|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Dec 28, 2019 15:32:00 GMT -5
That's a good point - and one worthy of a future debate. I have to say that I am one of those ageing readers who actually prefers the era of standalone stories with occasional two-parters/three-parters. I'm reading the early Iron Fist stories thanks to picking up the "Essential" volume at a car boot sale, and while there is an arc, it's good to see a different opponent each month. I did enjoy the Luke Cage Netflix series, it's very compelling and engrossing. However, much like the Iron Fist series (which I also enjoyed), I can't help but think that fewer episodes might have worked. Or at least 3 3-parters with different opponents, perhaps tied into a larger arc. Both approaches can work, of course. But here's one thing I think about: as a kid, 12 Batman issues over a year meant 12 different opponents - or 11 if there was a two-parter. Today, with six-issue arcs being a 'thing', it means that in a calendar year, you're only really getting 2 stories/2 opponents. So if they published a Luke Cage comic today, and the first six-issue arc featured Bushmaster while the second six-issue arc featured Diamondback, we're only getting to see him battle two opponents in a year. It's part of the "writing for the trade" concept, I guess. I do think both approaches have their pros and cons. I was chatting about this recently with my brother (we were discussing classic TV vs. modern TV). The benefit of something like The A-Team and The Six Million Dollar Man is that, while you didn't really get character development/long arcs, you got lots of different stories in a season - and could watch them in any order. Today we get season-long arcs in a lot of shows, often featuring one antagonist. That does mean you have to watch every episode in order. The benefits are that you get a lot of character development and depth, but you are only really getting one story. I am happy for both TV and comic books to move into longer form storytelling. The opportunities of stand-alone stories were largely exhausted throughout the 20th century for both forms of media. If one wants to read self-contained comic book stories in which the hero punches until the villain falls down, a lifetime's worth of those already exist. Strong disagreement on the bolded part, and I don't feel that short stories or short films are "largely exhausted" either. That strikes me as purely personal preference - me, I like shorter fiction. *Shrug* Long form tv dramas tire me out. My favorite shows right now are Atlanta and Letterkenny which are confusing enough on their own but are able to present characters and situations effecitvely in one episode while using the serial format in a very subtle way. Basically I think the move towards greater serialization has (A) switched the audience for Tv and away from casual fans to people who have the time, willingness to expend emotional effort and (in comics case) money to follow long-form storytelling, and (B) made it easier for uncreative, unskilled hacks to get work. When you have to introduce the characters, plot, tension, and resolution in 8 pages, that is writing! A Kirby-on-Fantastic-Four explosion of creativity is impossible in mainstream comics right now. Hacky-ass hack writers can coast on one plot point for 3-4-5-6 issues. "OOOH NO! IN 6 MONTHS WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A WHOLE NOTHER IDEA!!! NOW I HAVE TO READ ANOTHER ALAN MOORE COMIC TO RIP OFF!" Specific examples: I think Mome was as good as any comic series published this decade, and I think Solo was the absolute peak of 21st century DC (Or Marvel.) Although I do generally think the graphic novelization of creator owned non factory-system comics - away from short feature based titles like Zap! and Arcade and Wimmin's Comics - has been good for the form. So agreement there - although the increased space is just one factor. The public's changing attitude towards the literary value of comics is more important. |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Dec 28, 2019 15:32:41 GMT -5
I've always thought that the concept of challenging Superman was to have him encounter threats of the biggest scale, like space wars, or cosmic disease; having those mind-bending threats as a contrast to his family and citizens of Earth would keep even a Superman pretty busy. In the Silver Age the primary threats to Superman were emotional. Thought that was a pretty good approach, as well. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 28, 2019 15:42:57 GMT -5
It's slightly different from what we're discussing here, but having seen the first two seasons of The Adventures of Superman, I do wish there had been more episodes where George Reeves' Superman had faced bigger threats. The episodes are very watchable. He does have to have his "detective head" on to work out where Lois or Jimmy are being held hostage. And it's satisfying to see him punch normal bad guys, but now and again, I'd have liked to have seen some sort of sci-fi/supernatural threat really hurt him. It doesn't detract from the series, though. (And it made me smile the way Reeves' Superman punched bad guys heads without breaking their skulls!). They were extremely limited by budget, hence the more mundane threats. It was amusing to watch episodes as crooks fired their guns at him and the bullets bounced off and would then throw their guns at him, in frustration, and he would duck.  I seem to recall there was at least one where a rubber revolver was thrown at him and bounced off his chest. It's funny, Lois would make cracks about Clark being a wimp, yet Reeves actually played him as a hard-nosed reporter, which did much to inform John Byrne's take on Clark. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 28, 2019 15:46:58 GMT -5
Omnipotent characters must be hard to write. This is probably why (I'm presuming here) that Q, from Star Trek: The Next Generation, could never be a total villain - and descended into comic relief. No-one can really challenge him. I find DC's Mr. Mxyzptlk and Marvel's Impossible Man pretty much destroy the credibility of any story they're in. Just the existence of a Q or magical no-rules creature character can undermine the entire series or title. I used to have a problem with Scarlet Witch but luckily some writers did finally define her seeming magic hex power in a more rational way (I still dislike Gambit intensely though). Sometimes a character's limitations can lead to their getting into a rut in terms of adversaries... The Flash has to fight someone where super-speed or a spin-off of it will be effective. Green Lanterns have to indirectly use the power ring to deal with anyone yellow (or wood for the Alan Scott). And there's only so many times they can appear clever thinking up a work-around. The Hulk just gets madder and madder most of the time and usually can't be beaten, they'll even tell you that, so I found the more Bruce Banner was involved the better the Hulk character worked. Or you just give him a truck load of hostess fruit-pies. Mxy, at least, had the weakness of disappearing if he said his name backwards, which led to some clever trickery to get him to say it, in some stories. It got a bit harder to come up with a decent trick in later years. I like how Byrne updated it to a different rule, each time, creating some variety, not to mention his visual implication that Mxy crossed dimensions and was the Impossible Man, in another reality.  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 16:19:00 GMT -5
I love what Byrne did there. His Superman is still the definitive Man of Steel for me.
