|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
So, Mark Waid can't tell Birthright within continuity? Why?
All the changes are minor to the story. I get the feeling that he sat down and decided he'd alter everything he didn't like about Superman's origin just because he could.
That's bad writing.
A good writer writes within the confines of the character's universe.
Look at it this way. What if a writer had a story for a great Batman story where Batman kills all th mobsters in Gotham. Should that story be allowed? Or should the writer be told to save for a character like the Punisher?
Or look at writers who can use continuity. Jeph Loeb's Hush is the top-selling comic currently. Each issue is thick with continuity and references to storylines between 15 and 30 years old. I once read an interview on continuity where Jeph Loeb described "continuity by ommission." In other words, he didn't like that Clark Kent played football in high school. So he didn't mention it, no need for a retcon, he just didn't mention it.
Well, that's my views on the subject. A little jumbled I know. But hopefully you all got my point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 785
Assassinist 500+ posts
|
|
Assassinist 500+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 785 |
I'm sorry, I know I've said this before but there has to be a continuity in storytelling to keep "continuing readers/viewers" because the story "continues" to build a bigger picture month by month for existing fans. Learning more is what keeps fans interested in their favorite comic/tv show and it angers some of us when some writer undoes everything we've learned after years of devotion. But I agree that continuity should'nt hold writers back, although the best writers always seem to keep those stories that are hard to define (as to where they fit into continuity) ambiguous to continuity. Their stories always seem able to fit/slide in anywhere they want in the timeline/continuity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080 |
As far as I'm concerned, Mark Waid's Superman in Birthright is closer to the Superman which Jerry and Joe created than the Superman seen in the other current comics. I don't give a shit about the current Superman, but the one in Birthright intrigues me, and it excited me when I saw the previews for it before any of the internet buzz got to me. Thus I'm buying Birthright while I could care less about the past ten years of Superman comics. For The Time Trust, that's the end of the story. A story featuring the Batman killing all the mobsters in Gotham City would be a terribly bad story because it would not be in character for Batman to do such a thing. That's not a continuity issue, it's a character essentials issue, and thus your example is a poor one. A better example would be, for instance, the way Vicki Vale has been portrayed. After disappearing from the Bat-books in the early '60s with a new creative team, she returned in a brief appearance in the '70s revealed to be married with a new surname (Bob Rozakis wrote that one, I believe). When she was brought back into the supporting cast of the Bat-books in the early '80s by Doug Moench, the writer wisely ignored that bit of continuity and made her a rival for Bruce Wayne's affections with "Julia Pennyworth" (Alfred's daughter at the time). She disappeared once more after Moench's run was ended by Miller's YEAR ONE, but she would return once again later on, the Julia Pennyworth angle of continuity again wisely ignored. This wasn't bad writing at all -- in fact, it didn't bog down the storylines the writer was attempting to tell by needless rehashing of old stories. The writer was free to pick and choose which elements of the characters he liked best and basically kept them in character when he wrote them. That's what Mark Waid is doing in his Birthright series, and what Matt Wagner is doing in his excellent Trinity miniseries. And that's why they're selling like hotcakes, not because they paid such slavish homage to continuity that their hands were tied from telling the stories they wanted to tell. More power to them. Leave the continuity minutiae to the fans who like to pore over that sort of thing and attempt to explain it. The writers have stories to tell... ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Well, the Superman created by Jerry and Joe killed people, couldn't fly, had a black chest insignia, was more of a social activist etc.
Also, isn't it part of Wonder Woman's character that she came around after Crisis? Continuity minutia would be complaining that she was wearing the wrong boots for that timeframe, not complaining that she's in a story that took place YEARS before the current version was supposed to exist.
That's like saying that it doesn't effect Superman's character that he suddenly has aura vision and is a veggie. Because it does, and it's not needed. If Waid was so clever he could have used the fact that Clark can hear heartbeats to illustrate the same point about death. But he didn't because he couldn't adapt to write for the character.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080 |
Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight is another good example, an excellent series (except for the gratuitous KnightQuest and No Man's Land tie-ins) which has never been a slave to continuity and as such has allowed a variety of writers and artists to tell the Batman story they've always wanted to tell, whether or not it fits into the so-called "Batman timeline" or within the scheme of Year One, Two, Three, et cetera.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080 |
quote:
Supposedly posted by r3x29yz4a:
Also, isn't it part of Wonder Woman's character that she came around after Crisis?
