|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jul 5, 2009 22:38:28 GMT -8
You mentioned "real" ordinary people gaining super powers and hence reacting as real folk would in such a predicament, and I got to wondering, when has that ever been done well in comics? The only one that comes to mind is Major Bummer. |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jul 5, 2009 23:06:50 GMT -8
Warriors of Plasm, The Good Guys and Star Brand (before Byrne deliberetely fucked it up).
... You know, it never occurred to me before, but Shooter is a common denominator with a lot of these.
Star Brand, in particular, blew me away as a kid. He was a mostly decent, well-intentioned guy who was nonetheless profoundly fucked up, but not in a OMG DRAMA!!! way ... rather, to quote the cliche, he had flaws that made him seem very real, in ways that even I, as a grade-school kid, could connect with.
It shouldn't have surprised me that Star Brand was apparently an extremely autobiographical character, because looking back on it, Shooter obviously invested a shitload of his heart into it, and if the supposedly relatable "everyday guy" version of Peter Parker in the current Amazing Spider-Man was written even a fraction as well, I'd have a lot less problems with it.
By his second issue, the main character had snuck on board a terrorist-hijacked cruise ship that was carrying a nuke, and because he slipped up and missed one of the guards, he was faced with a split-second decision of whether to unleash his star-burst power, before they could detonate the nuke ... "Can I confine it enough? No, the best I can hope for is to only disintegrate half the ship. What do I do with the other half? Well, I'm strong enough to carry it when I fly out, but would it collapse in on itself? Jesus, how did I get in over my head so quick?"
Of course, the government had already sent in their own military team to take out the terrorists, but the trigger was tripped on the nuke right as they arrived. It had a 15-second fail-safe, so the Star Brand character swam down to the bottom on the ocean with it and star-blasted to muffle the nuke, but ... yeah, Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jul 6, 2009 7:29:51 GMT -8
Also Top Ten, Astro City, Powers.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Jul 6, 2009 12:39:06 GMT -8
You mentioned "real" ordinary people gaining super powers and hence reacting as real folk would in such a predicament, and I got to wondering, when has that ever been done well in comics? Elementals. At least until Willingham sold it. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jul 9, 2009 7:16:52 GMT -8
Totally random thought, spurred by a few things:
If one can argue that Star Wars is a fictional milieu in which religion is a primary theme (more or less explicitly stated by Lucas) and Star Trek is one in which science is a primary theme (more or less), then what does it say about the fact that, on the whole, Star Trek fans are more fanatical? And really, I'm sorry, but there are no dictionaries for Droid or Wookie, and while there can be more stormtroopers than Klingons, the fact that with most "klingon" outfits requires the application of latex prosthetics, whereas Stormtroopers are just a suit, kind of nudges Trekies above Star Wars fans in terms of commitment.
|
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jul 9, 2009 8:13:10 GMT -8
I think the St universe is a bit more fully fleshed out, more realized, than the SW universe. That might have something to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Jul 9, 2009 9:45:56 GMT -8
Food for thought:
When someone dresses up as a Klingon to go to a Star Trek convention, we lable him a loser.
When someone dresses up in face paint, and takes their shirts off to watch a Football game in Chicago in January, we call them a Fan.
Say what you will about ners and geeks, I think sports fans are crazier.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jul 9, 2009 14:43:39 GMT -8
Totally random thought, spurred by a few things: If one can argue that Star Wars is a fictional milieu in which religion is a primary theme (more or less explicitly stated by Lucas) and Star Trek is one in which science is a primary theme (more or less), then what does it say about the fact that, on the whole, Star Trek fans are more fanatical? And really, I'm sorry, but there are no dictionaries for Droid or Wookie, and while there can be more stormtroopers than Klingons, the fact that with most "klingon" outfits requires the application of latex prosthetics, whereas Stormtroopers are just a suit, kind of nudges Trekies above Star Wars fans in terms of commitment. I'll actually agree with Jens, but I think another factor is that science, to an extent, is more of a supplementary theme in Star Trek, whose primary theme, at least to my mind, is military and politics, and all of the attendant discipline that comes with it. The irony is that, in spite of the "Wars" in the title of Star Wars, it's really Star Trek that has a better handle on how the organizations that FIGHT wars actually WORK. In Star Wars, they throw titles like "General" and "Admiral" around, without any apparent clue as to what those ranks MEAN, beyond just, "Hey, it's a guy who's in charge in the military." In Star Trek, they may not have showed us any enlisted members of Starfleet until Chief O'Brien, and their version of military discipline might have been a '60s love-in when compared to the ACTUAL military, but by God, the people who wrote the shows and movies at least understood WHAT THE FUCK A CHAIN OF COMMAND STRUCTURE ACTUALLY IS. It's this same level of doing-your-goddamned-homework discipline that, to my mind, impacted how each franchise treated science - I mean, for as much shit as we talk about Star Trek, and deservedly so, about its frequent reliance upon "skience" that basically reads like half-assed mis-remembrances of '60s scientists' subsequently disproven theories, its "skience" is still one hell of a lot more plausible than the WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST SUGGEST THAT THERE'S GRAVITY IN SPACE GEORGE LUCAS not-even-"skience" of Star Wars. Star Trek comes off like a teenage sci-fi fan's idea of how science works, but Star Wars comes off like an 8-year-old Super Friends fan's idea of how science works. |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jul 9, 2009 14:44:05 GMT -8
Food for thought: When someone dresses up as a Klingon to go to a Star Trek convention, we lable him a loser. When someone dresses up in face paint, and takes their shirts off to watch a Football game in Chicago in January, we call them a Fan. Say what you will about ners and geeks, I think sports fans are crazier. THANK YOU |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jul 9, 2009 21:25:02 GMT -8
Re: Star Trek fans vs. Star Wars fans, I think it's just that there's so much more ST material that you can immerse yourself in it to a higher degree. There's just more mind-space encumbrance potential in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jul 11, 2009 11:51:45 GMT -8
X-Men Forever begs a question: Is it still considered fan-fiction if it's written by the author who can nominally be considered the creators of the characters?
