It's all about character
I actually wanted to post this on my own blog, because for the first time in a long time I once again have the opportunity to write just for the sake of it, but this is sort of a topic that works better with an audience, even though I know there are only so many of you guys out there so interested in comics as to start discussions on them. Aaaanyway, before I digress too much...
...I happen to be one of those fiends who can read a comic book from cover to cover in the store before deciding whether or not to buy it. I once read an issue of a series called "Superman/Batman" only to raise an eyebrow at its conclusion.
Basically, Supes and Bats find themselves back in time, and Batman blows away the guy who was supposed to off his parents. Unfortunately, as everyone knows, without the anguish of losing his parents, Bruce Wayne no longer feels the need to avenge them and...no Batman. An interesting enough premise, I think.
What bothered me was how, in the scene before it's supposed to happen, Superman is about twenty yards away while Batman holds the gun to the would-be killer's head. His thought caption says something like "I couldn't be faster than a speeding bullet this time..." and sure enough, he is not fast enough to stop Batman from negating his own creation. I found this EXTREMELY problematic.
On a similar note I just finished the third issue of a new "Justice League" spinoff series called "JLA: Classified." I am not an avid fan of either the comic book or the television incarnations of the Justice League, but I did buy a dozen issues of writer Grant Morrison's run on the "X-men" just a year earlier, and his name was enough to get me to check the book out. Overall, I enjoyed the read. A bad guy threatens to take over the world in the first issue, and distracts the JLA by sending them into an alternate universe. They show up on the last page of the second issue and go on to kick his butt in the third issue. It was fun, but something was missing.
While contemplating these little snippets together, I finally realized why I had a problem with Superman being too slow and the Justice League being, well, invincible.
The problem I have and have always had with DC characters is simply that they are too tough. Superman is practically a god, his only known weaknesses being Kryptonite and magic, and most comic book writers today are pleased with themselves when they write him that way, and not as the whiny Clark Kent we see in "Smallville." Batman is written to be the smartest human being on the face of the earth, and Wonder Woman is, well, a goddess.
When they were conceived in the 30s it was all about how powerful they were, and what incredible things they could do. Their "secret identities" were just throwaway costumes they wore. "Bill" in "Kill Bill 2" was full of shit. Superman may be the only character whose human guise, is, well, a disguise (and, hey, Woman Woman is a frikkin' goddess too) but according to Frank Miller Batman sees Bruce Wayne as the charade. In short, the DC heroes' mythology was built principally upon what they could do, whether it was Superman's heat vision, Wonder Woman's lasso of truth or Batman's utility belt.
And so, when they try to tell stories of how flawed they are, they just look kind of...well, off at best, and stupid at worst.
How is it possible that Superman couldn't have stopped Batman shooting that guy? For that matter, how did Batman land several punches on Superman, even with a Kryptonite ring? I mean, in "Identity Crisis" (one of the titles Jay T. is constantly mentioning in his eternal bid to "convert" me to DC even though he, ironically enough, no longer buys comics) Superman can fly from Smallville, Kansas to JLA headquarters in the span of a panel/second, and in this other book, we're supposed to believe he can't stop Batman from shooting some thug from just a few lousy yards?
Oh, yes, let's not forget "Hush" where the "world's greatest detective" can't guess who the "mystery" bad guy is even though every reader above the age of ten knew who he was the minute the character showed up.
In short, while I have been known to enjoy the occasional DC story even though I am a self-professed Marvel die-hard, I really cannot quite process this dichotomy/contradiction that seems to emerge from the DC writers' attempts to "humanize" their superheroes. When they try to tell character-driven stories about people who are built around their powers, they somehow fall short.
Even Mark Millar, a comic book writer who has said he would die happy if he could die writing Superman, has said that DC heroes, fundamentally lack the humanity that Marvel characters have.
