Interview with the writer of Final Crisis Aftermath: Ink.
You know, if you're going to have someone write for a character that Morrison has tinkered with, I can think of a hell of a lot worse writers to go with than someone who worked on Eureka.
It’s hard to do the right thing all the time, especially when the entire world is watching every move you make. Why? Because let’s face it, in the DC Universe, superheroes are rock stars. They’re celebrities.
Am I the only one tired of the superheroes as rock stars/celebrities thing?
DouglasDanger on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It’s hard to do the right thing all the time, especially when the entire world is watching every move you make. Why? Because let’s face it, in the DC Universe, superheroes are rock stars. They’re celebrities.
Am I the only one tired of the superheroes as rock stars/celebrities thing?
I'm more tired of people saying it, because nobody actually portrays it that way.
Within the DC Universe, Booster Gold is really the only person who fit the bill. Everyone else is treated more so with awe and reverence than the idiotic screaming we usually associate with celebrities.
Within the DC Universe, Booster Gold is really the only person who fit the bill. Everyone else is treated more so with awe and reverence than the idiotic screaming we usually associate with celebrities.
The problem, of course, is that in general the populace in both universes are also portrayed as gibbering morons with the brains a goldfish would be ashamed of.
Man, Greg Rucka's Wonder Woman was so fantastic what the hell is wrong with you people.
Hey, me and Bloods End agree on something.
I was pretty ambivalent towards Wonder Woman until I read Rucka's run. It's still bullshit that they took the book away from him to give it to a "star" writer that completely fucked up the relaunch, and killed any of the momentum Rucka had built.
It’s hard to do the right thing all the time, especially when the entire world is watching every move you make. Why? Because let’s face it, in the DC Universe, superheroes are rock stars. They’re celebrities.
Am I the only one tired of the superheroes as rock stars/celebrities thing?
I'm more tired of people saying it, because nobody actually portrays it that way.
There was an interesting arc, I cannot remember what series it was in, with Chamber dating a rock star, where he became a celebrity. Similarly, the Kick storyline in New X-Men was about the rise of mutant-as-rockstar concept in pre-Wanda Marvel.
It’s hard to do the right thing all the time, especially when the entire world is watching every move you make. Why? Because let’s face it, in the DC Universe, superheroes are rock stars. They’re celebrities.
Am I the only one tired of the superheroes as rock stars/celebrities thing?
I'm more tired of people saying it, because nobody actually portrays it that way.
There was an interesting arc, I cannot remember what series it was in, with Chamber dating a rock star, where he became a celebrity. Similarly, the Kick storyline in New X-Men was about the rise of mutant-as-rockstar concept in pre-Wanda Marvel.
The Order also had big focus on the celebrity/superhero theme
Yeah alright, but everytime a new Star Trek show came out people would go "Ok who are the Big 3". It's one thing if there really are three main characters but this notion of "Big Three" as though it's some kind of meaningful force which must be universally applied just really annoys me.
Yeah alright, but everytime a new Star Trek show came out people would go "Ok who are the Big 3". It's one thing if there really are three main characters but this notion of "Big Three" as though it's some kind of meaningful force which must be universally applied just really annoys me.
Yeah alright, but everytime a new Star Trek show came out people would go "Ok who are the Big 3". It's one thing if there really are three main characters but this notion of "Big Three" as though it's some kind of meaningful force which must be universally applied just really annoys me.
I don't think Marvel has a big three. It has a prominent trio, but they're nowhere near as iconic (to the point of bordering on legendary) as Batman, Wonder Woman, and Superman.
Ultimately, Marvel characters are just too human to ever approach that status. Of course, I think this makes them better, not worse.
the wonder woman talk is interesting, because the onion av club just reviewed the new dvd and the first paragraph of the review is a pretty compelling argument for why she's a difficult character to get "right"
Prior to 1941, William Moulton Marston was a celebrity psychologist best known for developing the systolic blood-pressure test, which presaged the modern polygraph. Then Marston devised a way to indoctrinate children with his philosophies of female superiority and the pacifying power of love. Taking advantage of his position as an educational consultant for DC Comics, he created Wonder Woman, a superheroine derived from Greek myth. Since Marston didn’t really need money, he filled the early Wonder Woman comics with his singularly kinky obsessions, returning repeatedly to fetishistic images of dominance and submission. Over the years, other writers have tried to leave their own stamp on Wonder Woman, but unlike Batman or Superman—who have simple, iconic origins—Wonder Woman has a persona so bound up in her creator’s complicated motivations that very few have been able to breathe in new life.
Servo on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Ultimately, Marvel characters are just too human to ever approach that status. Of course, I think this makes them better, not worse.