Good God, no! She's been around since 1941, as far as I recall. And which Crisis are you referring to, now? There wasn't a Crisis in the current DCU... You're confusing continuity minutiae for character essentials now.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Writers should stay within continuity.
Now before anyone accuses me of being in some sort of Taliban (sporty word, ain't it?) I'm not talking about small glitches. Things like changing Lois Lane's eye color or which hand Kyle wears his ring on are fine. I don't care if they change the first words Ben Grimm spoke when he first turned into the Thing. Those things just aren't important to the character.
But to say that continuity is nothing more than a hinderance is a misguided absolute. Continuity is what gives a character their history, therefore, ignoring major points in continuity is ignoring major points in what made that character who he or she is, point blank.
There is no reason, other than his inflamed ego, that Mark Waid couldn't have told Birthright as an Elseworlds. There is no reason he had to, yet again, alter Superman's already long-toothed past.
A talented AND non-self-righteous writer can work within continuity and bring new, interesting stories that are both inspired and respectful of a character's past. For every good story that goes against what's been written, I can give you five or ten wonderfully original stories that stayed true to the stories of yesteryear.
And the fact that you, you, and you like it the change is not an excuse to destroy the history others have worked to establish.
As has been said in another thread, if a writer wants to change continuity, DC AND Marvel have given him or her the perfect outlets: What Ifs, Elseworlds, and the Ultimate line. Great stories have been told in each without wiping out the pre-established.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
quote:
Originally posted by TheTimeTrust:
Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight is another good example, an excellent series (except for the gratuitous KnightQuest and No Man's Land tie-ins) which has never been a slave to continuity and as such has allowed a variety of writers and artists to tell the Batman story they've always wanted to tell, whether or not it fits into the so-called "Batman timeline" or within the scheme of Year One, Two, Three, et cetera.
I know that's the company line for LotDK, but it's not really true. That title is very much a part of continuity. The first storyline is clearly set in year one (referencing the Miller story), the Venom arc ended up being used as a prelude to Knightfall, and the Hugo Strange arcs were continued in Gotham Knights.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948
4000+ posts
|
|
4000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,948 |
Continuity is fine if people don't get too damn anal about it. Wanting stories to be part of a consistent universe is a perfectly acceptable thing. And if you don't like what came before, just don't write about it. You don't need to go out of your way to change it. Loeb's continuity by omission.
Morrison on X-Men is a good example. He didn't go and retcon a lot of X-Men history, but he didn't reference much of it either. He just told new stories that had their roots in the old, but didn't rely on them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080 |
quote:
Supposedly posted by r3x29yz4a:
quote:
Originally posted by TheTimeTrust:
Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight is another good example, an excellent series (except for the gratuitous KnightQuest and No Man's Land tie-ins) which has never been a slave to continuity and as such has allowed a variety of writers and artists to tell the Batman story they've always wanted to tell, whether or not it fits into the so-called "Batman timeline" or within the scheme of Year One, Two, Three, et cetera.
I know that's the company line for LotDK, but it's not really true. That title is very much a part of continuity. The first storyline is clearly set in year one (referencing the Miller story), the Venom arc ended up being used as a prelude to Knightfall, and the Hugo Strange arcs were continued in Gotham Knights.
You're correct in that there have been some ties to other series, however you're ignoring the most obvious thing about that: The LOTDK series has always given the writers a great deal of freedom to write the stories they wish to... this means that they CAN use continuity to their advantage in their stories if they wish to do so. The stories you note are the exceptions that prove the rule (of writers' freedom to tell a good story in the way they wish to). What I and others are saying is that writers should have a great deal of freedom from the minutiae of continuity in order to tell good stories, which is their job.
They used to tell new writers at DC Comics that "Every issue is someone's first issue." It shouldn't be difficult to break into a mainstream DC Comic such as one of the Superman books (you certainly shouldn't expect everyone to buy them all) or any other mainstream book.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
quote:
Originally posted by TheTimeTrust:
They used to tell new writers at DC Comics that "Every issue is someone's first issue." It shouldn't be difficult to break into a mainstream DC Comic such as one of the Superman books (you certainly shouldn't expect everyone to buy them all) or any other mainstream book.