I've heard/read people's rants about how out of touch with continuity Marvel's editors are, and how screwed-up their corporate policy is regarding alternative covers and all that shit. Well, I don't pass up the chance to bitch about that too, but my Marvel fandom transcends that.
Marvel guys are not that tough. Throughout the 60's when Stan Lee still wrote him, Spider-Man got his ass kicked on a regular basis, and it's even a wonder he was able to win at all sometimes, even with his super-powers. But his powers, as interesting and as unique as they were, were not his selling point. Peter Parker was. And Peter Parker was not Spider-Man's attempt to fake out the good people of New York; it's who he really is.
I was once looking at a "Hulk" comic online, and someone asked me "what's so cool about the Hulk? What are his powers besides being really strong?" After telling him that it was the character's whole inner conflict that I found interesting, I couldn't help but think to myself "DC fan. Old school."
So people can rave on about how DC editors and writers are so cool because of their obsessive-compulsiveness regarding continuity but for my money I enjoy Marvel characters more because that's exactly what they are: characters.
J. Michael Straczynski said it best on the Spider-Man 2 DVD: "It's not about the powers."
Oh, I know I could have simply said "I like Marvel because..." but this is something I've really had on my mind for awhile. So no, I'm not converting any time soon.
...I happen to be one of those fiends who can read a comic book from cover to cover in the store before deciding whether or not to buy it. I once read an issue of a series called "Superman/Batman" only to raise an eyebrow at its conclusion.
Basically, Supes and Bats find themselves back in time, and Batman blows away the guy who was supposed to off his parents. Unfortunately, as everyone knows, without the anguish of losing his parents, Bruce Wayne no longer feels the need to avenge them and...no Batman. An interesting enough premise, I think.
What bothered me was how, in the scene before it's supposed to happen, Superman is about twenty yards away while Batman holds the gun to the would-be killer's head. His thought caption says something like "I couldn't be faster than a speeding bullet this time..." and sure enough, he is not fast enough to stop Batman from negating his own creation. I found this EXTREMELY problematic.
On a similar note I just finished the third issue of a new "Justice League" spinoff series called "JLA: Classified." I am not an avid fan of either the comic book or the television incarnations of the Justice League, but I did buy a dozen issues of writer Grant Morrison's run on the "X-men" just a year earlier, and his name was enough to get me to check the book out. Overall, I enjoyed the read. A bad guy threatens to take over the world in the first issue, and distracts the JLA by sending them into an alternate universe. They show up on the last page of the second issue and go on to kick his butt in the third issue. It was fun, but something was missing.
While contemplating these little snippets together, I finally realized why I had a problem with Superman being too slow and the Justice League being, well, invincible.
The problem I have and have always had with DC characters is simply that they are too tough. Superman is practically a god, his only known weaknesses being Kryptonite and magic, and most comic book writers today are pleased with themselves when they write him that way, and not as the whiny Clark Kent we see in "Smallville." Batman is written to be the smartest human being on the face of the earth, and Wonder Woman is, well, a goddess.
When they were conceived in the 30s it was all about how powerful they were, and what incredible things they could do. Their "secret identities" were just throwaway costumes they wore. "Bill" in "Kill Bill 2" was full of shit. Superman may be the only character whose human guise, is, well, a disguise (and, hey, Woman Woman is a frikkin' goddess too) but according to Frank Miller Batman sees Bruce Wayne as the charade. In short, the DC heroes' mythology was built principally upon what they could do, whether it was Superman's heat vision, Wonder Woman's lasso of truth or Batman's utility belt.
And so, when they try to tell stories of how flawed they are, they just look kind of...well, off at best, and stupid at worst.
How is it possible that Superman couldn't have stopped Batman shooting that guy? For that matter, how did Batman land several punches on Superman, even with a Kryptonite ring? I mean, in "Identity Crisis" (one of the titles Jay T. is constantly mentioning in his eternal bid to "convert" me to DC even though he, ironically enough, no longer buys comics) Superman can fly from Smallville, Kansas to JLA headquarters in the span of a panel/second, and in this other book, we're supposed to believe he can't stop Batman from shooting some thug from just a few lousy yards?
