When the team lets in new members and one of them stabs Mr. Terrific and kills him, that's cause for concern. I don't even trust Mr. America. And also when they fought about 20 villains everyone had no idea what to do, no one was taking the point and the new Dr. Fate came in and saved the day.
You can't take those events as proof that making Magog the leader off an offshoot team is a good direction for the JSA brand when those events were written specifically to justify the change. Under a different writer, Mr. Terrific wouldn't have been stabbed and the team would have, right off the bat, figured out that all they had to do to beat those 20 villains was switch opponents. Hell, Stargirl could've taken them all out since nobody wanted to attack her.
Ultimately, common sense in comics is malleable. Whether or not a military approach is needed on a superhero team is dependent on the world the team is operating in, and that's wholly subject to the whims of the writer. Given that, the question of whether the classic approach or the military approach is best is ultimately just a question of what makes for better stories.
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
A valid point. And judging from the new team, it seems to be primarily the younger members, which might make it something more than legacy heroes and more a minor league hero team to build up new recruits, which would make sense since Teen Titans is pointless.
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited November 2009
I would also like to point out that no super hero team is a military organization, and they do things that the military don't. So, it's kind of ridiculous to say his experience is more valuable than say, Power Girl, who has been doing the heroing thing for quite awhile.
Fencingsax on
0
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
It's the idea that you have military members and don't incorporate things that would make the team work better. Yeah Wildcat's a boxer and the girrty old timer, but how about doing something with it instead of it being a Geoff Johns/Alex Ross "isn't the past great!" moment. I'm not saying the JSA should be a division of the army, but having a system in place that goes beyond what is basically Mr. Terrific --> old guys --> nothing is something worth exploring.
Look, Power Girl never thought to divide the JSA into a red team and a blue team. I don't think she even know what blue means.
Anyway, a different approach to leadership isn't automatically unwelcome, but Magog's the last character it should be coming from since nobody has any reason to respect him, he was only a Lance Corporal in the military, and KC Superman probably told someone at some point that Magog sets off a metahuman war.
I would also like to point out that no super hero team is a military organization, and they do things that the military don't. So, it's kind of ridiculous to say his experience is more valuable than say, Power Girl, who has been doing the heroing thing for quite awhile.
The Ultimates were basically a military team. They had a chain o' command, military objectives, conventional armed forces back-up, military technology etc.
I would also like to point out that no super hero team is a military organization, and they do things that the military don't. So, it's kind of ridiculous to say his experience is more valuable than say, Power Girl, who has been doing the heroing thing for quite awhile.
The Ultimates were basically a military team. They had a chain o' command, military objectives, conventional armed forces back-up, military technology etc.
SHIELD was/is military, so all of Fury's stuff should have reflected that.
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited November 2009
Ok, fine, I'll be more specific. No team that Magog has ever been on, and probably ever seen is a military organization, and they do things the military doesn't. So, it's kind of ridiculous to say his experience is more valuable than say, Power Girl, who has been doing the heroing thing for quite awhile.
Magog doesn't actually have the military experience to competently lead any team, much less a team composed of superheroes either, unless he's some kind of strategic genius all of a sudden.
If you want a military team done right, you need Amanda Waller or Sarge Steel or something.
Uncle Sam or Father Time could probably do it too.
Ok, fine, I'll be more specific. No team that Magog has ever been on, and probably ever seen is a military organization, and they do things the military doesn't. So, it's kind of ridiculous to say his experience is more valuable than say, Power Girl, who has been doing the heroing thing for quite awhile.
Yeah, that's probably correct.
That said, his reasoning is still valid, in that it's a bit absurd how the JSA is run. It operates more like some sort of fraternity of people who happen to be superpowered than a crime-fighting team. That doesn't make it bad - it's clearly established all over the place that they aren't even TRYING to stop crime as a whole - but it does mean it's legitimate to complain about admission processes and whatnot.
The proactive/responsive thing is kind of something different.