Actually Stan Lee at Marvel used to say that. But if an issue is someone's first, it won't matter to them if continuity is used (because they wouldn't actually know). But the regular fans would. My whole point has been that a great writer can write a story that is accessible without straying from continuity.
Let me use Starman as an example. I had never heard of Scalphunter, Balloonbuster, or the Black Pirate. I assumed James Robinson had created them. It was only after I read the story that I found out these characters had existed during the Silver Age. The amazing thing was that Robinson was true to the characters while still fitting them into his story. Even the Shade, who was radically altered, had an explanation for his difference in attitude from earlier appearances. So, someone (like myself) who has no frame of reference to the characters don't get bogged down, and longtime fans don't feel slighted.
Even better, take Alan Moore. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen adheres closely to 150 year old continuity. I hadn't read several of the books referenced and didn't feel like I was missing something. I checked the boards and found out Moore stuck close with the characterization and events.
And any writer going onto a project should know the character's history. If you're going to write Superman than you should read every Superman story over the last 5-10 years. Otherwise, you're not a "proffessional" writer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080 |
quote:
Supposedly posted by r3x29yz4a:
And any writer going onto a project should know the character's history. If you're going to write Superman than you should read every Superman story over the last 5-10 years. Otherwise, you're not a "proffessional" writer.
Ah. Ah. Then what you're saying is that any Superman story older than 10 years is of no value?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
quote:
Originally posted by TheTimeTrust:
quote:
Supposedly posted by r3x29yz4a:
And any writer going onto a project should know the character's history. If you're going to write Superman than you should read every Superman story over the last 5-10 years. Otherwise, you're not a "proffessional" writer.
Ah. Ah. Then what you're saying is that any Superman story older than 10 years is of no value?
No, just that the least they should read is that decade. Just to be good, and to know what they're writing about. To be great, they should know the entire history of the incarnation they're writing about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
The funny thing is that writers only whine about continuity they don't like.
When it's something they do like they keep quiet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920 |
It's true that continuity can make a character grow and all that stuff, but that can't go on forever. For example: the Byrne/Jurgens Superman. After Byrne left, Ordway and Stern continued Superman exactly where Byrne had left it. There was no revamp there. Then other writers and artists started joining (Jurgens, Grummett, Simonson, Bogdanove, Kesel, etc), and the story never stopped, until 1999.
I like that. If you read every Superman comic between 1986 and 1999 it's all a big story (some parts are better than others, obviously), and I think that's pretty cool. But it's over. The same story can't be stretched forever.
We try to pretend that the lives of these characters are like real lives, but that's impossible for a number of reasons. The most important is that they have to be young forever (so they can sell). I think it'd be cool if characters aged in real time, but that's never gonna happen with a character like Superman, because he's a franchise.
In most cases (like Superman), if tried to apply after the story is over Continuity is just a limitation. It's possible to make good stories within the old continuity, yeah, but writers shouldn't be restricted to that and only that. There's much more possibilities if you start building a new continuity... always bearing in mind that one day it will end. Honestly, I doubt this new take on Superman lasts more than a few years. And it's fine that way. Then someone else can come along and shows us their vision.
Now, what would be the only way (in my opinion) to make a consistent continuity for Superman that lasts more than a few years? Integrating all the versions of the character in one, starting a completely new version. That could easily be done with Hypertime. Of course, that'd mean integrating the Silver Age version too, and we all know a story can't be good if there's a character in it that has been in contact with Super Pets in the past...
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Continuity is a tool in writing to be used or not at the writer's discretion, that's all. If you don't like something, ignore it. There shouldn't be anything that prohibits telling a good story. If Geoff Johns can cut through the gordian knot that was Hawkman's convoluted history, then no one needs to feel restricted by it. Look at Robinon's Starman or Ostrander's Spectre series. Both really good examples of using continuity in building new stories, not rehashing old ones. Oh, and Birthright is just an attempt to cash in on Smallville. Notice how Clark looks like Tom Welling now? ![[nyah hah]](images/icons/tongue.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920 |
I haven't read Birthright (yet), but the Smallville thing fucking annoys me. Lex and Clark are friends, Clark looks like Tom Welling, Ma and Pa are young and hot (though I'm not sure about this one, I've only seen a cover depicting them that way)... I'm not against Smallville, it's a nice little TV show, but come on...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326
1000+ posts
|
|
1000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,326 |
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
I haven't read Birthright (yet), but the Smallville thing fucking annoys me. Lex and Clark are friends
Which is from the old comics. All Waid did was go full circle there.
