Sudden Realization: Comics Are Never Written Well

[Killshot Caine]

Jan 21, 2011 11:42:38 GMT -5 NexusOfLight said:

Jan 21, 2011 11:13:06 GMT -5 Killshot Caine said:

I can take a crappy storyline, what I can't stand is reading something that shows the person who wrote the book has a clearly lack of knowledge on the subject.

Now that's interesting. If you don't mind, I wanna take a moment and start a discussion centering around that in particular. For starters I guess I should ask why? How is a crappily written story better than a story that simply pays little attention to continuity? I notice a lot of comic fans seem to have that mentality, and it's always baffled me.

I don't like my favorite characters being written out of character and I don't like continuity issues and professionalism issues because it makes me feel like these people are employed for nothing.You have all these fans with vast knowledge on the characters and you use people who don't know anything about the character...just the basics.That doesn't seem right or make any sense.

I would rather read a comic where Black Widow has no feats (like most of her solo appearances) than a comic where she beats Wonder Man in a fight (Contest of Champions II).That's just asinine writing.I'm still going to be mad at someone who writes a crappy comic but doing so because they lack the knowledge on the characters to me is unforgivable.Making stupid changes and retcons bothers me too.Bendis' Dr.Strange and Sentry are useless characters.He completely destroyed their characters for no reason.

[Erik-El]

They sure are a hell of a lot better written than they were 30 years ago.

[NexusOfLight]

Jan 21, 2011 12:41:01 GMT -5 Killshot Caine said:

I don't like my favorite characters being written out of character and I don't like continuity issues and professionalism issues because it makes me feel like these people are employed for nothing.You have all these fans with vast knowledge on the characters and you use people who don't know anything about the character...just the basics.That doesn't seem right or make any sense.

I would rather read a comic where Black Widow has no feats (like most of her solo appearances) than a comic where she beats Wonder Man in a fight (Contest of Champions II).That's just asinine writing.I'm still going to be mad at someone who writes a crappy comic but doing so because they lack the knowledge on the characters to me is unforgivable.Making stupid changes and retcons bothers me too.Bendis' Dr.Strange and Sentry are useless characters.He completely destroyed their characters for no reason.

Sure, a writer goin' around having Black Widow beat Wonder Man in a fight, Black Panther put Silver Surfer in an armlock and all that other silly stuff is bad, but saying it's worse than a bad story--as in poor quality, bad writing, throw away because it has no merits outside of being consistent with the character's feats and showings--just seems so odd to me. It sorta seems like in doing that, you're saying the only way to enjoy a comic book is to know all the baseball card stats on the characters in it, and the actual story comes second, and that doesn't make any sense or seem right to me.

[NexusOfLight]

Jan 21, 2011 12:42:12 GMT -5 Erik-El said:

They sure are a hell of a lot better written than they were 30 years ago.

Absolutely. It almost pains me to read through a 70's or 80's comic where they explain every single detail for no good reason other than to show how big and cool the guy you're reading about is.

[Erik-El]

Jan 21, 2011 13:12:01 GMT -5 NexusOfLight said:

Jan 21, 2011 12:42:12 GMT -5 Erik-El said:

They sure are a hell of a lot better written than they were 30 years ago.

Absolutely. It almost pains me to read through a 70's or 80's comic where they explain every single detail for no good reason other than to show how big and cool the guy you're reading about is.

Yeah. Or sometimes the story itself will not make a damn bit of sense. Then there is the oversimplification of some stories. They just wrote a lot of stories for children. Which is not bad because back then, most of their readers were children but today, they write stories that make sense for adults.

I am sure 30 years from now, I will be saying that reading comics are better at that time then they were in today's time as well though.

[Crom-Cruach]

To me to reason the 70s and early 80s were so bad for comics is because talented serious writers didn't respect comics as a medium in america. Thankfully Alan Moor and Gaiman came along and changed that.