I don't think that complaints would have been considered legitimate prior to this current run. Granted a rigorous vetting process was never shown on-screen, but the team did display a great deal of familiarity with prospective team members upon offering them membership. It wasn't at all like those other teams where heroes would happen to be in the same city when a threat struck, unite to fight that threat, and then decide to call themselves The Champions.
Obviously security flaws have been a problem as of late, but those are clearly just plot devices rather than the exposure of underlying flaws.
I don't think that complaints would have been considered legitimate prior to this current run. Granted a rigorous vetting process was never shown on-screen, but the team did display a great deal of familiarity with prospective team members upon offering them membership. It wasn't at all like those other teams where heroes would happen to be in the same city when a threat struck, unite to fight that threat, and then decide to call themselves The Champions.
Obviously security flaws have been a problem as of late, but those are clearly just plot devices rather than the exposure of underlying flaws.
That complaint is a bit unfair: these are fictional characters, so whenever ANYTHING happens, it's because of editorial/writer mandate as opposed to flowing "necessarily" from the actual character motivations or whatever. So when you say it's just a "plot device", what are you thinking of as an example of something that occurs in a comic that isn't a plot device?
I don't think that complaints would have been considered legitimate prior to this current run. Granted a rigorous vetting process was never shown on-screen, but the team did display a great deal of familiarity with prospective team members upon offering them membership. It wasn't at all like those other teams where heroes would happen to be in the same city when a threat struck, unite to fight that threat, and then decide to call themselves The Champions.
Obviously security flaws have been a problem as of late, but those are clearly just plot devices rather than the exposure of underlying flaws.
That complaint is a bit unfair: these are fictional characters, so whenever ANYTHING happens, it's because of editorial/writer mandate as opposed to flowing "necessarily" from the actual character motivations or whatever. So when you say it's just a "plot device", what are you thinking of as an example of something that occurs in a comic that isn't a plot device?
I mean plot device in the derisive sense, of course. If the term's history as a derogatory term hasn't forced its definition to accommodate that meaning, then I guess I'll have to actually explain what I mean.
Events can either seem like a natural progression or they can seem forced, like the writer is merely rearranging things to his liking so that he can take the story where he wants it to go and make it seem like a natural progression. The latter is off-putting to the reader and demonstrates a certain lack of regard for prior stories and characterizations on top of suggesting a degree of arrogance and laziness.
I don't plan on picking up JSA All-Stars or following Justice Society of America anymore. It felt like Sturges and Willingham threw every cliche they had at the book.
"Oh no, a teammate might die!"
"Oh no, a traitor in the team!"
"Oh no, if all the badguys team up, then they can easily beat the heroes!"
"Oh no, the team is splitting into two factions! Again!"
I don't think that complaints would have been considered legitimate prior to this current run. Granted a rigorous vetting process was never shown on-screen, but the team did display a great deal of familiarity with prospective team members upon offering them membership. It wasn't at all like those other teams where heroes would happen to be in the same city when a threat struck, unite to fight that threat, and then decide to call themselves The Champions.
Obviously security flaws have been a problem as of late, but those are clearly just plot devices rather than the exposure of underlying flaws.
That complaint is a bit unfair: these are fictional characters, so whenever ANYTHING happens, it's because of editorial/writer mandate as opposed to flowing "necessarily" from the actual character motivations or whatever. So when you say it's just a "plot device", what are you thinking of as an example of something that occurs in a comic that isn't a plot device?
I mean plot device in the derisive sense, of course. If the term's history as a derogatory term hasn't forced its definition to accommodate that meaning, then I guess I'll have to actually explain what I mean.
Events can either seem like a natural progression or they can seem forced, like the writer is merely rearranging things to his liking so that he can take the story where he wants it to go and make it seem like a natural progression. The latter is off-putting to the reader and demonstrates a certain lack of regard for prior stories and characterizations on top of suggesting a degree of arrogance and laziness.