I mean, you have the some of the qualities of (mediocre at best) fanfiction present: Established relationships rewritten to authorial preferences, the laws of science and genre convention convienently ignored for nonsensical dramatic moments (I could write a doctoral thesis about the big reveal at the end of the latest issue on how wrong it is on so many levels), and a general sense that the whole point of the exercise is to demonstrate your own superiority to the works of others.
That all said, I'm not sure it's bad per se; it's certainly in line with the type of X-men comics were coming out in the early 90s, and in its own way, the freedom Claremont has to shake up the status quo whatever way he damn well pleases gives an interesting insight or three into how he views the characters. And it's certainly as valid as the current bad fanfic being put out by NuMarvel.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jul 11, 2009 14:10:29 GMT -8
Established relationships rewritten to authorial preferences, the laws of science and genre convention convienently ignored for nonsensical dramatic moments (I could write a doctoral thesis about the big reveal at the end of the latest issue on how wrong it is on so many levels), and a general sense that the whole point of the exercise is to demonstrate your own superiority to the works of others. How is this different from other mediocre stories? |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jul 12, 2009 4:51:39 GMT -8
Well, that's partly the point. The other part of the point is that X-Men Forever is pretty explicitly fanfic, in so far as it sets the clock back to just one day after the events of X-Men #3 (1991). The other part is that it is Claremont, and his rather unique stature within the X-Men universe; say what you will about him as a person or as a storyteller but there is no denying the fact that he remains the definitive X-writer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Jul 12, 2009 9:35:19 GMT -8
I just meant that I don't see much point in separating fanfic from other bad writing, though I should have been more clear on that.
But I have to agree about Claremont being the definitive X-writer, though I'm biased by his X-Men being what I read first as that was what was being translated into Swedish when I read them here (along with the occasional original X-Men adventure.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on Jul 12, 2009 18:35:15 GMT -8
X-Men Forever begs a question: Is it still considered fan-fiction if it's written by the author who can nominally be considered the creators of the characters? I mean, you have the some of the qualities of (mediocre at best) fanfiction present: Established relationships rewritten to authorial preferences, the laws of science and genre convention convienently ignored for nonsensical dramatic moments (I could write a doctoral thesis about the big reveal at the end of the latest issue on how wrong it is on so many levels), and a general sense that the whole point of the exercise is to demonstrate your own superiority to the works of others. That all said, I'm not sure it's bad per se; it's certainly in line with the type of X-men comics were coming out in the early 90s, and in its own way, the freedom Claremont has to shake up the status quo whatever way he damn well pleases gives an interesting insight or three into how he views the characters. And it's certainly as valid as the current bad fanfic being put out by NuMarvel. Thoughts? I think the nonsensicalness of the big reveal is going to depend heavily on the details to be revealed next issue -- such elements like how the Whatsis got from Person A to Person B, and the exact means by which Person B is using it, will play pretty heavily there. I'm willing to give Claremont the benefit of the doubt here -- if the answer is "it was mechanically removed, and Person B is using an external brace to use it", it's no more silly than anything else in comicdom. The whatsis was originally mechanically installed, after all. Now, if Person B is using it the exact same way Person A did -- yeah, total BS. Oh, to hell with it: [ Wolverine is missing one of his claws, and Kitty Pryde just "snikt"ed it out. It remains to be seen whether there's some sort of exoskeleton under those big sleeves of hers, or if she's just using it as a big knife attached to a wrist sheath -- either of which passes the comic logic test -- or if it's actually in her skin like it was on Logan's, in which case, BS. But the thing's ultimately a bionic attachment; I could reasonably buy "Hank McCoy figured out how to remove it from Logan's housings, and made a big knife for Kitty."] |
|
