I don't like it either. Especially to this extent. It's one thing to have the president of your fictional America, and it's entirely another thing to give him the kind of hero worship Obama's getting. In Bush's appearances he was either incompetent or a joke. In Obama's one major appearance so far, he's fist-bumping Spider-Man.
I don't like it either. Especially to this extent. It's one thing to have the president of your fictional America, and it's entirely another thing to give him the kind of hero worship Obama's getting. In Bush's appearances he was either incompetent or a joke. In Obama's one major appearance so far, he's fist-bumping Spider-Man.
It's ridiculous.
Bush didn't even get a positive depiction in the 9/11 comic where Dr. Doom cries?
I don't like it either. Especially to this extent. It's one thing to have the president of your fictional America, and it's entirely another thing to give him the kind of hero worship Obama's getting. In Bush's appearances he was either incompetent or a joke. In Obama's one major appearance so far, he's fist-bumping Spider-Man.
It's ridiculous.
I went into my comic shop at around 1 pm today, and there were stacks upon stacks of Final Crisis #6 on the shelves. Now,
Obviously Final Crisis isn't exactly the most popular book out there right now, nor the most "mainstream," but shit, the press even wrote about Pa Kent dying in the recent Braniac arc, I would've expected a bit more buzz about Batman getting fried in DC's big event book.
As I was checking out, I asked if they were selling a lot of the Spider-Man Obama issue, and was quickly informed that they had sold out earlier in the day. Craziness. Personally, I say shame on Marvel for cashing in on the ridiculous celebrity crap, especially since the story and art aren't even approaching good based on what I've seen, but alas.
The "no politics in mah comics" thing is flat out dumb. Who complains to other writers about putting political shit in their works? But somehow comics are too sacred to have any modern relevant political figures or commentary. It's utter bullshit. Comics have done it before. Shit, the last 7 years worth of comics have commented on the politics of the US implicitly and sometimes explicitly. What the fuck was Supreme Power, or Ultimates, or CW? Why should anyone take comic storytelling seriously if there's some stupid taboo against portraying real political figures/commentary? What's so fucking special about comics that its readers can't handle it?
The "no politics in mah comics" thing is flat out dumb. Who complains to other writers about putting political shit in their works? But somehow comics are too sacred to have any modern relevant political figures or commentary. It's utter bullshit. Comics have done it before. Shit, the last 7 years worth of comics have commented on the politics of the US implicitly and sometimes explicitly. What the fuck was Supreme Power, or Ultimates, or CW? Why should anyone take comic storytelling seriously if there's some stupid taboo against portraying real political figures/commentary? What's so fucking special about comics that its readers can't handle it?
I said mainstream superhero books, which are in an established continuity and have been around for 70 years. To introduce real world politics (note that I'm saying real world politics, not political ideas) is saying that these worlds with superheroes and gods and what have you would have followed the same exact path as the real world.
Now, of course there's some stuff that they can't really avoid (for example, comics couldn't really pretend like 9/11 didn't happen), but to say that the politicians and governments in these worlds are the same is both nonsensical and stunts storytelling potential.
I don't think it's any more nonsensical than saying any other aspect of society, from the technology available to the common man to religion, is the same in comics as it is in real life.
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
edited January 2009
Technology isn't the same in Marvel and DC. "The common man" and religion are (with additions), but that's because both continuities "age of superheroes" began long after those two things were established in their worlds
C'mon, Keith. I mean, why not apply your logic to other things that are transient, like technology, or pop culture? Superman is a product of the thirties, who do the authors think they are, making him relevant to our current times? When the new GL debuted, computers ran with huge tape drives, so clearly it's wrong to show him now around small computers that are trillions of times better than what was the norm in the 60s. It's ridiculous.
Technology isn't the same in Marvel and DC. "The common man" and religion are (with additions), but that's because both continuities "age of superheroes" began long after those two things were established in their worlds
I said technology available to the common man. Obviously there are robots and what have you running about, but the average joe is still driving a gas-powered car and getting cancer from his cell phone. The Fantastic Four can travel to other dimensions, but NASA still hasn't made it to Mars.
As for religion, it is pretty absurd that ideas about religion wouldn't be affected by the fact that actual angels and demons along with various gods and occasionally God Himself are running around on Earth.