That's my point though: NONE of the things that happen actually are a natural progression, because they're ALWAYS chosen by writers who aren't bound by how the people actually 'would' have behaved. They can write them in conformity with what you or I think is plausible for that person, but my point is that what you're really complaining about is that it doesn't match your sense of how you expect it should proceed.
That criticism is certainly not automatically invalid: if it seems too implausible to you, then it might seem implausible to others, and if enough readers think it implausible then it definitely would qualify as bad writing.
In this case, the actual problem is that typical comic writing involves ignoring a whole bunch of things that would be common sense in the real world, so when you complain about them introducing common sense into the story, you're ironically complaining that the writer isn't being as contrived as you actually want him to be.
That's my point though: NONE of the things that happen actually are a natural progression, because they're ALWAYS chosen by writers who aren't bound by how the people actually 'would' have behaved. They can write them in conformity with what you or I think is plausible for that person, but my point is that what you're really complaining about is that it doesn't match your sense of how you expect it should proceed.
I don't think it's just a matter of whether or not the reader thinks a character's actions or a plot development is plausible. Beyond our gut feelings about what does and does not make sense, we can also look to continuity to support our feelings about a story's direction. Continuity isn't a series of hard and fast rules and it even contradicts itself at numerous points, but it can still tell us a few things like whether or not Character X has the skills or clout to lead a team and also how Characters Y and Z might react to this change. So long as there's a long-standing tradition of one trait or another being evident in a character or group of characters, saying that trait should manifest in a situation where it is absent is slightly more than just expressing a personal impression of a character and treating it as definitive.
That criticism is certainly not automatically invalid: if it seems too implausible to you, then it might seem implausible to others, and if enough readers think it implausible then it definitely would qualify as bad writing.
I actually don't agree that the validity of a choice can be judged by how many people agree that it is good or bad. General opinion might be indicative of validity, but ultimately you need some kind of basis for your argument for or against beyond "Look how many people agree with me!"
Beside that, there's the fact that we can't accurately gauge the popularity of decisions among readers to consider.
In this case, the actual problem is that typical comic writing involves ignoring a whole bunch of things that would be common sense in the real world, so when you complain about them introducing common sense into the story, you're ironically complaining that the writer isn't being as contrived as you actually want him to be.
Typical comic writing involves ignoring a whole bunch of things that would be common sense in the real world because the rules of the comic world are different. I'll agree that these omissions are contrived. At the same time, because they're long-standing to the point of having become essential to the fictional universes as a whole, they're just something we have to accept as a matter of course. Whether common sense is present or not, this is how the DC Universe functions.
Given that, selectively adding real world problems to the comic book world, especially when there's no precedent for these problems being an issue, is indeed contrived because you're altering the rules of the world rather than playing by them in order to achieve your desired result while maintaining consistency. If you suddenly decided that everyone would know who Superman is because glasses are a dumb disguise, you'd be adding common sense to your story, but at the same time it would be horribly contrived because you'd ignoring how prior continuity and the rules of the DC Universe as a whole had established that the shabby nature of Superman's disguise is not an issue for him. To do a proper story about everyone learning Superman's secret ID, you'd have to think of a way to do it that was consistent with all the stories preceding yours.
Here's a preview for the new issue of Spider-Man, featuring Deadpool. This will be the first issue of Spider-Man I've bought since OMD. The combination of Joe Kelly, Eric Canete, and Deadpool is too much for me to resist.
Here's a preview for the new issue of Spider-Man, featuring Deadpool. This will be the first issue of Spider-Man I've bought since OMD. The combination of Joe Kelly, Eric Canete, and Deadpool is too much for me to resist.
Yea, I'll be picking this up too, I do love Joe Kelly's Deadpool.
Kelly's Spider-man has slowly been getting better, still not the best of the Braintrust, but every arc he does is better than the last one he did. Though he has only done three so far.
The secrets of how the Sentry survived the events of Dark Avengers #9 and what he did after being sent to outer space by Cyclops in the Dark Avengers/Uncanny X-Men crossover will be revealed in January's Dark Avengers #13.