Besides, Byrne' original plan--by his own admission--was to just copy and paste the Krypton from Richard Donner's Superman into his reboot, but he was barred from doing that thanks to Marlon Brando's contract on the film. He was no less of a "copycat" than Waid allegedly is.
quote:
There is no reason, other than his inflamed ego, that Mark Waid couldn't have told Birthright as an Elseworlds. There is no reason he had to, yet again, alter Superman's already long-toothed past.
A talented AND non-self-righteous writer can work within continuity and bring new, interesting stories that are both inspired and respectful of a character's past. For every good story that goes against what's been written, I can give you five or ten wonderfully original stories that stayed true to the stories of yesteryear.
And the fact that you, you, and you like it the change is not an excuse to destroy the history others have worked to establish.
This argument can be applied to John Byrne's revamp, too. He didn't show any respect for what came before him, and he didn't think anything of "destroying the history others worked to establish." He "had an inflamed ego" and was "self-righteous," too, because he just tore everything down instead of building on it.
And the excuse that Byrne was hired to do what did is 100% invalid, because Waid was hired to do what's he's doing, too. But that's not what you want to hear, is it? After all, God forbid anyone expose the hypocrisy of those who bash Waid for doing the same thing their great messiah Byrne did. ![[...rassamnfrackin...]](graemlins/grumble01.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
Bullshit.
Waid claimed, a year ago, that the story was in continuity, using what Byrne had created.
Now he changed it to having been hired to do Ultimate Superrehash.
Why do you belive what he's saying this year and not what he said last year, when the project was originally announced?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 520
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 520 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
The funny thing is that writers only whine about continuity they don't like.
When it's something they do like they keep quiet.
In other words, they're no different from fans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by A Jar of Cardinals:
In other words, they're no different from fans.
You gotta keep in mind that many writters today ARE fans, 1960's fanboys for the most part.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 520
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 520 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
quote:
Originally posted by A Jar of Cardinals:
In other words, they're no different from fans.
You gotta keep in mind that many writters today ARE fans, 1960's fanboys for the most part.
I'm well aware many of them are fans.
And I don't think that there's a single fan out there who, if given the shot at writing a character, wouldn't tweak things to fit their definition of what the character "should" be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by A Jar of Cardinals:
I'm well aware many of them are fans.
And I don't think that there's a single fan out there who, if given the shot at writing a character, wouldn't tweak things to fit their definition of what the character "should" be.
Ignorant fans, probably.
See, no one says that you have to use ALL continuity in a story, but if you're not gonna use it why change it? What do you accomplish by doing that?
Someone once told me, speaking in metaphors:
'I want to do the first story where Superman goes into a Denny's, and don't care if he's done it before, I want to write it like if it was the first time.'
That's the one thing you can't do, pretend that just because YOU'RE the one doing it no one else has done it, specially if you know it to be so.
Only an ignorant writer ignores what other people have done and tries to pretend that his version is the first one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 520
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 520 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
quote:
Originally posted by A Jar of Cardinals:
I'm well aware many of them are fans.
And I don't think that there's a single fan out there who, if given the shot at writing a character, wouldn't tweak things to fit their definition of what the character "should" be.
Ignorant fans, probably.
See, no one says that you have to use ALL continuity in a story, but if you're not gonna use it why change it? What do you accomplish by doing that?
Because thet want to. Because they think it makes things "better". Whether or not this is true is ultimately decided by the fans.
quote:
Someone once told me, speaking in metaphors:
'I want to do the first story where Superman goes into a Denny's, and don't care if he's done it before, I want to write it like if it was the first time.'
That's the one thing you can't do, pretend that just because YOU'RE the one doing it no one else has done it, specially if you know it to be so.
Only an ignorant writer ignores what other people have done and tries to pretend that his version is the first one.
Well, that's it for Man of Steel then, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by A Jar of Cardinals:
Well, that's it for Man of Steel then, isn't it?
No, it isn't.