The big two have always made it their policy to keep their fictional worlds as close to our own as possible in every respect, save the existence of heroes and villains.
The "no politics in mah comics" thing is flat out dumb. Who complains to other writers about putting political shit in their works? But somehow comics are too sacred to have any modern relevant political figures or commentary. It's utter bullshit. Comics have done it before. Shit, the last 7 years worth of comics have commented on the politics of the US implicitly and sometimes explicitly. What the fuck was Supreme Power, or Ultimates, or CW? Why should anyone take comic storytelling seriously if there's some stupid taboo against portraying real political figures/commentary? What's so fucking special about comics that its readers can't handle it?
They're not griping because you got politics in their comics like chocolate in their peanut butter. They're griping because it's a blatant play for popularity trying to ride obama's coattails, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the story. It's like the little filler comic a while back that had a spider-man/Jay Leno teamup.
C'mon, Keith. I mean, why not apply your logic to other things that are transient, like technology, or pop culture? Superman is a product of the thirties, who do the authors think they are, making him relevant to our current times? When the new GL debuted, computers ran with huge tape drives, so clearly it's wrong to show him now around small computers that are trillions of times better than what was the norm in the 60s. It's ridiculous.
That's not what I'm saying at all
If you have the real world president as the president in your comics, you can't do anything with him or that government. You've just closed off many potential stories for the sake of publicity and sales.
C'mon, Keith. I mean, why not apply your logic to other things that are transient, like technology, or pop culture? Superman is a product of the thirties, who do the authors think they are, making him relevant to our current times? When the new GL debuted, computers ran with huge tape drives, so clearly it's wrong to show him now around small computers that are trillions of times better than what was the norm in the 60s. It's ridiculous.
That's not what I'm saying at all
If you have the real world president as the president in your comics, you can't do anything with him or that government. You've just closed off many potential stories for the sake of publicity and sales.
Except Bush was president in the Marvel Universe and we still had the Superhero Registration Act.
Technology isn't the same in Marvel and DC. "The common man" and religion are (with additions), but that's because both continuities "age of superheroes" began long after those two things were established in their worlds
I said technology available to the common man. Obviously there are robots and what have you running about, but the average joe is still driving a gas-powered car and getting cancer from his cell phone. The Fantastic Four can travel to other dimensions, but NASA still hasn't made it to Mars.
As for religion, it is pretty absurd that ideas about religion wouldn't be affected by the fact that actual angels and demons along with various gods and occasionally God Himself are running around on Earth.
I think this strange dichotomy comes about because Marvel and DC both want to create fictional worlds that their ordinary readers can relate to(ie: they seem like the real world), while at the same time creating settings where improbable to impossible events can still happen(ie: superheroes fighting space gods and/or alien shapeshifters). Trying to have their cake and eat it too results in a de facto magical realism situation, where the magical seemingly should be so powerful that it overides the realism, and yet it doesn't. And for some people, that breaks the suspension of disbelief.
C'mon, Keith. I mean, why not apply your logic to other things that are transient, like technology, or pop culture? Superman is a product of the thirties, who do the authors think they are, making him relevant to our current times? When the new GL debuted, computers ran with huge tape drives, so clearly it's wrong to show him now around small computers that are trillions of times better than what was the norm in the 60s. It's ridiculous.
That's not what I'm saying at all
If you have the real world president as the president in your comics, you can't do anything with him or that government. You've just closed off many potential stories for the sake of publicity and sales.
Except Bush was president in the Marvel Universe and we still had the Superhero Registration Act.
Everyone hated bush, so it was okay to use unpopular ideas from the government. How many times to you expect Obama to be having conversations with Norman Osborne? Do you think Obama would be making stupid faces and refusing pretzels in Ultimates?
Everyone hated books, so it was okay to use unpopular ideas from the government. How many times to you expect Obama to be having conversations with Norman Osborne? Do you think Obama would be making stupid faces and refusing pretzels in Ultimates?
after staring at that first sentence for a good few seconds in blank incomprehension, i've decided you must have meant "everyone hated bush" but, as freud would say, are subconciously revealing too much of your penis
Everyone hated books, so it was okay to use unpopular ideas from the government. How many times to you expect Obama to be having conversations with Norman Osborne? Do you think Obama would be making stupid faces and refusing pretzels in Ultimates?
after staring at that first sentence for a good few seconds in blank incomprehension, i've decided you must have meant "everyone hated bush" but, as freud would say, are subconciously revealing too much of your penis
Didn't we have Operation Zero Tolerance during the Clinton years?