Gaiman especially when he won a litterary award for Sandman, they changed the rules for the award after because they didn't want comics to win again

[Erik-El]

They changed the rules so that comics could not win? That is kind of stupid.

[Crom-Cruach]

Yes they did, the guys who run the award think comics are not a respected artistic medium, even if all of the judges agreed Gaiman's Sandman was the best piece of writing submitted for the award that year

[Erik-El]

Jan 21, 2011 13:28:57 GMT -5 Crom-Cruach said:

Yes they did, the guys who run the award think comics are not a respected artistic medium, even if all of the judges agreed Gaiman's Sandman was the best piece of writing submitted for the award that year

My opinion that people are stupid seems to become more fact than opinion every day.

[Crom-Cruach]

You mean you still have some faith in humanity You poor, poor fool!

[Erik-El]

Jan 21, 2011 13:33:40 GMT -5 Crom-Cruach said:

You mean you still have some faith in humanity You poor, poor fool!

Lol ever once in a while, I wake up on the wrong side of the bed and dare to hope.

Those hopes are usually shattered before the day is out.

[Crom-Cruach]

Maybe you should buy a new bed

[Erik-El]

Lol.

[Killshot Caine]

Jan 21, 2011 13:08:46 GMT -5 NexusOfLight said:

Jan 21, 2011 12:41:01 GMT -5 Killshot Caine said:

I don't like my favorite characters being written out of character and I don't like continuity issues and professionalism issues because it makes me feel like these people are employed for nothing.You have all these fans with vast knowledge on the characters and you use people who don't know anything about the character...just the basics.That doesn't seem right or make any sense.

I would rather read a comic where Black Widow has no feats (like most of her solo appearances) than a comic where she beats Wonder Man in a fight (Contest of Champions II).That's just asinine writing.I'm still going to be mad at someone who writes a crappy comic but doing so because they lack the knowledge on the characters to me is unforgivable.Making stupid changes and retcons bothers me too.Bendis' Dr.Strange and Sentry are useless characters.He completely destroyed their characters for no reason.

Sure, a writer goin' around having Black Widow beat Wonder Man in a fight, Black Panther put Silver Surfer in an armlock and all that other silly stuff is bad, but saying it's worse than a bad story--as in poor quality, bad writing, throw away because it has no merits outside of being consistent with the character's feats and showings--just seems so odd to me. It sorta seems like in doing that, you're saying the only way to enjoy a comic book is to know all the baseball card stats on the characters in it, and the actual story comes second, and that doesn't make any sense or seem right to me.

This isn't about knowing all the "baseball card stats".This is about knowing enough about the character to not write things that are out of character for them.I used the Black Widow thing as example.PIS feats aren't the only issue which is why I mentioned Bendis' Sentry and Dr.Strange.They aren't poorly written because of their showings.Bendis completely took away everything they stand for.He pretty much made everything written about them storyline wise before he touched them irrelevant. He made it so Strange is basically a disgrace.He was never the real Sorcerer Supreme and he's basically just a thief and a liar.This to me is far less acceptable than writing something that's just boring or doesn't make any sense.

I'm not at all saying that for a comic to be enjoyable the writer has to know all the characters "stats" because I've read non-superhero comics where stats aren't a factor at all and enjoyed them.Also MOST comics have issues with writers not knowing the characters stats.What I am saying is lack of research causes most comics to have PIS,WIS,CIS,and other IS issues.The point of the thread is very rarely are comics written consistently between writers.If one writer says THIS is what____can do.Another does something else.I'm just pointing it out.People wouldn't accept this in any other medium.

If you take the show Heroes for instance.If Sylar was a psycho in the first season and then in the next he wasn't..for no reason at all and with no explanation.People would b#tch about it.Writers do stuff like that in comics all the time.They seemingly make slight retcons all the time and it's because the writers try and take too much creative liberty with the characters and they just write on instinct and not knowledge.I don't like it.

It's partly the reason why most superhero movies suck.They get a writer and director that know little to nothing about the character and they make a bunch of unnecessary changes that take away from the character.

