use a gun to kill a group of innocent people" and "Jor-El was the one that pushed the button that sent Kal-El to Earth, not Lara".</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That last one is ridiculous. What's the problem if someone changes that detail?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>The kind of continuity you talk about is the made up continuity that hack writers who don't like to be consistant in their work have come up with to convince people that all continuity is bad.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Example?
BTW, all comic continuity is made up.
"who don't like to be consistent"? I bet that's because of ego, too.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>And you've fallen for it...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">D'oh! It's all one big conspiracy, isn't it?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Not necessarily.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The writer DOESN'T have to know how the character thinks????
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>I wouldn't let Stephen King write a Bugs Bunny cartoon just like I wouldn't let Mark Waid write an episode of Young and the Restless.
You have to understand that there's no such thing as uber-writers who can write anything and everything.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's true, but what you have to understand is that just because you don't like a writer's interpretation of a character doesn't mean it's not valid.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Writers are no different from pencilers, they have to work to their strengths.
If a penciler draws a better Yosemite Sam than he does Optimus Prime than this penciler shouldn't work on the Transformers comics.
If a writer does better incest stories than he does super hero stories then this is a writer that should only work at Vertigo or Max, no matter how much he'd like to do a Superman story because no matter how good his incest or other adult-themed stories may be, his Superman will always be off.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Grant Morrison has proven several times to be an excellent superhero writer. His Animalman series was way ahead of it's time and his JLA revitalized the concept.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>If a writer has to change a characters personality and characterization to work on that comic then this is NOT a good writer.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If he changes them with no basis then he's a bad writer, but if he finds a way to change them that makes sense then he's a better writer than the one that simply sticks to the previous writer's interpretation. That's how characters evolve, not because meaningless details like who pressed the button are being respected.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>A writer has to respect the character, be consistant in how he uses that character.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Right, he has to be consistent. If he wants to make the character change he has to have a basis for making it.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>A story where Captain Kirk has a few beers with a group of Klingons and gets so drunk that he wakes up with in bed with a three Klingon women might be interesting but it wouldn't be consistant with the character's personality.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It would if it's properly explained.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>He can't go from hating Klingons because they killed his son to singing Kumballa(sp?) with them just because the writer thinks he should.
Any writer who thinks that his view point, no matter how inconsistant with what came before may be, is the only one that matters, is a writer with an ego.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Everyone has an ego, what you mean is that he has a big ego.
When have Mark Waid or Grant Morrison ever said that their interpretations of the characters they write are the only ones that matter? Knowing those writers, they probably welcome somebody changing the character after they leave.
The fact that an interpretation of a character is different from the one before doesn't mean it's not consistent. Like I said before, if the writer is good then he's gonna explain how it's possible.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>But between pleasing the writer and having a story that's consistant with both the character's personality and his background, what would you rather have?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whichever makes a good story.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>For the writer all that matters is what makes him happy. Some writers, like Morrison and Waid, have no problem altering the characters they are working on to make sure that's accomplished... and they are popular enough to get away with it.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They are WRITERS. They do it simply becuase they believe they can tell a good story. What's the fucking point in making a story if only you are gonna enjoy it? There's a reason why Morrison and Waid have a better name than Lefield and McFarlane. Lefield and McFarlane have reached at some point insane levels of popularity, but that kind of popularity based on "coolness" and man boobs isn't significant for two reasons: a) It doesn't hold, and b) They are not respected by serious writers and serious readers. Morrison and Waid have a good name in the industry because, unlike the other two, they are actually writers and they know what they're doing.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>If Mark Waid wants to take the decision to send Kal-El to Earth out of Jor-El's hand's and put them on Lara he can do it... NOT because it's a good idea, but because he's popular enough to have it happen.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, isn't Birthright "not popular" and doesn't it suck because of that?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>If a writer like Grant Morrison wants to have Sue have sex with her brother then he can get away with it for the same reason, his popularity.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, yeah? In what issue did that happen?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>It didn't happen for any number of reasons, maybe some editors got in his way and no matter how popular he is he couldn't do it, who knows.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But didn't you just say he could get away with it?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>I am sure that if given the chance he would do it in a snap of the fingers.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Probably, if he wasn't kidding about it.
