Writing Characters out of...character

[kguillou]

So i was reading some articles on newsarama and I came across this one about how writers can sometimes write established characters out of well...character. There's an interesting quote from Matt Fraction in there that says: I just did an interview on Fear Itself #5, and it’s gone from having questions to being told, now, that Thor wouldn’t say “ass.” Thor isn’t real. My Thor doesn’t talk like Stan [Lee]‘s Thor and his Thor didn’t talk like [J. Michael Straczynzki]‘s Thor, and his Thor didn’t talk like Walter [Simonson]‘s Thor. Everybody’s Thor talks differently. Also, being told that Spider-Man wouldn’t leave. Spider-Man, who has single-handedly kept the costume-shaped trash can industry afloat in the Marvel Universe. Spider-Man, who has quit numerous times. I’ve been accused of misspelling the name of a character I made up. I made it up; I can spell it however I want to. I can spell Odin with a “U” if I want to.

On the one hand I understand where he's coming from, yet on the other hand i strongly disagree. Its interesting hearing this from Fraction because (and TheCorpulent can attest to this), I've been HATING how he's been writing Thor lately. He just makes Thor sound...wrong and its been tugging on my nerves. And usually i dont get uptight whenever a writer takes some creative liberties with a character. I mean JMS' Thor was wildly different from say, Walt Simonson's but somehow it just...worked. Fraction's doesn't. Sometimes revamping a character and changing them a little does wonders for them but i also think sometimes it just comes off as disrespectful and off-putting.

I dunno, what do you guys think? Should writers be able to write characters however the f*** they want or is Fraction out of line here?

[Dread]

There are usually two sets of writers in big two mega-universe comics. Ones who see the long time traditions and backstories as something to uphold, and those who see it as something in their way or worth ignoring because they're more important. Maybe I am generalizing, but a lot of writers seem to fall between one of those camps. Fraction is apparently in the latter one.

I have a solution for writers who don't want to be bothered to write long term characters in character - stop working on them. Go make your own creator owned comics. That's why I have some respect for Robert Kirkman, because he's done just that. Sure, Marvel's paychecks likely kept him well fed before THE WALKING DEAD was a household name, but now that it is, he's creator owned only. Fine.

By this logic, if I wanted to make James Bond a teenage surfer with tattoos and body piercings who says "dude" and "man" a lot, I bloody well can because **** it, everyone's Bond is totally different.

I think Fraction is just saying what some writers may be too humble or shy to admit in an interview. Bendis used to get equally testy when confronted about these things, and Joe Q too.

The idea that characters who were created by others who exist in pop culture for decades or even generations don't have set personality traits that define who they are to the point that they shouldn't be changed on a whim is lunacy. Sherlock Holmes has long been a public domain character; he has been written by hundreds if not thousands of writers since Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Yet we all know when Holmes is being written poorly, or when he does something that isn't in character. You could say the same of Robin Hood, or even Dracula to an extent. They all have set traits that remain.

The idea that a writer doesn't have to pay attention to details like the spelling of a character's name they created is also lunacy. It seems lazy when you rant about not caring about that sort of thing. Again, sometimes Kirkman screws up with that in INVINCIBLE (such as forgetting to name a character on panel), and usually hones up to it in his letter column. Or at least he used to. Marvel used to offer No-Prizes and laugh about those sorts of hiccups. Now everyone is so stuck up and pretentious. "Of course I'm wearing clothes! It's your eyes that can't see them!"

Spider-Man quitting in FEAR ITSELF #5 wasn't the worst - it was Steve Rogers. If anyone is defined by not quitting, it's him. He didn't quit when Kang blew up D.C. and the UN and enslaved the world. He didn't quit when facing omnipotent demi-gods like Korvac or Thanos with the Infinity Gauntlet. Is the Serpent really worse then all that? No. He's just a ****ing WORLD OF WARCRAFT boss in the wrong universe. There, I ****ing said it.

[El Bastardo]

I think it depends a lot on what we're talking about - writing characters as out of character does not come down to using a word they might not have been written as using in prior years. Language changes, what people say changes, and what is acceptable changes. It might move forward, it might regress.

I have no problems with Thor uttering the word "ass." It might be more acceptable in a cliche way had he said "arse," but whatever. It's a word. A single word does not make a character written out of character, save for extreme circumstances. That said, has Fraction written Thor out of character? I don't know. I haven't read many Thor comics, so I can't answer that.