Oh, yes, let's not forget "Hush" where the "world's greatest detective" can't guess who the "mystery" bad guy is even though every reader above the age of ten knew who he was the minute the character showed up.
In short, while I have been known to enjoy the occasional DC story even though I am a self-professed Marvel die-hard, I really cannot quite process this dichotomy/contradiction that seems to emerge from the DC writers' attempts to "humanize" their superheroes. When they try to tell character-driven stories about people who are built around their powers, they somehow fall short.
Even Mark Millar, a comic book writer who has said he would die happy if he could die writing Superman, has said that DC heroes, fundamentally lack the humanity that Marvel characters have.
I've heard/read people's rants about how out of touch with continuity Marvel's editors are, and how screwed-up their corporate policy is regarding alternative covers and all that shit. Well, I don't pass up the chance to bitch about that too, but my Marvel fandom transcends that.
Marvel guys are not that tough. Throughout the 60's when Stan Lee still wrote him, Spider-Man got his ass kicked on a regular basis, and it's even a wonder he was able to win at all sometimes, even with his super-powers. But his powers, as interesting and as unique as they were, were not his selling point. Peter Parker was. And Peter Parker was not Spider-Man's attempt to fake out the good people of New York; it's who he really is.
I was once looking at a "Hulk" comic online, and someone asked me "what's so cool about the Hulk? What are his powers besides being really strong?" After telling him that it was the character's whole inner conflict that I found interesting, I couldn't help but think to myself "DC fan. Old school."
So people can rave on about how DC editors and writers are so cool because of their obsessive-compulsiveness regarding continuity but for my money I enjoy Marvel characters more because that's exactly what they are: characters.
J. Michael Straczynski said it best on the Spider-Man 2 DVD: "It's not about the powers."
Oh, I know I could have simply said "I like Marvel because..." but this is something I've really had on my mind for awhile. So no, I'm not converting any time soon.
posted by Jim Arroyo at 5:25 PM
6 Comments:
Ahhh...drat. I misused "rail." I realized after posting that it means "complaint." I meant to say "rave." Anyway...
aaack! Typos galore...and I forgot to say "not an avid fan." It's been awhile, like I said, since I've written just for the sake of it. This is embarrassing.
You could always edit it, Jimbo. :) - Rhochie
RE: supes/batman
f=ma
the incredible acceleration coupled with the slight pressure of
pressing on the gun must surely result in a sonic boom in the
air that would blow bats and the perp away, snapping their
necks. how's that for a no-prize? (RE:speed see the hallmark
movie about HG Wells)
i can identify DC storylines where the people do suffer.
and just because the main protagonist dwarfs those around him in
terms of strength, ability and ethics doesn't mean that the
people around him are so. there's a story there too.
AA read through one of my favorite storylines back when we were
in high school.
the one where supes had to execute the phantom zone criminals
and he went schizo shortly thereafter. ask aa.
the industry recognizes marvel's contribution to adding depth to
comic characters, but once it was done, everyone jumped on the
bandwagon.
furthermore, one can read for fun and not necessarily the
pathos.
which is why i especially like stuff from the 60s.
(movies/books/comics)
it isn't scientifically accurate but the sense of wonder is
there.
many enjoyable storylines do not require the protrayal of
"angst"
asterix the gaul, tin tin (in tibet, goes to space, tin2 and the
black lotus) are still fun reads even without the gritty stuff.