[NexusOfLight]

Jan 22, 2011 13:48:19 GMT -5 Killshot Caine said:

This isn't about knowing all the "baseball card stats".This is about knowing enough about the character to not write things that are out of character for them.I used the Black Widow thing as example.PIS feats aren't the only issue which is why I mentioned Bendis' Sentry and Dr.Strange.They aren't poorly written because of their showings.Bendis completely took away everything they stand for.He pretty much made everything written about them storyline wise before he touched them irrelevant. He made it so Strange is basically a disgrace.He was never the real Sorcerer Supreme and he's basically just a thief and a liar.This to me is far less acceptable than writing something that's just boring or doesn't make any sense.

I'm not at all saying that for a comic to be enjoyable the writer has to know all the characters "stats" because I've read non-superhero comics where stats aren't a factor at all and enjoyed them.Also MOST comics have issues with writers not knowing the characters stats.What I am saying is lack of research causes most comics to have PIS,WIS,CIS,and other IS issues.The point of the thread is very rarely are comics written consistently between writers.If one writer says THIS is what____can do.Another does something else.I'm just pointing it out.People wouldn't accept this in any other medium.

If you take the show Heroes for instance.If Sylar was a psycho in the first season and then in the next he wasn't..for no reason at all and with no explanation.People would b#tch about it.Writers do stuff like that in comics all the time.They seemingly make slight retcons all the time and it's because the writers try and take too much creative liberty with the characters and they just write on instinct and not knowledge.I don't like it.

It's partly the reason why most superhero movies suck.They get a writer and director that know little to nothing about the character and they make a bunch of unnecessary changes that take away from the character.

Yeah that's all bad and stuff. I'm not saying it isn't, but for it to be so important that the story itself is considered secondary is just weird.

I'm glad you brought up comic movies as an example, because I also notice that most people in my area, who have no prior comic book knowledge on the character in the movie, seem to enjoy it a lot more than people who do. The reason for that is because they're not constantly trying to compare what they know, to what's being presented, so all they have to go on is the actual story of the movie. I feel like when judging a story of any kind, regardless of the medium, the actual story is what should be actually judged. Sure, continuity should play a role in judging it, but it shouldn't be the end all be all of whether or not the story was written well, otherwise, you'll never find a good story spanned over a multitude of chapters, books, or episodes unless only one writer is the only writer writing it the entire run of the series.

Of course, there are plenty of stories out there written that way. Manga, creator owned comics, webcomics, and all that jazz, but as long as you're sticking with Marvel and DC, that kind of stuff will never happen, and it's not necessarily because the writers are lazy and want to tick off the fans, it's just simply impossible for them to do all the time. There's too many people, too many characters, and too many storylines that have come before to keep up with everything. Should the writer do some research beforehand? Sure, that's a given, but should you expect him to know everything there is on that character? No, it'd be silly to think otherwise. Marvel/DC writers are hired to write stories, and that's all you should really expect of them.

They're going to take the creative liberty they feel they need to tell their story, and as writer's that's something they should do.

[Killshot Caine]

@nexus

I can't blame a writer for not being able to write a story to my liking.Everyone has their personal preferences in what they want in a story.I can't be mad at someone for simply not being a writer whose work I enjoy.I can however fault them for writing things that are against the characters because they don't know enough about the character to write the book effectively.

I don't dislike comic related movies because I'm trying to compare what I know.I'm not expecting for the stories and depictions to be exactly the same.The Spider-Man Animated Series in the 90's and the X-men Animated series in the 90's are very well done and most of the episodes didn't follow the comics to perfection but I still loved them and I still do.If you take X-men 3 for instance.That movie is widely hated.It's not because they didn't follow the comics.It's hated because overall it's just a bad movie.People are fine with story line and character changes.Just not stupid ones.You can make up your own X-men story if you want..but it has to be good.