It would be if Crisis hadn't happened, but it did.
Crisis changed the entire nature of the universe and Superman wasn't the only one whose origin got retold.
Had MoS just happened on a whim and changed everything that came before just because then people would have have hated it more than they do now.
What Byrne bashers forget to consider during their bashing is that Byrne was following up a bigger event, one that can't be ignored.
Waid isn't, he's just changing things on an ego-driven whim.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 520
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 520 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
quote:
Originally posted by A Jar of Cardinals:
Well, that's it for Man of Steel then, isn't it?
No, it isn't.
It would be if Crisis hadn't happened, but it did and it changed the entire the entire universe, from the beginning of time to the end of time.
But a writer or an editor still had to come along and say "I want to do this". And DC had to OK this.
You're using Crisis as an excuse.
quote:
Had it just happened on a whim and changed everything that came before just because then people would have have hated it more than they do now.
What Byrne bashers forget to consider during their bashing is that Byrne was following up a bigger event, one that can't be ignored.
Which didn't automatically mean that things had to be changed. It was a choice.
quote:
Waid isn't, he's just changing things on an ego-driven whim.
With the permission of the folks at DC who OK'd it.
Do you think this is something that Waid somehow forced on DC?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by A Jar of Cardinals:
But a writer or an editor still had to come along and say "I want to do this". And DC had to OK this.
You're using Crisis as an excuse.
From what I've been told Byrne wasn't the only writer DC approached for the job of rebooting Superman, he was the one they liked.
As for why they rebooted, it was because of Crisis.
They either took the chance that Crisis gave them or they were gonna do it anyway, we don't know.
The fact is that, unlike today, MoS had an event that justified it, Birthright doesn't.
quote:
Which didn't automatically mean that things had to be changed. It was a choice.
But things DID have to be changed, Superman was losing himself as a character and as a concept because of all the idea of the 1960's and 70's.
Superman was no longer the character that Siegel and Shuster created, he was what Mort wanted him to be.
quote:
With the permission of the folks at DC who OK'd it.
Do you think this is something that Waid somehow forced on DC?
What I think is that Berganza fucked up the Superman titles so bad that he needs a hit.
That hit is Birthright, not because of what it does but by who's doing it.
People would have bought it regardless of continuity.
Waid last year said that this was an in continuity story that was going to explore Clark's time before becoming Superman and that Superman wasn't going to appear till the last issue.
Now, after the first issue comes out, he's making up stories about Ultimate Superman.
Either he lied back then or he's lying now, but both comments can't be true.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 520
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 520 |
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
As for why they rebooted, it was because of Crisis.
They either took the chance that Crisis gave them or they were gonna do it anyway, we don't know.
The fact is that, unlike today, MoS had an event that justified it, Birthright doesn't.
Which means absolutely nothing. If DC wanted to, they could manufacture something.
Since most of what I've read of Birthright shows events in Superman's life we've never seen before, it doesn't require one.
quote:
But things DID have to be changed, Superman was losing himself as a character and as a concept because of all the idea of the 1960's and 70's.
In your opinion. I happen to disagree.
quote:
Superman was no longer the character that Siegel and Shuster created, he was what Mort wanted him to be.
Superman isn't the character that Siegel and Shuster created *now*. He hasn't been in decades. He's what the editors and creative staff decide he is.
quote:
What I think is that Berganza fucked up the Superman titles so bad that he needs a hit.
That hit is Birthright, not because of what it does but by who's doing it.
People would have bought it regardless of continuity.
Waid last year said that this was an in continuity story that was going to explore Clark's time before becoming Superman and that Superman wasn't going to appear till the last issue.
Now, after the first issue comes out, he's making up stories about Ultimate Superman.
Either he lied back then or he's lying now, but both comments can't be true.
Or, things changed behind the scenes inbetween the times he spoke. I don't know. Neither do you. Happens all the time in comics. But I don't think you're likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Ignorant fans, probably.
Fans and writers who want to make characters change are ignorant? Characters should stay the same forever? Then I guess writers who completely re-imagine characters are even more ignorant, aren't they?
|
|
|
|
|
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:
No, it isn't.
It would be if Crisis hadn't happened, but it did.
Crisis changed the entire nature of the universe and Superman wasn't the only one whose origin got retold.