In any case, the Obama issue was clearly comedic and is probably about as in-continuity as Santa Claus' numerous appearances. Chances are Norman Osborn is going to keep talking to high-ranking members of the government and probably the president himself, even if our view of the government becomes more favorable with the Obama administration, because Dark Reign won't make sense without such scenes.
And no, Obama won't make funny faces and reject pretzels because those are things we associate with Bush. Does that matter?
C'mon, Keith. I mean, why not apply your logic to other things that are transient, like technology, or pop culture? Superman is a product of the thirties, who do the authors think they are, making him relevant to our current times? When the new GL debuted, computers ran with huge tape drives, so clearly it's wrong to show him now around small computers that are trillions of times better than what was the norm in the 60s. It's ridiculous.
That's not what I'm saying at all
If you have the real world president as the president in your comics, you can't do anything with him or that government. You've just closed off many potential stories for the sake of publicity and sales.
Except Bush was president in the Marvel Universe and we still had the Superhero Registration Act.
Everyone hated bush, so it was okay to use unpopular ideas from the government. How many times to you expect Obama to be having conversations with Norman Osborne? Do you think Obama would be making stupid faces and refusing pretzels in Ultimates?
But Keith said that you couldn't use the real president in storylines and you said that it would no longer be okay to show the government doing bad things, neither of which are the case in the linked preview.
In any case, I doubt Marvel would be using Obama if his presence would prevent them from writing awesome stories they otherwise would have written. Maybe the stories you guys are imagining that demand that the president not be Obama would be great, but if nobody at Marvel was ever going to write anything like those stories in the first place and it was never that important for the president to be evil, then what does it matter who the president of Marvel's USA is?
Back in 1999 when I conceived the basic story for New Frontier, I started with my alarm at the trajectory superhero comics were taking.
The entire project became an experiment of sorts-was it still possible to tell an engaging story featuring these shopworn characters without going grim and gritty or sacrificing their heroic nature.
Considering the sales, the animated film and the 9000 $75 Absolute Editions that DC has sold I’d say our readership is starved for this type of story.
Chuck D nailed, I believe- the grim and gritty era was ushered in by editors and writers who were unable or unwilling to create imaginative stories about heroic characters.
And still it goes on. This year J. Bone and myself pitched an all-ages Wonder Woman book aimed at young female readers. In other words, I wanted to give them at least 12 issues of a Wonder Woman book that any parent could give their child. They couldn’t have been less interested.
At the risk of breaking some fragile fanboy hearts, I’ll lift the curtain a bit here on this subject.
Making iconic comic book characters more “realistic” or “grimmer” or “grittier” is most often the product of a bankrupt imagination rather than the opposite. These icons exist within a framework and have flaws built into their make-up given to them by their original creators.
They have supporting casts with established relationships and locations, situations and attitudes durable enough to allow them to last decades. These frameworks are sturdy, tested and malleable. Batman, over his lifetime, has been a grim avenger, dogged detective, silly, even sillier, a detective once again and a grim avenger to come full circle over 70+ years and always remained the Batman that the larger pop culture consumer can recognize. Hundreds of comic creators have worked on him and labored within that framework to work wonders yet left him as they found him for future creators to work on and future audiences to enjoy.
In recent years, the imagination-challenged have looked to what’s wrong with the characters rather than
what’s right. Driven to delight an aging core fanbase with stories that are more “mature” and shocking, these flaws have been exploited to turn what were once heroes into murderous thugs, morally- conflicted dawdlers or serial abusers; the flaws that once made them more believable as characters have been turned into personal failings. We all have flaws built into us. That’s why we respond to characters facing challenges from the same flaws we see (or don’t see) in ourselves. But faults are something you’re supposed to do something about. Heroes do something about their faults so they don’t become permanent personality traits. We look up to them because they have the strength of character to do what we often cannot. They are meant to inspire us and show us our better angels.