Writing an established character out of character is more about ways of speech, the conveyed tone of speech, and things like that. Cyclops is established to have a different speech pattern than, say, Wolverine. When that difference blurs, and Cyclops starts speaking to, say, Gambit in a way that makes it sound like Cyclops is actually Wolverine, in a point one X-Men issue written by, say, a guy whose last name might be Gischler, that's when it's a case for characters being written out of character.

Fraction was a little overboard in the rest of the quote, though. I'll chalk it up to him being facetious.

[kguillou]

I definitely agree. I also think there's a fine line between tweaking a character and flat uncharacteristic them. For example, Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-men, the way he wrote Cyclops in that book was pretty damn different from how he used to be portrayed. But it was good, people responded well to it because it seemed like a natural progression of the character. (The way he's been portrayed lately in the X-books is another discussion entirely). Or look at what Waid's doing with DD. Murdock seems like a brand new person the way Waid's writing him, but its good and its believable that he'd act that way. It's when characters all of a sudden just brashly change and say and do things they never would have, thats when things go wrong.

[venom892]

Characters are always going to progress and change.But it should be a natural progression.These days I see a lot of on the fly changes and we're just suppose to go with them.There are some things that a character would never do.

[runawayboulder]

Wow, Fraction is being a total jerk-off there. He must be lurking on some of these forums and not liking what folks are saying......

[kguillou]

When do writers EVER like what the forums are saying? lol

[runawayboulder]

Can you post a link for the article? I want to read it and process it myself. I feel like Fraction is saying to the reader go f-yourself. If that's the case I'm dropping anything he writes. Screw him....

[Gamma Ra]

I haven't been reading Fraction's Thor or much of anything but Hulk until last month. I was planning on picking up Thor and JIM, but it's views like this from a writer that leaves me with doubts about their abilities. I look at comic books as long standing series. I have no problems with characters changing and growing if done smoothly within a series of events. But to have a character act unlike himself for the sake of "because I can" is the height of disrespect.

All writers, I'm sure aspire to become successful and to get that big gig. Suppose Fraction gets asked to write a Star Wars live action drama with the original characters and his 3PO comes off like a thug instead of a pompous bossy prissy to R2. Or his Darth Vader comes off silly and goofy instead of as a poised threat. This is where I think some comic book creators fail to see the logic in fans arguments about bad continuity and think we are just being irrational complainers.

If a major change is going to take place in a character's personality without explanation, then at least DC reboot the whole damn thing.

[Dread]

I definitely agree. I also think there's a fine line between tweaking a character and flat uncharacteristic them. For example, Joss Whedon's Astonishing X-men, the way he wrote Cyclops in that book was pretty damn different from how he used to be portrayed. But it was good, people responded well to it because it seemed like a natural progression of the character. (The way he's been portrayed lately in the X-books is another discussion entirely). Or look at what Waid's doing with DD. Murdock seems like a brand new person the way Waid's writing him, but its good and its believable that he'd act that way. It's when characters all of a sudden just brashly change and say and do things they never would have, thats when things go wrong.

For the record, I didn't always care for how Whedon wrote Cyclops all the time. Too often I thought he merely wrote him as one of his "eccentric, pithy dialogue leaders" like Mal from "FIREFLY". But of course his Kitty acted like Buffy all the time, so...

And I STILL contest that the idea that you can overcome psychic illusions merely by shooting them with a handgun is one of the stupidest things any writer has written in mainstream comics. By that logic, Punisher is immune to any psychic manipulation.

But what makes Waid's take on Murdock work in DAREDEVIL is he HASN'T forgotten Murdock's past. He acknowledges that this is a 180 degree shift from how Murdock has acted for the past decade or longer, and explains why this has happened, in story with Murdock in character. And not all of his supporting cast are used to it yet, either. That's why it works.

Not merely having Murdock act different and going, "**** the fans, yo, I'm a big shot". :p

[runawayboulder]

But what makes Waid's take on Murdock work in DAREDEVIL is he HASN'T forgotten Murdock's past. He acknowledges that this is a 180 degree shift from how Murdock has acted for the past decade or longer, and explains why this has happened, in story with Murdock in character. And not all of his supporting cast are used to it yet, either. That's why it works.


