|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jul 9, 2010 16:59:28 GMT -8
and...#10 pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2010/07/plot-devices-that-need-to-go-away-10.htmlPlot Devices that Need to Go Away #10 The B-List Also Known as: First Tier/Second Tier, First String/Second string, etc. What is it? Have you noticed that superheroes in comics lately actually state their level of status (or that of other characters) in the heirarchy of the superhero communities in the same terms that celebrities do? Why do Comic companies do it? Usually they set out at the start of a story that a given character is some low tier member of their community to lower expectations and create a surprise when the character is elevated to a new status (greater) status. The celebrity metaphor is a quick and dirty shorthand for that. Recent Offenders include but are not limited to: Luke Cage and Jessica Jones-Cage, Booster Gold, Blue Beetle (Ted Kord) and most of the "JLI" -era characters (Fire, Ice, Rocket Red, Elongated Man, Sue Dibny, etc.), Nova, Darkhawk, etc. Patient Zero This is a hard one to pin down, but for me, I'm going to go and put the blame for this one on Identity Crisis and Dr. Light in particular - the whole premise of that story is that Dr. Light is no longer a joke. Why does it have to go away? First, I think I've remarked on how little I care for comparing superheroes to celebrities, so that's a start. But the greater danger is not just because of a personal choice, but because the overuse has created a degree of overexposure on the "A-List" to the exclusion of the development of other characters who might actually be better tools to tell a story. It's not always about the "Trinity" (Cap/Thor/Iron man or Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman, take your pick) but about those other characters who get a moment to shine and truly step up to the plate because their stories have been building to this point for years. Remember, Wolverine used to be B-list too. Angles for Redemption of the Device: There's two methods in my mind. The first is showcased by what Brian Michael Bendis did with Luke Cage over the years in the Avengers, although that creates another set of problems too. Still, like it or not, I give Bendis credit for taking Luke Cage and taken him from forgotten 70s character to someone compelling enough to be the focus of two ongoing series. The other method is more traditional - simply give characters different focuses on different times in different stories that highlight their own unique and special nature. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jul 14, 2010 11:29:45 GMT -8
A prediction at least some of us can get behind pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2010/07/im-calling-it-april-2016.htmlOK, so I read "X-Women#1" by Claremont there. Anyone want to make any predictions on how many more years it will be before in a desparate attempt to boost sales, they just let him right an explicit S&M comic outright? |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jul 14, 2010 22:41:51 GMT -8
A prediction at least some of us can get behind pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2010/07/im-calling-it-april-2016.htmlOK, so I read "X-Women#1" by Claremont there. Anyone want to make any predictions on how many more years it will be before in a desparate attempt to boost sales, they just let him right an explicit S&M comic outright? I wish I could believe that Marvel will ever be that much Win, but ... |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jul 15, 2010 5:05:39 GMT -8
Eh, at the rate things are going, it might be their only option.
On that note, anyone else read it? Paul? Kirk?
My review in short: It's Claremont-errific. And I mean that in the best and worst ways possible - it is a literal indulgence of damn near every single one of his fetishes/tropes, no matter how out of place or ridiculous, but it's done so lovingly and with an enthusiasm no one has seen from Claremont in twenty years, that fuck it, he should just get what he wants. I recommend it for nostalgia purposes alone.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jul 15, 2010 5:09:45 GMT -8
Rewatched the first two Raimi Spider-Films - new thoughts and observations. pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2010/07/raimi-and-goblin.htmlPartly in follow up to last month's post on Doc Ock, and partly just because I felt like it, I watched a little of the first two Spider-Man films. I think they hold up pretty well, despite a few problems (not enough Spider-banter and bad humor) but a few thoughts occured to me and I felt like sharing them. -Looking at it a little more closely, I'm finding the Goblin's motivation throughout to be both a criticism of Objectivism and at the same time, confirmation of it. Like it or not, Osborn is a guy who has (rightfully) achieved success and riches off his work. In fact, his whole rant to Spider-Man after he drugs him on the rooftop is very Randian - about how the exceptional people shouldn't be held