Awesome.
* Siege will result in "the biggest change in over a decade" for the Avengers and their team line-up. Two things that won't change, however, are the team's writer and its artist, Stuart Immonen, both of whom are with New Avengers for the long haul.
I'm glad about this. Immonen's art is IMHO pretty good, and I am and always will be a big fan of Bendis' writing, as it was he who got me into Marvel and comic books in general, and as the character's he loves and pushes are as a result some of my favourite characters, then hopefully they won't just dissapear after siege.
* Cosmic-level Avengers stories are on the way next year.
Double, triple, quadruple awesome.
Solar on
0
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
I'm a bit worried about the Cosmic Avengers stuff, because DnA have been rocking it with B-listers, and then Bendis or the flavor of the month gets to come in with the bigger name characters, making it so that less change can happen in space.
Yes, but if the Avenger's start knocking around in space, that might raise the profile of current cosmic stuff and therefore mean that DnA's books get more sales and they are allowed to do more cool stuff, stuff that actually affects Earth.
Solar on
0
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
edited November 2009
I know, it's a double edged sword.
If they give DnA some Avengers characters, then that's fine, but usually it's Marvel clearing the deck for Daniel Way or Kathryn Immonen to make everything sad for everyone everywhere.
I haven't been able to buy comics for a little over a month now, but I have the first Batman and Robin issue that Philip Tan did. His art confuses me, and it's ugly. Combining him with Dan Didio on Outsiders almost makes me want to drop it.
Posts
You can't take those events as proof that making Magog the leader off an offshoot team is a good direction for the JSA brand when those events were written specifically to justify the change. Under a different writer, Mr. Terrific wouldn't have been stabbed and the team would have, right off the bat, figured out that all they had to do to beat those 20 villains was switch opponents. Hell, Stargirl could've taken them all out since nobody wanted to attack her.
Ultimately, common sense in comics is malleable. Whether or not a military approach is needed on a superhero team is dependent on the world the team is operating in, and that's wholly subject to the whims of the writer. Given that, the question of whether the classic approach or the military approach is best is ultimately just a question of what makes for better stories.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Anyway, a different approach to leadership isn't automatically unwelcome, but Magog's the last character it should be coming from since nobody has any reason to respect him, he was only a Lance Corporal in the military, and KC Superman probably told someone at some point that Magog sets off a metahuman war.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
It's Blackest Night. Everyone's dying.
The Ultimates were basically a military team. They had a chain o' command, military objectives, conventional armed forces back-up, military technology etc.
SHIELD was/is military, so all of Fury's stuff should have reflected that.
If you want a military team done right, you need Amanda Waller or Sarge Steel or something.
Uncle Sam or Father Time could probably do it too.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Yeah, that's probably correct.
That said, his reasoning is still valid, in that it's a bit absurd how the JSA is run. It operates more like some sort of fraternity of people who happen to be superpowered than a crime-fighting team. That doesn't make it bad - it's clearly established all over the place that they aren't even TRYING to stop crime as a whole - but it does mean it's legitimate to complain about admission processes and whatnot.
The proactive/responsive thing is kind of something different.
Obviously security flaws have been a problem as of late, but those are clearly just plot devices rather than the exposure of underlying flaws.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
That complaint is a bit unfair: these are fictional characters, so whenever ANYTHING happens, it's because of editorial/writer mandate as opposed to flowing "necessarily" from the actual character motivations or whatever. So when you say it's just a "plot device", what are you thinking of as an example of something that occurs in a comic that isn't a plot device?
I mean plot device in the derisive sense, of course. If the term's history as a derogatory term hasn't forced its definition to accommodate that meaning, then I guess I'll have to actually explain what I mean.
Events can either seem like a natural progression or they can seem forced, like the writer is merely rearranging things to his liking so that he can take the story where he wants it to go and make it seem like a natural progression. The latter is off-putting to the reader and demonstrates a certain lack of regard for prior stories and characterizations on top of suggesting a degree of arrogance and laziness.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
"Oh no, a teammate might die!"