Also I'm not "sticking with" Marvel and DC.I read alot more than Marvel and DC.However Marvel and DC are the only companies who let writers go so far overboard with their characters that they end up having to retcon and change so much to get them back on track.There is no excuse for it.They just pump out books and nobody looks them over to see if their is any issues.I never suggested that a writer should know everything about a character.That is what an editor is supposed to be for.HE should be keeping up with the storylines and then getting on people when they write nonsense.

I don't mind subtle issues but stupid stuff like Black Widow beating Wonder Man,Black Panther putting Silver Surfer in an armbar,Spider-Man beating Firelord,Daredevil & Karnak beating Ultron etc. The writers should know better.You don't have to even read any of those comics to know those showings are retarded.

Also as far as creative liberty.I'm all for that if writers ADD something to the character.When a writer gets on a book and erases years of history for a sh#tty storyline.That pisses me off.OMD didn't suck because it retconned Spider-Man..it sucked because it was poorly executed.

[NexusOfLight]

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, the reason you can take a crappy story over an inconsistent storyline is because what's crappy to you is a matter of opinion while inconsistency (out of character traits, PIS/WIS, etc) is universally bad on all fronts? Like I said, I agree that writers not doing their research is a bad thing, and editors not editing things to stay consistent with everything else is a bad thing too, but not to the point that the actual story comes second to whether or not a character stays consistent in his/her mythos. Erasing years of history for a bad story shouldn't mean that the story is bad because the writer erased the history, it should mean that the bad story was a bad story and that's it. See what I'm sayin'?

[Killshot Caine]

Jan 22, 2011 23:26:32 GMT -5 NexusOfLight said:

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, the reason you can take a crappy story over an inconsistent storyline is because what's crappy to you is a matter of opinion while inconsistency (out of character traits, PIS/WIS, etc) is universally bad on all fronts? Like I said, I agree that writers not doing their research is a bad thing, and editors not editing things to stay consistent with everything else is a bad thing too, but not to the point that the actual story comes second to whether or not a character stays consistent in his/her mythos. Erasing years of history for a bad story shouldn't mean that the story is bad because the writer erased the history, it should mean that the bad story was a bad story and that's it. See what I'm sayin'?

If the character is written inconsistently.I don't see how the story can be good.You can only have subtle showings of PIS or the entire books because sh#t.

[NexusOfLight]

And that's saying putting consistency above the story. If there's a book that has something like a guest writer or something, and he has the characters do something that hasn't been established for the character--saying certain things they don't normally say or doing certain things that the main writer for the story hasn't been doin'--but the actual story turns out to be an enjoyable read, then the story is written well for what it is.

The closest example to something I can think of right now are comic annuals.

[Killshot Caine]

Jan 23, 2011 16:17:46 GMT -5 NexusOfLight said:

And that's saying putting consistency above the story. If there's a book that has something like a guest writer or something, and he has the characters do something that hasn't been established for the character--saying certain things they don't normally say or doing certain things that the main writer for the story hasn't been doin'--but the actual story turns out to be an enjoyable read, then the story is written well for what it is.

The closest example to something I can think of right now are comic annuals.

Not really.See the point of the thread is that almost every book is inconsistent and that was my sudden realization.Comics will never be written as to where a character can do what his abilities say he can and nothing else(Excluding plot devices and momentary upgrades). Small inconsistencies are fine because they are going to happen between writers. The problem becomes when a writer constantly tries to change things that have already been established, completely retcons a character, or just simply writes something in a book that everyone knows is impossible like the examples I named earlier.

The comic, Contest of Champions II where Black Widow beats Wonder Man is pages and pages of inconsistent showings.Completely overblowing the abilities of street levelers.Certain writers get on solo books and do things like this.Like Bendis whom I mentioned earlier, like Hudlin who wrote Black Panther, like Miller for Batman.Stuff like that is inexcusable.A book can't possibly be any good with such blatent disregard for standards. I have never read a book with huge inconsistencies that I can say was well written. Can you?