When it comes to omnipotent characters, I think the well runs dry as far as hurting/beating them goes. You can strip them of their powers - but who'd want to see that regularly? You can give them a character of equal power or greater power (and can there really be such a thing as omnipotence if someone has equal or greater powers? It's the whole "Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" conundrum). But other than stripping them of their powers or giving them a foe of equal power, it doesn't seem like you can do much with them.
And such characters can be tedious. I watched Ultraviolet recently, the Milla Jovovich movie. Throughout the entire film, no-one hurt her or defeated her, not even for a second. She was on the run, and had some emotional issues, but she ploughed through everyone. Even in the final battle, against the big bad, she just dominated him. There was no tension.
I want tension. I love the scene in The Defenders where Iron Fist gets a bit overwhelmed in the boardroom given the sheer number of opponents. Seeing Milla Jovovich's character plough through person after person after person gets old fast (even though I'm a fan of her movies). Seeing Iron Fist beat lots of opponents is great, but then when he does get a bit overwhelmed, or in over his head, that's satisfying.
Same with wrestling (come and visit my wrestling thread, people!). An unbeatable wrestler, who dominates completely, would be a boring wrestler to watch after so many matches. Far better to see him or her hurt, on the mat, in a compromising position, etc. It makes the comeback all the more satisfying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2019 0:59:15 GMT -5
Doctor Manhattan  How to write him and his characteristics and his unique abilities would be a challenge for any writer to bear. Watchmen itself is a highly complex group and this character tops them all because he always alone and don't want to be bothered with. That's why I had a hard time enjoying the comic book and the movie that came out in 2009 and furthermore ... I rather write Spectre than Doctor Manhattan. To find him a rogue gallery, any situation that needs his involvement, and crisis to be taken down this character would be hard press to handle for. It is not easy thing to do and I would like to see a mini-series about him and it would be a heckuva of a writer to tackle that difficult assignment. |
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Dec 29, 2019 1:29:40 GMT -5
... and his Charlton predecessor Captain Atom, and Firestorm too !
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2019 8:45:01 GMT -5
I suppose Chuck Norris vs. Doctor Manhattan would be a battle that would take 20+ pages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 29, 2019 9:15:34 GMT -5
The Superman that was post crisis was challenged many times. The first few appearances of Mongul had him decisively beating him. Power and invulnerability is relative. Also, powers are nice but a genius level villain can out think a powerful Hero.