Good stories are in the skill of the writers and artists and not
the protagonists. you can give a 1970s golf club set to tiger
woods and he'll still win against me playing with a calloway.
the vehicle is only as good as the driver
it is the creators--writers, artists who make the title work
work.
if you've got shakespeare writing for you, how will that compare
to a 3rd rate hack?
the pressure to meet a monthly deadline results in poorly
contrived stories, illogical outcomes and bad art.
actually, i am very familiar with what you are saying. i
recognize it as the canned demagoguery of the marvel bullpen. i
have read their soapbox.
marvel affectionately/condescendingly calls its readership
marvel zombies.
it springs from the hubris of being #1 and knowing that fans
will buy only their stuff and eat up whatever they say though
they themselves know a lot of their storylines, well, suck. A
lot of it really is substandard compared to the independents and
the Distinguished Competition. when marvel was trying to come
out with 200 titles a month Macfarlane recognized the fact there
was not enough good talent to do it.
We have marvel to thank for useless variants, flooding the
market, and the monopoly of diamond distributors
Ryan, I find your post agreeable for a really important reason: it's because I know from experience that you've given Marvel a fair shake.
Now, with some chagrin I realize I'm at what you might call a moral disadvantage because I've taken the "high ground" of offering criticism even though I'm a sporadic DC reader at best. So no, I'm not going to pontificate about (once again) why I prefer Marvel.
But like you said, Rye, you've read it, and that I appreciate. You've actually read those shitty storylines (and even though you weren't referring to Marvel when you said it, that "left a bad taste in my mouth" comment leaves me in stitches to this day) through and didn't read about them in Wizard or on the Internet (though among our circle I think I'm the only one geeky enough to actually check out the comic book websites).
AND I want to say this without sounding like I'm pandering, but it was partly because I knew that you, who have obviously preferred DC ever since, could give such a healthy cross-section of Marvel (and Image, and Dark Horse, etc) a good read, that I have overcome my slight childhood antipathy towards DC (which is ironic, considering the first superhero I gravitated towards as a toddler was Batman...maybe I'll even post the picture) and picked up their stuff in the last couple of years.
Okay, I'm crossing over into sniping territory here, but I HAVE to say this: I can appreciate your comments about Marvel's faux pas (what is the plural of that? I really don't know) because instead of basing your opinion on Wizard and third person opinions, you've actually sampled the product. And you can also appreciate their triumphs, too. When I say "Kevin Smith is an awesome writer," you can say "yes, I've read his Daredevil, Green Arrow, and his (incomplete) Spider-Man." You don't just say "I know, I've read his Green Arrow." If you don't like Marvel, it's because you've read it, and that works for me.
And yes, I agree that creators make the difference. Which is why I don't buy everything that Marvel puts out just because it's Marvel, and can drop a book like a candy wrapper if the creative team I like leaves.
You know, this is a stricly academic comment, but if you, after giving Marvel a try, had actually asked me to convert to DC, given all I know about all of Marvel's stupid corporate/editorial policies, I might have given it some good and hard thought.
I guess I can amend my stance slightly: it's not about corporate politics; editorial policies; or obsessions with continuity. For me it's about content. Story and art.
Can't resist saying this: 'Nuff said.
DC ROCKS! DC ROCKS!
Haha! Jim, I actually recognized some potshots you took here and am guilty of some of them. I do have to say that although my exposure to Marvel was and is seriously limited (a 6 year run on X-books and some assorted Avengers), I must say that given you limited run and exposure to DC, your thesis is as flawed as Marvels characters.
Marvel started it, I agree but like Ryan said, they also oversaturated the market with trash, drivel and gimmicks galore. Which Image took and kicked up a notch. DC, although I agree that its characters aren't as flawed or conflicted, has gone two routes. They have embraced the icon-ness of the characters and humanize them. They actually age. They actually bicker. They actally hold grudges. They actually have sex.
Like in literature, character development can happen in many ways, but Marvel isn't the end-all and be-all. It just takes a different approach.
BTW, don't you just love the fact that the DC heroes are aging? We started the 90s with Superman and Batman in the early 30s...they seem to be approaching their mid-30s right now.
Post a Comment
<< Home