"Oh no, a traitor in the team!"
"Oh no, if all the badguys team up, then they can easily beat the heroes!"
"Oh no, the team is splitting into two factions! Again!"
That's my point though: NONE of the things that happen actually are a natural progression, because they're ALWAYS chosen by writers who aren't bound by how the people actually 'would' have behaved. They can write them in conformity with what you or I think is plausible for that person, but my point is that what you're really complaining about is that it doesn't match your sense of how you expect it should proceed.
That criticism is certainly not automatically invalid: if it seems too implausible to you, then it might seem implausible to others, and if enough readers think it implausible then it definitely would qualify as bad writing.
In this case, the actual problem is that typical comic writing involves ignoring a whole bunch of things that would be common sense in the real world, so when you complain about them introducing common sense into the story, you're ironically complaining that the writer isn't being as contrived as you actually want him to be.
I don't think it's just a matter of whether or not the reader thinks a character's actions or a plot development is plausible. Beyond our gut feelings about what does and does not make sense, we can also look to continuity to support our feelings about a story's direction. Continuity isn't a series of hard and fast rules and it even contradicts itself at numerous points, but it can still tell us a few things like whether or not Character X has the skills or clout to lead a team and also how Characters Y and Z might react to this change. So long as there's a long-standing tradition of one trait or another being evident in a character or group of characters, saying that trait should manifest in a situation where it is absent is slightly more than just expressing a personal impression of a character and treating it as definitive.
I actually don't agree that the validity of a choice can be judged by how many people agree that it is good or bad. General opinion might be indicative of validity, but ultimately you need some kind of basis for your argument for or against beyond "Look how many people agree with me!"
Beside that, there's the fact that we can't accurately gauge the popularity of decisions among readers to consider.
Typical comic writing involves ignoring a whole bunch of things that would be common sense in the real world because the rules of the comic world are different. I'll agree that these omissions are contrived. At the same time, because they're long-standing to the point of having become essential to the fictional universes as a whole, they're just something we have to accept as a matter of course. Whether common sense is present or not, this is how the DC Universe functions.
Given that, selectively adding real world problems to the comic book world, especially when there's no precedent for these problems being an issue, is indeed contrived because you're altering the rules of the world rather than playing by them in order to achieve your desired result while maintaining consistency. If you suddenly decided that everyone would know who Superman is because glasses are a dumb disguise, you'd be adding common sense to your story, but at the same time it would be horribly contrived because you'd ignoring how prior continuity and the rules of the DC Universe as a whole had established that the shabby nature of Superman's disguise is not an issue for him. To do a proper story about everyone learning Superman's secret ID, you'd have to think of a way to do it that was consistent with all the stories preceding yours.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Methinks that guy who made the crack about Fisk's weight will be seen with his head crushed very next panel.
Tumblr Twitter
Yea, I'll be picking this up too, I do love Joe Kelly's Deadpool.
Awesome.
I'm glad about this. Immonen's art is IMHO pretty good, and I am and always will be a big fan of Bendis' writing, as it was he who got me into Marvel and comic books in general, and as the character's he loves and pushes are as a result some of my favourite characters, then hopefully they won't just dissapear after siege.
Double, triple, quadruple awesome.
If they give DnA some Avengers characters, then that's fine, but usually it's Marvel clearing the deck for Daniel Way or Kathryn Immonen to make everything sad for everyone everywhere.
kathryn immonen wrote a bomb as hell Hellcat
I'd never heard of Nova before Annhilation.
He is now my favourite.
TLB knows what's up
Batman and Robin #6 preview - not Phil Tan's finest hour as an artist.
The rest looks pretty good, though Tan's style isn't really to my taste.
Tumblr Twitter
I saw that and I thought that if Ennis was writing that, he probably would eat the dude.
"And this is his sofa, is it?" said Arthur.
I must say Brubaker is making the latter half of this story quite epic if these pages are any indication.