It's honest storytelling and that's why the book made me feel all warm and fuzzy. Waid is good like that, so is Busiek.:yay:

[kguillou]

Can you post a link for the article? I want to read it and process it myself. I feel like Fraction is saying to the reader go f-yourself. If that's the case I'm dropping anything he writes. Screw him....

Here's the article: http://blog.newsarama.com/2011/09/07/can-writers-write-characters-out-of-character/

And here's the interview with Fraction with the quote: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/09/06/casanova-matt-fraction-avaritia/

[runawayboulder]

Thanks, I'm gonna check it out when I can.

[Iron_Stark]

Good for Fraction, after the Thor and Spider-Man writers made Iron Man into a villain in their respective comics during Civil War, I'm glad he made Spider-Man look like a little b**** in Fear Itself.

[runawayboulder]

That makes no sense on so many levels. Why would Fraction care how a character was treated before he became the writer? By that logic, every Spider-Man writer should s**t on Tony, Reed and Strange for their part in OMIT.

Also, there was no Thor writer during Civil War because THERE WAS NO THOR COMIC. JMS was writing ASM during Civil War and is no longer with Marvel. Millar is not a Spider-Man writer, he did 12 lousy issues of MK Spider-Man that was halfway decent and not memorable at all. So Fraction is spiting JMS, a full time Ultimate writer and a complete ghost. Whatever you say buddy......:facepalm:

[DACrowe]

A writer has creative license to do what he wants. I give more leeway to those who actually adapt or reinterpret something. For example I'm more lenient on how let's say Christopher Nolan or Sam Raimi choose to adapt a character (usually rooted in what was popular in pop culture decades earlier) into another medium. Similarly, I want to see Neil Gaiman push his interpretation or reinterpretation of the Marvel Universe in 1602 as far as he can. If you're going to do an "Ultimate" alternate universe, creating a (quality) different and unique vision of the characters is to be commended.

However, if you're actually attempting to continue a character with decades of development and backstory....well first good luck coming up with something unique, original and interesting (which is unfortunately why formulas are so often recycled in comics). Secondly, if you make a character behave arbitrarily to achieve a plot point it will feel arbitrary. It goes back to that famous line, "What's the motivation?" If I can find something irrational or untrue about how a character behaves in a finite plot in a book I read, a play I see or a film I watched....you better bet it's going to be 20x more apparent in a character who has been written about infinitely.

Best example: Peter Parker selling his soul....err marriage to save Aunt May will never ever....ever make any sense or feel authentic. It felt like an arbitrary plot device--and an awful one at that--to achieve a narrative goal by the editorial board....to make Peter Parker single without having to cause him to go through divorce or being a widower. But Peter Parker would never make that decision given it is so unlike anything he's done in the last 40 years, not to mention his relationship with MJ in the last 20 years of comics. Another is Peter Parker unmasking himself in Civil War. It will never make sense for a character who wore the mask to protect his loved ones and saw what happened when a few enemies (Norman Osborn and Eddie Brock) found out who he was...Gwen Stacy dead, his Aunt May kidnapped and "killed," Flash Thompson in a coma, the loss of countless apartments and most of all the disappearance of his daughter (who btw no longer exists because editorial decided that ages him too much as well). He would never take his mask off on national television.

You can say that Stan Lee's, Gerry Conaway's, Roger Stern's, DeMatthis's, etc.'s Peters wouldn't, but JMS and Mark Millar's Peters would. However, if you read they're earlier stories from a few years prior to those events, you'd see they wrote him in line with earlier interpretations and not the idiot and tool he became.

Bad writing is bad writing. You can say "this is my version!" but if the writing stinks because it feels arbitrary, don't whine when the critics get their knives out in some cases.

[Iron_Stark]

That makes no sense on so many levels. Why would Fraction care how a character was treated before he became the writer? By that logic, every Spider-Man writer should s**t on Tony, Reed and Strange for their part in OMIT.

Also, there was no Thor writer during Civil War because THERE WAS NO THOR COMIC. JMS was writing ASM during Civil War and is no longer with Marvel. Millar is not a Spider-Man writer, he did 12 lousy issues of MK Spider-Man that was halfway decent and not memorable at all. So Fraction is spiting JMS, a full time Ultimate writer and a complete ghost. Whatever you say buddy......:facepalm:

I never said he cared, I just said it's good that he made SM look like a pussy in that issue.