to the standards of their lessers and should blaze their own trail. His whole arc is of trying to protect what's "his" from others who would take it from him and whom (we assume) haven't earned it. Of course, that's undercut by the fact that yes, Osborn took shortcuts and weaseled. I'm pretty sure I'm not the first person to think of this, but I figured I would share it anyway. -The Train scene in the second movie - yeah, it's a big bag of sap, but who cares? One thing I liked about the first two movies was that despite all the negative press Spidey got, the "average person" actually knew a hero when they saw one. The idea that there were dissenting opinions and that the media isn't a perfect manipulator of the public thoughtsphere is something you don't see often. Of course, it'd be nice if that were shown in say, the Marvel Comics themselves. -Despite the mistakes and misteps here, I think these movies hold up pretty well. In fact, the only thing that I think that a rebooted movie series could do better is to take risks. Let's face it, "The Dark Knight" proved that yes, you could actually pull off the actual Gwen Stacy story without losing the audience. That said, I don't think Spider-Man should be as dark as Batman, but I can't deny that there's ample evidence that it could work, and that with the superhero market proven and strong, they might just try it. Michael |
|
|
|
Post by jkcarrier on Jul 15, 2010 10:46:29 GMT -8
Let's face it, "The Dark Knight" proved that yes, you could actually pull off the actual Gwen Stacy story without losing the audience. The reaction might've been different if Rachel hadn't been such a non-entity anyway. As it was, I pretty much thought, "Cool, more screen time for the characters I actually give a shit about!"  |
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on Jul 15, 2010 12:54:21 GMT -8
Michael: I still think the Spidey/Firelord fight is one of the best fights scenes of the post-Silver Age, one of Spidey's greatest moment's ever, and probably DeFalco's finest hour. I don't care how much internal continuity it violates -- Firelord's uber-invulnerability be damned! -- it is AWESOME.
And hell, maybe we can take the fact that a guy who can dive into suns shouldn't have been even scratched by Spidey's onslaught as less a knock on Firelord's weakness and more a commentary on what Spidey can REALLY do when the chips are down.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on Jul 15, 2010 15:19:46 GMT -8
Eh, at the rate things are going, it might be their only option. On that note, anyone else read it? Paul? Kirk? My review in short: It's Claremont-errific. And I mean that in the best and worst ways possible - it is a literal indulgence of damn near every single one of his fetishes/tropes, no matter how out of place or ridiculous, but it's done so lovingly and with an enthusiasm no one has seen from Claremont in twenty years, that fuck it, he should just get what he wants. I recommend it for nostalgia purposes alone. Michael Hah. I was all over it. It's actually one of the better things Chris has written in a while, certainly since at least "X-Treme X-Men." Which may not be saying much -- I read "New Exiles," after all. Anyway, it was a lot of fun, though I'm not really sure what the POINT was. It's kind of like, "Just Imagine K-Box Held A Challenge Where Pogue Was Tasked With Writing a Claremont Tropefest." He hits all his high points, his most fetishtastic stuff, but mostly doesn't drive it into the ground, you know? (If I was doing the fanfic version, the bamboo bondage would have done on another five pages; Slave Leia Ororo, ten.) It's just the sheer relentless nature of one after another that makes one think, halfway through, that Chris is doing it on purpose. Mind you, I may be making it sound much better than it actually is. It's just a wacky, barely-coherent adventure where Chris' favorite X-Ladies go off to party, it all goes to hell, and they have a big fight and a road trip. Mind control! Cargo cult! Slave Ororo! Bamboo bondage! Powers lost! Viper costume! Kitty in a dominatrix leotard! And it comes and goes, swish-swish, so quick you barely know what's going on. About the only thing missing was using steel collars and leashes for the power loss. Honestly, it feels like those throwaway filler issues Claremont would toss off to relieve the tension between big events, like when the boys and girls all split up for one-issue adventures after "Inferno." I don't really know what the hell happened, except that he dropped the overly-laden pretension he's been fixated on as of late and replaced it with the laid-back pretension he was so well known for in 1987. Either way, I hope there's more. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jul 15, 2010 16:23:06 GMT -8