Had MoS just happened on a whim and changed everything that came before just because then people would have have hated it more than they do now.
What Byrne bashers forget to consider during their bashing is that Byrne was following up a bigger event, one that can't be ignored.
Waid isn't, he's just changing things on an ego-driven whim.
The revamps in the 80's didn't happen because of Crisis. Crisis happened to make the revamps happen. Do you think DC just said "Wait, we're publishing that series where the whole Universe starts over... Oh, I guess we have to revamp our most iconic characters"?
And do you think Waid doesn't have DC's approval to tell Birthright? He just sorta slipped it hoping they wouldn't notice he's changing the continuity of a major character?
On another topic, just for curiosity... would you still think Man of Steel is a good story (which I do) if it had been told on the same conditions as Birthright?
|
|
|
|
|
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:
But things DID have to be changed, Superman was losing himself as a character and as a concept because of all the idea of the 1960's and 70's.
Superman was no longer the character that Siegel and Shuster created, he was what Mort wanted him to be.
Is he the character Siegel and Shuster created? Is Superman not losing himself as a character nowadays because of the current writers? No, and that's why DC is revamping him again, though in a more subtle way not everyone gets.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
What I think is that Berganza fucked up the Superman titles so bad that he needs a hit.
That hit is Birthright, not because of what it does but by who's doing it.
People would have bought it regardless of continuity.
Waid last year said that this was an in continuity story that was going to explore Clark's time before becoming Superman and that Superman wasn't going to appear till the last issue.
Now, after the first issue comes out, he's making up stories about Ultimate Superman.
Either he lied back then or he's lying now, but both comments can't be true.
I think DC realized how much Superman sucked and decided to take actions, and they started by giving Waid more freedom, knowing what he'd like to do. It took DC a while to figure out the books sucked, because, for some reason, they still sell... hmmm, wonder why that is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
Fans and writers who want to make characters change are ignorant? Characters should stay the same forever? Then I guess writers who completely re-imagine characters are even more ignorant, aren't they?
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Evolving is change and I like what that happens. Changing the past out of ego is what ignorant writers do and even more ignorant readers adore.
Don't tell me that you're in favor of change when you support this kind of projects, it's a two face statement.
Getting Lois and Clark is change, going back to the past and making it so that Jor-El is dressed in a blue tunic instead of a green one is ego.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
The revamps in the 80's didn't happen because of Crisis. Crisis happened to make the revamps happen. Do you think DC just said "Wait, we're publishing that series where the whole Universe starts over... Oh, I guess we have to revamp our most iconic characters"?
I just got the original printing of Man of Steel in the mail.
In part it says
'Last year, during out 50th Anniversary celebration, John, for reasons of his own, was no longer under contract We then began to talk, althought this time it was not so playful.
John had many ideas on howto stremline Superman. He expanded on our own housecleaning idea, as witnessed in Crisis on Ifinite Earths, and we held many meetings. Meantime, he sketched, and sketched, trying to get a good feel for Superman, since he would begin drawing him regularly in the near future.
We shared a common goal: to return Superman to his rightful place in the universe. He is oe of the most recognizable figures around th world, certanly the most recognizable super hero, and has influenced generations of people.
...
John's vision of Superman remains true to the original series of stories, as created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuste. Over the years, Superman got more and more powerful and interesting challenges were hard to come by. We're taking him down a peg, as you will notice immediately. As John likes to put it, he will have to sweat a bit to get the job done.
Gone, too, are the numerous survivors of Krypton that have corpped up since Superman's introduction. We all agreed it was time to send them back to oblivion and keep Superman unique. He trully is the Last Son of Krypton."
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
And do you think Waid doesn't have DC's approval to tell Birthright? He just sorta slipped it hoping they wouldn't notice he's changing the continuity of a major character?
I don't think Waid's project is justified, I think all the changes he's making are made out of ego and not creativity. He's a fanboy of the 60's.
And the changes he's making are being done by him, not by editorial.
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
On another topic, just for curiosity... would you still think Man of Steel is a good story (which I do) if it had been told on the same conditions as Birthright?
That doesnt' apply.
By conditions you're talking about Crisis. Back then DC could have just said 'and here's a new Earth where all the characters take place today, (Earth-86 or Earth-Sigma or Earth-Modern, whatever you wanna call it).