This framework is too constricting for creators who look to improve their own standing over that of the characters they’re writing; the editor who wants to do a victory lap around the weekly editorial meeting; the writer who craves the attention of Wizard or some fan-driven website. They want credit for what they think of as breaking formula when all they’re doing is showing their failure to grasp the core appeal of the characters they’re working with. There’s a cynical disregard for what makes these icons work but it only serves to mask their own inabilities to create within guidelines and restrictions.
When your favorite, beloved character is revealed to be a deviant basketcase or found dead in an alley after being sexually violated it’s more a case of unbridled hubris rather than unbridled imagination. They’ve thrown out the rulebook, the characterization and decades of continuity and shrug when people object. It’s “what the audience demands.” That’s true if your audience is a steadily-shrinking one populated by increasingly cynical fans who fancy themselves as critics. Lately editors, publishers and/or creators have simply thrown in the creative towel with the lame “it’s all been done before.” Really? And why is this a problem now when it wasn’t over the prior fifty years?
Largely, the creators have eschewed plot for characterization. They want to explore what makes the character work and have that be what drives the stories. Try that with your iPhone and call me on a landline later to tell me how it all worked out.
In genre fiction, plot separates the men from the boys. Come up with an interesting, engaging story with rising action built into it and then set your character in motion within that plot. Only a dullard repeatedly extrapolates on a character’s personality and calls it a story. Only a dullard would enjoy that. Sure, you can get away with it once in a while and it’s cool to reward readers with some new revelation or reaction based on the antagonist’s core beliefs or conflicts. Those are moments that thrill longtime fans and add depth to the character’s world for casual readers. But these Tennessee Williams plays that go on for years and reach no cathartic resolution are tiresome; especially when presented in a medium and genre where we want to see the hero and his cast doing something.
Then there’s getting the character outright, pure-D wrong. This warping and wafting of long established heroes so that they can play a certain role in a story that can only work if you violate that character’s whole reason for being, as well as his coolness factor, are the mark of an ungifted mind.
Like the hero who throws aside all of his moral convictions to make a choice convenient for himself. The hero who gives in because his writer can’t think of a way out for him is common as well. Or, my personal bugaboo, the hero known for his steel trap mind suddenly displaying the intellectual capabilities of a teenager visiting Crystal Lake for the first time.
So many of these talents believe that by breaking the established and familiar framework of the protagonist they’re working on they’ve written the ultimate story of that character. What they may or may not fail to understand is that “ultimate” means “final”. Perhaps they think it means “most awesome”. I think many of them believe that their daunting imaginations have come up with the Last Word on the character.
Don Daley, my old editor on the Punisher back in the DeFalco days at Marvel, had a drawer full of scripts labeled “The Ultimate Punisher Story.” He let me read a few of them one time. There were scripts by wannabe and amateurs and a surprising number of top talents. They were of varying degrees of competence and professionalism. The one thing they had in common was that they were all the same story. In each story the Punisher accidentally kills an innocent. A child. A nun. A cop. Frank Castle then quits being the Punisher and becomes a priest. In every story. Every damned one. In some he quits being the Punisher forever and in others he’s dragged back into the vigilante game for some compelling reason. The other element that these scripts shared other than inciting incident, plot and resolution was that they got the core character of Frank Castle so entirely wrong that it was breath-taking. Unable to come up with a story for the Punisher, they decided to break the franchise and glue it back together in a new form they could understand.
Now, rather than ending up in a drawer of discards, this kind of scorched earth approach is at the center of multi-year event comics.
If something like the War Games project were done today, under similar circumstances, I suspect I would drop the book, rather than tell a story I found personally distasteful. War Games (and its War Crimes follow-up) was the one time I participated in such a big — too many writers, too many editors, all combining to tell one huge story — event and the last time (as many funnybook writers vow after doing it once. Sort of like the first time you try to pet a chained dog. Being dumb enough to try it once might be understood. Doing it a second time is clearly your fault). As a matter of fact, one of the reasons most of the writing crew were invited to do War Games is that those who did the last big Bat crossover had learned their lesson and wouldn’t do it twice. We live. We learn. Sometimes. I told them (DC) about my criticisms — but still decided to finish the stories I had agreed in advance to do.
Posts
It's ridiculous.