Michael: I still think the Spidey/Firelord fight is one of the best fights scenes of the post-Silver Age, one of Spidey's greatest moment's ever, and probably DeFalco's finest hour. I don't care how much internal continuity it violates -- Firelord's uber-invulnerability be damned! -- it is AWESOME. And hell, maybe we can take the fact that a guy who can dive into suns shouldn't have been even scratched by Spidey's onslaught as less a knock on Firelord's weakness and more a commentary on what Spidey can REALLY do when the chips are down. Agreed. Note that all my captions for those posters are overwhelmingly positive. Also, anyone know where/if it's every been traded? |
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on Jul 15, 2010 19:04:39 GMT -8
Oh, yeah, my pre-emptive defense of the issue was more aimed at the considerably large "Spidey could NEVER beat Firelord!" contingent than at you  . Never been collected, as far as I know. |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jul 15, 2010 22:15:59 GMT -8
Let's face it, "The Dark Knight" proved that yes, you could actually pull off the actual Gwen Stacy story without losing the audience. The reaction might've been different if Rachel hadn't been such a non-entity anyway. As it was, I pretty much thought, "Cool, more screen time for the characters I actually give a shit about!" Seconded. It's a mark of how terrible Rachel's character was that, not only did I EXPECT her fridging, but I was IMPATIENT for it to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Jul 15, 2010 22:19:38 GMT -8
Eh, at the rate things are going, it might be their only option. The problem being that, as BND proves, Marvel would rather suck and fail than do even the EASY things that could win them back sales anymore. Of course, this is what you get when Joe Quesada tells interviewers that his PRIMARY GOAL in running Marvel is to PISS OFF his own audience. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Jul 16, 2010 19:51:25 GMT -8
Comparing "Blackest Night" (which conceptually sucked and was nothing more than a pointless blowjob for Hal Jordan, WHO DID NOTHING OF VALUE IN THE ENTIRE STORY, but sold well) vs. the Thanos Imperative (in which...just goddamn so far) pacioccosmind.blogspot.com/2010/07/life-and-death-in-comics.htmlIt's interesting to compare and contrast the current "Thanos Imperative" at Marvel with the recent "Blackest Night", DC's best crossover in years. Both are big cosmic sagas focusing on either new characters or lesser stars of their respective universes. Both deal with the concepts of Life and Death played out on a grand scale, with symbolic avatars existing and playing big chess games with one another. Most importantly, both are the result of years of planning and detailed world and character building under a few trusted hands. The differences however, are very interesting First, "Thanos Imperative" is an isolated single miniseries (they actually "cancelled" the tie-in series in order to concentrate the effects!) whereas "Blackest Night" was a huge sprawling crossover that intruded on every character and corner of the DC Universe. Partly this is because "Blackest Night" concentrated the events on Earth and made Earth effectively (and literally, despite all known science and logic) the Center of the Universe. Marvel, on the other hand, tends to treat Earth as a dangerous backwater - an interstellar No-Man's Land where the natives are territorial, hostile, but isolated and self-involved and unaware of the greater dangers of the universe. DC holds humanity as a scared and precious thing; Marvel holds it as a minor danger beset in a cosmos full of greater ones. The larger difference in cosmology is that of the value of life and death - in DC, Death (at least Nekron) was viewed as an absolute evil - something to be vanquished, whereas in Marvel, Death is viewed as part of the balance - a necessary evil that has to be respected lest the results create horrors beyond imagination. Eternal life for all is not seen as great triumph but a danger all it's own - as dangerous as Death. Two more diametrically opposed worldviews I'd find difficult to imagine. And finally, there's scope, at least in the context of marketplace - the Thanos Imperative is a small crossover that takes place off earth and doesn't involve any real "big name" characters, whereas "Blackest Night" was DC's big summer event that DC promoted for over two years. I'm not going to make value judgements here (I leave that to you in the comments) but it's startling to see two different events that focus on the same subject matter take such divergent routes. I wonder what that says about the comics marketplace, and the distinct differences between the two corporate supercomics companies. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Jul 16, 2010 22:57:00 GMT -8
in Marvel, Death is viewed as part of the balance - a necessary evil that has to be respected lest the results create horrors beyond imagination. I disagree. When a character dies in a Marvel comic, you know they'll be back. Death in Marvel comics is a temporary inconvenience, perhapy slightly more irritating than having a cold. |
|
|
|
Post by paulpogue on Jul 17, 2010 8:57:41 GMT -8
My favorite bit about the "Overreach" image is that it's arguable which one has actually bitten off more than they can chew . |
|
.