The conditions back then would have still been more open to such a project than they are now.
Back then DC had a multiverse to do this with, today they have a single continuity, which up till today, they had respected.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
Is he the character Siegel and Shuster created? Is Superman not losing himself as a character nowadays because of the current writers? No, and that's why DC is revamping him again, though in a more subtle way not everyone gets.
NOW the character sucks. He spews 'Great Rao' as often as you sneeze.
Now the charater is now who he was after Crisis, he's a poor attempt to imitate the character from the 60's.
That doesn't mean the origin from 86 is flawed, just the comics as they are done today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
I think DC realized how much Superman sucked and decided to take actions, and they started by giving Waid more freedom, knowing what he'd like to do. It took DC a while to figure out the books sucked, because, for some reason, they still sell... hmmm, wonder why that is.
Which is it, either Waid has more freedom or DC has their eyes on him so he doesn't change continuity behind their back.
Make up your mind.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
Evolving is change and I like what that happens. Changing the past out of ego is what ignorant writers do and even more ignorant readers adore.
Don't tell me that you're in favor of change when you support this kind of projects, it's a two face statement.
Getting Lois and Clark is change, going back to the past and making it so that Jor-El is dressed in a blue tunic instead of a green one is ego.
I insist, was Byrne's Man of Steel not good for Superman? So DC asked Byrne to reinvent Superman, whatever. It's still a reintepretation.
I support making the exact same characters evolve, but it isn't possible to do that for sixty years if DC won't let Superman age. The character is always caught in a lapse of time, and there's only so much character developement you can add to a character if you don't let him age more than a few years. The option is reinterpreting the character constantly, which is another more subtle way of making him evolve. The problem with it being less direct is that not everyone is capable of understanding what really happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 985 |
But the characters HAVE grown.
I challenge you to compared Perez's Wonder Woman, Byrne's Superman and Miller's Batman with the more current books and tell me that the characters aren't different.
This excuse that all characters have to be reinterpreted to last longer is false.
Look at the 90's Flash Gordon toon where he was a teenager, it failed to last and it failed to leave a mark of any kind.
I prefer projects like Phantom 2040 and the Phantom movie, which play to the strenghts of the concepts than projects like Stillbirth which allow writers to ego to do whatever the hell they want to without regard to anything or anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
John's vision of Superman remains true to the original series of stories, as created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuste. Over the years, Superman got more and more powerful and interesting challenges were hard to come by. We're taking him down a peg, as you will notice immediately. As John likes to put it, he will have to sweat a bit to get the job done.
Two things. One, Byrne's Superman is more like the Silver Age Superman than the Golden Age Superman. That's evident to anyone. But more than that, it's a whole new Superman. It's a reinterpretation of the character, that, in my opinion, was needed. Just like a new reinterpretation is need now.
Two, you're contradicting yourself (again). You said Siegel and Shuster didn't get Superman, and now you're defending Byrne for (in your opinion) going back to their view.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
I don't think Waid's project is justified, I think all the changes he's making are made out of ego and not creativity. He's a fanboy of the 60's.
And the changes he's making are being done by him, not by editorial.
Ah, so you think Waid's project isn't approved by the Editors? They didn't read it, realize that the character's continuity was being changed and supported it? Why was Waid in the panel with the rest of the new Superman writers and the Editors? He slipped in there, just like he slipped issues of DC's most iconic characters to the printer and distributers without complete approval? I suppouse Matt Wagner is and Jeph Loeb are part of Waid's subversive movement against the editors too, since they make references to Birthright.
quote:
Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
That doesnt' apply.
By conditions you're talking about Crisis. Back then DC could have just said 'and here's a new Earth where all the characters take place today, (Earth-86 or Earth-Sigma or Earth-Modern, whatever you wanna call it).
The conditions back then would have still been more open to such a project than they are now.
Back then DC had a multiverse to do this with, today they have a single continuity, which up till today, they had respected.
DC did Crisis with two purposes in mind: get rid of the multiverse because it was confusing, and revamp their most iconic characters because they weren't selling well (the story told in those days was the same it was from in the Silver Age, stretched twenty years).
And you didn't answer my question. Suppouse Man of Steel appears today, under the same conditions of Birthright. Would you hate it?
|
|
|
|
|