Bush didn't even get a positive depiction in the 9/11 comic where Dr. Doom cries?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I went into my comic shop at around 1 pm today, and there were stacks upon stacks of Final Crisis #6 on the shelves. Now,
As I was checking out, I asked if they were selling a lot of the Spider-Man Obama issue, and was quickly informed that they had sold out earlier in the day. Craziness. Personally, I say shame on Marvel for cashing in on the ridiculous celebrity crap, especially since the story and art aren't even approaching good based on what I've seen, but alas.
and it's drawn by Barry Kitson and Todd Nauck, thats a top flight creative team on both sides
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Let me ask my Obama commemorative plates.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go read Ultimates vol. 1, featuring She's All That's Freddie Prinze Jr. and American Pie's Shannon Elizabeth.
Tumblr Twitter
Hey, She's All That is timeless. Truly the Sabrina of our era.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I said mainstream superhero books, which are in an established continuity and have been around for 70 years. To introduce real world politics (note that I'm saying real world politics, not political ideas) is saying that these worlds with superheroes and gods and what have you would have followed the same exact path as the real world.
Now, of course there's some stuff that they can't really avoid (for example, comics couldn't really pretend like 9/11 didn't happen), but to say that the politicians and governments in these worlds are the same is both nonsensical and stunts storytelling potential.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I said technology available to the common man. Obviously there are robots and what have you running about, but the average joe is still driving a gas-powered car and getting cancer from his cell phone. The Fantastic Four can travel to other dimensions, but NASA still hasn't made it to Mars.
As for religion, it is pretty absurd that ideas about religion wouldn't be affected by the fact that actual angels and demons along with various gods and occasionally God Himself are running around on Earth.
The big two have always made it their policy to keep their fictional worlds as close to our own as possible in every respect, save the existence of heroes and villains.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
They're not griping because you got politics in their comics like chocolate in their peanut butter. They're griping because it's a blatant play for popularity trying to ride obama's coattails, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the story. It's like the little filler comic a while back that had a spider-man/Jay Leno teamup.
Because that was really funny
Edit: Okay, it's actually pretty funny.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
That's not what I'm saying at all
If you have the real world president as the president in your comics, you can't do anything with him or that government. You've just closed off many potential stories for the sake of publicity and sales.
Except Bush was president in the Marvel Universe and we still had the Superhero Registration Act.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I think this strange dichotomy comes about because Marvel and DC both want to create fictional worlds that their ordinary readers can relate to(ie: they seem like the real world), while at the same time creating settings where improbable to impossible events can still happen(ie: superheroes fighting space gods and/or alien shapeshifters). Trying to have their cake and eat it too results in a de facto magical realism situation, where the magical seemingly should be so powerful that it overides the realism, and yet it doesn't. And for some people, that breaks the suspension of disbelief.
Everyone hated bush, so it was okay to use unpopular ideas from the government. How many times to you expect Obama to be having conversations with Norman Osborne? Do you think Obama would be making stupid faces and refusing pretzels in Ultimates?
after staring at that first sentence for a good few seconds in blank incomprehension, i've decided you must have meant "everyone hated bush" but, as freud would say, are subconciously revealing too much of your penis
wait i mean thoughts
haha whooooooooooops
In any case, the Obama issue was clearly comedic and is probably about as in-continuity as Santa Claus' numerous appearances. Chances are Norman Osborn is going to keep talking to high-ranking members of the government and probably the president himself, even if our view of the government becomes more favorable with the Obama administration, because Dark Reign won't make sense without such scenes.
And no, Obama won't make funny faces and reject pretzels because those are things we associate with Bush. Does that matter?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
So here we have Obama having a conversation with Norman Osbourne.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
You could always start now. The entire cast's been replaced, so it's practically a relaunch.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
In any case, I doubt Marvel would be using Obama if his presence would prevent them from writing awesome stories they otherwise would have written. Maybe the stories you guys are imagining that demand that the president not be Obama would be great, but if nobody at Marvel was ever going to write anything like those stories in the first place and it was never that important for the president to be evil, then what does it matter who the president of Marvel's USA is?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Man, what the fuck DC?
Source here.
Tumblr Twitter
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
edit: One more quote, from Bill Willingham.
Tumblr Twitter