I think it works both ways. Marvel characters are more set in stone as to who and what they are. Even married, Peter Parker isn't really that different from who he was under Stan Lee - and when he is different, people complain.
DC characters, on the other hand, are more iconic - more distant, but also able to support a wider range of interpretations. Dick Sprang's Batman is so unlike Frank Miller's Batman they may as well be different characters; and some concepts, like Flash and Green Lantern, the different interpretations are different characters.
I think both approaches have their pros and cons. Marvel produces great runs - these perfect combinations of storyteller and character that go on for years and years, like Gruenwald's Captain America, Peter David's Hulk, Miller's Daredevil, or Claremont's X-Men. Work that isn't revolutionary necessarily, but really solid. DC, on the other hand, I feel like oftentimes their monthly books lack a little oomph, but every so often, when they give a creator free reign to just go wild on a character, they produce these genuine masterpieces of the form - DKR, Year One, All-Star Superman, Red Son, New Frontier, et cetera.
Jacobkosh on
0
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited March 2009
The best example of the DC/Marvel contrast in regards to heroes was in JLA/Avengers #2.
Busiek wrote some good scenes where the Avengers, in the DC world, view the JLA as quasi-dictators, whereas the JLA saw the Avengers as people who have the power to help yet let everything turn to shit around the world.
I think Marvel is willing to take greater risks too, as far as stories go and relevancy to current events. There has been a longstanding issue of racism in Marvel due to the Mutant hate. There isn't anything like that in DC. Also, stories like the Civil War, which are not black and white issues stand in stark contrast to the next big crisis in DC, where its always some super powerful bad guy trying to create a new multiverse in his image.
Another example is that it seems like the world of Marvel is much closer to the "real world" than DC. A prime example of this is the current Iron Man run. Matt Fraction has done an amazing job of making it seem plausible that Iron Man could exist in the real world. I just don't get that vibe from DC.
Posts
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Wolverine seems like the Batman of Marvel books. By that I mean "this book doesn't/won't sell on its own, stick Wolverine in there".
The Hiketeia
Down to Earth
Bitter Rivals
Eyes of the Gorgon
Land of the Dead
Missions End
Interview with the writer of Final Crisis Aftermath: Ink.
You know, if you're going to have someone write for a character that Morrison has tinkered with, I can think of a hell of a lot worse writers to go with than someone who worked on Eureka.
Am I the only one tired of the superheroes as rock stars/celebrities thing?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Hey, me and Bloods End agree on something.
I was pretty ambivalent towards Wonder Woman until I read Rucka's run. It's still bullshit that they took the book away from him to give it to a "star" writer that completely fucked up the relaunch, and killed any of the momentum Rucka had built.
Tumblr Twitter
Tumblr Twitter
There was an interesting arc, I cannot remember what series it was in, with Chamber dating a rock star, where he became a celebrity. Similarly, the Kick storyline in New X-Men was about the rise of mutant-as-rockstar concept in pre-Wanda Marvel.
The Order also had big focus on the celebrity/superhero theme
Well, to be fair Star Trek fans are retarded.
And yet:
I'm not sure if you are trying to imply I'm retarded or what, but the term my mom uses is "special".
Ultimately, Marvel characters are just too human to ever approach that status. Of course, I think this makes them better, not worse.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I think it works both ways. Marvel characters are more set in stone as to who and what they are. Even married, Peter Parker isn't really that different from who he was under Stan Lee - and when he is different, people complain.
DC characters, on the other hand, are more iconic - more distant, but also able to support a wider range of interpretations. Dick Sprang's Batman is so unlike Frank Miller's Batman they may as well be different characters; and some concepts, like Flash and Green Lantern, the different interpretations are different characters.
I think both approaches have their pros and cons. Marvel produces great runs - these perfect combinations of storyteller and character that go on for years and years, like Gruenwald's Captain America, Peter David's Hulk, Miller's Daredevil, or Claremont's X-Men. Work that isn't revolutionary necessarily, but really solid. DC, on the other hand, I feel like oftentimes their monthly books lack a little oomph, but every so often, when they give a creator free reign to just go wild on a character, they produce these genuine masterpieces of the form - DKR, Year One, All-Star Superman, Red Son, New Frontier, et cetera.
Busiek wrote some good scenes where the Avengers, in the DC world, view the JLA as quasi-dictators, whereas the JLA saw the Avengers as people who have the power to help yet let everything turn to shit around the world.
Another example is that it seems like the world of Marvel is much closer to the "real world" than DC. A prime example of this is the current Iron Man run. Matt Fraction has done an amazing job of making it seem plausible that Iron Man could exist in the real world. I just don't get that vibe from DC.
On the other hand, DC starts with the characters first and the world they live in is built around them.