Knowing Morrison, maybe he has another motivation for doing a story like that: fucking with people like you. I'm serious about this, Morrie is very capable of doing something like that, and I think it would be hilarious to read the reactions he'd get.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Well, since "good" is subjective and not a standard that everyone must follow, like say the sky being blue and water being wet, the above is just as subjective <img border="0" title="" alt=" " src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But you just said, "it may be the best story ever, but that doesn't matter".
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>See, the above is just part of the popularity contest/lie about continuity being bad idea that many writers have come up with.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, the secret conspiracy. I look forward to reading the next paragraphs.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Writers who say continuity is bad don't do it because continuity is bad, they do it because continuity stops them from doing what they want to do.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Take over the world?
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Example:
1985, writer A does a story where Character 1 goes into a Dennis.
For the next 20 years this character starts goes to Dennis on a weekly basis, becomes friends with the help, has his own table, etc.
2005, writer B comes in and says how continuity prevents him from doing the stories he wants to do with Character 1.
He makes a big deal about how character 1's visits to Dennis have become redundant and predictable so he offers to redo character 1's first visit to Dennis WITHOUT rebooting the other character's history, just that one detail.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh my Gob, WITHOUT rebooting???
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>So writer B does a story where Character 1 goes into Dennis... and he has the story read like this is the FIRST time this has ever happened.
No one recognizes character 1, he has to wait in line to get a table, the service is all wrong and by the end of the story he decides he doesn't like Dennis anymore, he's going to Rascal's instead.
The above is, of course, a metaphor.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm glad. I was worried there for a second that Dennis might have to close.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Writers who say continuity is bad are only looking to tell the SAME old stories that others have already done but make it look like it's the first time it's ever happened... but they don't want people to know this, so they have to not only badmouth continuity but belittle anyone that dares follow it.
Take Waid and his work on the F4.
He's going to introduce the idea of the Fantastic Three... well, a decade ago Tom DeFalco already did this idea, but clearly Waid doesn't want anyone to know that so he has to make a big deal about how continuity is wrong when in reality all he wants to do is do a Fantastic Three story without having it be compared to the one DeFalco did a decade ago, and to accomplish that he has to make people forget what DeFalco did and mock those that dare remember. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"mock those that dare remember"...
Like Mulder?
That's just fucking hilarious. I mean it. Did you come up with all that by yourself or did you read it in some website about conspiracies?
There's one big flaw in your story, though. I don't like strict decades old continuities. Am I part of this big conspiracy, too? In that case, you should watch out what you say around me. Maybe I'll send Kurt Busiek and Alan Moore to get you.
Mxy...................... 
Okay, let me try again...Ahem! Mxy................
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
9.8 said:
Do you have a link ShazamGrrl
ShazamGrrl doesn't live here anymore.
"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?" [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg) [/center] [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg) [/center]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 28,009
Inglourious Basterd!!! 15000+ posts
|
|
Inglourious Basterd!!! 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 28,009 |
Quote:
MisterJLA said:
Quote:
9.8 said:
Do you have a link ShazamGrrl
ShazamGrrl doesn't live here anymore.
You're welcome.
Uschi said:I won't rape you, I'll just fuck you 'till it hurts and then not stop and you'll cry. MisterJLA: RACKS so hard, he called Jim Rome "Chris Everett." In Him, all porn is possible. He is far above mentions in so-called "blogs." RACK him, lest ye be lost! "I can't even brush my teeth without gagging!" - Tommy Tantillo: Wank & Cry, heckpuppy, and general laughingstock
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
I think her fan fic consisted of Captain Marvel losing his virginity to a wiccan.
Shazamgrrl being both a Cap marvel fan and a Wiccan should not arouse suspicions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Mxy......................
Okay, let me try again...Ahem! Mxy................
Whu?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
Pig Iron said:
Devin had big hooters though...
Which never made up for her lack of writing talent...
"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?" [center] [/center] [center] [/center]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
but they were nice to look at.
|
|
|
|
|