|
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Dec 29, 2019 14:07:10 GMT -5
Clever. I just still hate the magical imp character(s). I guess at best it can be made tolerable but it makes me too aware of a potential imbalance of fantasy, a little like the silver age DC 'just an imaginary story' stories would. They made me think, wait, these are all imaginary stories. Some are more imaginary than others? Best I simply avoid the comics with those kinds of characters, or the fairy tale being told within a comic too. The only Byrne style She-Hulk where she talks to the reader I've read is one John Ostrander written Heroes For Hire appearance. That might work for me, it seemed okay in this one issue, just not a character I seek out reading about. I gave up on a Steve Gerber She-Hulk story ostensibly re-introducing golden age Blonde Phantom, but not for the reason of She-Hulk being aware of being in a comic. Gerber and Claremont seem to be the worst for me with any humor or fantasy element in an otherwise straight adventure title. They have the ability to utterly ruin things. And yet the Charlton E-Man was a favorite... maybe it's just a fine line. I thought Sam Kinnison was genuinely funny but Andrew Dice Clay not, some would see no difference I'm sure. I liked the first couple of Q stories in Star Trek initially, but there came a point where I would just skip that one. I remember watching a Voyager he was in and so much just seemed stupid (aka 'whimsical', overly, hit over the head level). There came a point with holodeck stories also. Oddly perhaps I loved the Gary 7 episode of the original series... that had some humor to it, as with the tribbles and Harry Mudd, but didn't make a joke of the premise or established characters (did Spock's brain is missing do that? Close call at least). Q can make a joke of the Trek universe if not employed with care. Mr. Mxyzptlk and The Impossible Man can make a joke of their universes likewise. I've learned not to take the chance and just skip those issues (like I skip Lobo, but not Ambush Bug... reader's prerogative).  |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 29, 2019 15:53:24 GMT -5
Clever. I just still hate the magical imp character(s). I guess at best it can be made tolerable but it makes me too aware of a potential imbalance of fantasy, a little like the silver age DC 'just an imaginary story' stories would. They made me think, wait, these are all imaginary stories. Some are more imaginary than others? Best I simply avoid the comics with those kinds of characters, or the fairy tale being told within a comic too. The only Byrne style She-Hulk where she talks to the reader I've read is one John Ostrander written Heroes For Hire appearance. That might work for me, it seemed okay in this one issue, just not a character I seek out reading about. I gave up on a Steve Gerber She-Hulk story ostensibly re-introducing golden age Blonde Phantom, but not for the reason of She-Hulk being aware of being in a comic. Gerber and Claremont seem to be the worst for me with any humor or fantasy element in an otherwise straight adventure title. They have the ability to utterly ruin things. And yet the Charlton E-Man was a favorite... maybe it's just a fine line. I thought Sam Kinnison was genuinely funny but Andrew Dice Clay not, some would see no difference I'm sure. I liked the first couple of Q stories in Star Trek initially, but there came a point where I would just skip that one. I remember watching a Voyager he was in and so much just seemed stupid (aka 'whimsical', overly, hit over the head level). There came a point with holodeck stories also. Oddly perhaps I loved the Gary 7 episode of the original series... that had some humor to it, as with the tribbles and Harry Mudd, but didn't make a joke of the premise or established characters (did Spock's brain is missing do that? Close call at least). Q can make a joke of the Trek universe if not employed with care. Mr. Mxyzptlk and The Impossible Man can make a joke of their universes likewise. I've learned not to take the chance and just skip those issues (like I skip Lobo, but not Ambush Bug... reader's prerogative). I get your vibe. I ignore certain stories and continuity so some great stories don't get ruined for me. A perfect example was The sequel to Crisis. I thought COIE was a classic book and Infinite Crisis cheapened many of the sacrifices made in the first story. Avengers the Crossing falls under the same category. I don't bother myself reconciling it to the overall Avengers story. |
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Dec 30, 2019 12:55:00 GMT -5
Mxy, at least, had the weakness of disappearing if he said his name backwards, which led to some clever trickery to get him to say it, in some stories. It got a bit harder to come up with a decent trick in later years.
I pretty much hated the framing story for the Bizarro Comics book, considering it unfunny as well as actually insulting to its own material, but the opening sequence which displayed what the Supes/Mxy encounters looked like from Mxy's point of view was spot on and the funniest thing in the whole book.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 30, 2019 13:47:16 GMT -5
I love what Byrne did there. oooh, not me. I have the exact opposite reaction: tying Superman together with the FF, even in a throwaway gag, is a terrible idea for me, since I dislike Superman as a character so much.
Not that Byrne's the only writer who's tried to bring DC characters into the MU in one form or another: look at all the Superman clones they've invented over they years. Can't stand 'em, every single one.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Dec 31, 2019 12:28:48 GMT -5
oooh, not me. I have the exact opposite reaction: tying Superman together with the FF, even in a throwaway gag, is a terrible idea for me, since I dislike Superman as a character so much.
It didn't work for me either. The characters simply aren't that much alike, and I don't think it contributes to our understanding of anything.
Also, I always found it odd that Byrne's rendition of Mxy was even stupider-looking than the original.
I like Hyperion when he's used to satirise some of Supes' traits (not so much as a straight character), but yeah there's way too many of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jan 2, 2020 12:31:45 GMT -5
There was an early Golden Age trope which established what I consider to be the hardest challenge to create for a hero and it's frequent use is surprising considering how it couldn't really go anywhere for the most part:
The good guy's alter ego is tasked with the responsibility of arresting his superhero identity. Jim Corrigan was tasked with the duty of bringing in The Spectre; Plastic Man had to arrest Eel O Brien; even as recently as 1993, Jake Gallows' job was to bring in The Punisher of 2099. Never mind the impossibility of arresting yourself, but just how does anyone arrest The Spectre or Plastic Man (or Superman who was a wanted vigilante at the start of his career)? And how would you hold them? If I recall correctly, Plastic Man did eventually reveal his identity to the FBI and all was forgiven, but for the most part, this was a theme which seemed to be quickly forgotten about when the heroes became deputized agents of the law. Still, if you're reading a comic with this concept running through it, odds are it'll be quietly forgotten sooner or later.
|
|
I seem to recall there was at least one where a rubber revolver was thrown at him and bounced off his chest.