I don't know anything about OMIT, I just know that some Spider-Man writer took a dump on Iron Man leading up to and during the whole CW nonsense. Making deals with Titanium Man, telling Parker 52 is not temporary, when in another book he said it was, and other BS he did when he was guest staring in those issues.

I meant when Thor returned, in the issue when Iron Man got his ass kicked by Thor, Iron Man was made to look like a bully and thug by JMS.

[moraldeficiency]

Well I mean, thor would completely kick iron man's ass. And tony was a complete douche in civil war in many many books not just ASM and Thor. His dickishness was one of the driving force behind civil war.

[runawayboulder]

I don't know anything about OMIT, I just know that some Spider-Man writer took a dump on Iron Man leading up to and during the whole CW nonsense. Making deals with Titanium Man, telling Parker 52 is not temporary, when in another book he said it was, and other BS he did when he was guest staring in those issues.

OMIT was the skinny on what Mephisto did - he turned into a bird freed a criminal (random henchman of Electro) that caused Pete to miss the wedding. The event set off a chain reaction that led back to the unmasking as we know it and the same guy was hired by the Kingpin to kill MJ. Strange, Tony and Reed all came together with a plan to put Pete in a protective spell bubble so anything inside the bubble would remember and anything outside would forget about the unmasking and other stuff. At the last second, Pete pulled an unconscious MJ into the bubble because he was afraid of being alone with this. She was upset when she found out and left NYC. It was apparently the same procedure Strange, Tony and Reed used with The Sentry to explain why no one remembered him.

I meant when Thor returned, in the issue when Iron Man got his ass kicked by Thor, Iron Man was made to look like a bully and thug by JMS.Well I mean, thor would completely kick iron man's ass. And tony was a complete douche in civil war in many many books not just ASM and Thor. His dickishness was one of the driving force behind civil war.

^^^THIS^^^:up:

[The Morningstar]

Stark created a clone of his so called friend Thor. Thor had every right to beat the living **** out of him. Simple as.

But then, I don't really pay much attention to Civil War. It is probably the greatest example of writing characters out of character just to fit the story. Instead of writing a story to fit the characters or at least showing some natural changes/development with the characters.

[Franklin Richards]

If you write Doom like Joker, you've failed. Don't make excuses.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[DACrowe]

I never said he cared, I just said it's good that he made SM look like a pussy in that issue.

I don't know anything about OMIT, I just know that some Spider-Man writer took a dump on Iron Man leading up to and during the whole CW nonsense. Making deals with Titanium Man, telling Parker 52 is not temporary, when in another book he said it was, and other BS he did when he was guest staring in those issues.

I meant when Thor returned, in the issue when Iron Man got his ass kicked by Thor, Iron Man was made to look like a bully and thug by JMS.

Iron Man was the villain of the entire Civil War saga. He was a very thinly veiled caricature of the Bush Administration and neocons in general. Whether he said 52 was temporary or not, he was still suspending due process and the justice system to hold people he personally deems as bad indefinitely...a disgrace to the Constitution. The entire Civil War saga made Tony the bad guy and Cap the good guy. I don't think Spidey came out any better because first he was the unbelievably naive puppet of Tony (unmasking) and then OMD.

That also doesn't make bad writing now better in anyway.

[TheCorpulent1]

What's 52? The Negative Zone prison? That was 42.

But yeah, Millar claimed he was going for an even-handed approach to both sides of the conflict, which just makes me laugh and wonder how the guy ever made it as a writer. Based on the actions of each, Iron Man totally came off as the villain and Cap totally came off as the hero in Civil War. The pro-reg side clearly came off as the wrongheaded bullies who wanted to use fear as an excuse to trample over civil rights, even if it meant arbitrarily penalizing plenty of decent heroes who just wanted to help. The anti-reg side came off as saints by comparison (their acceptance of the Punisher notwithstanding), right down to Cap surrendering in order to spare the civilians they were meant to protect anymore fallout from the heroes' personal squabble.

As for Fraction's deal with Thor, it's not that he has Thor say "ass." Thor can say whatever he damn well pleases, and as a viking god you'd kind of expect some coarse language from him from time to time. But that's only a small part of the character. The guy grew up at court and his speech has always reflected that with very regal, eloquent patterns. So no, one word hasn't made Fraction's Thor seem like a grunting thug; the total abandonment of the aforementioned eloquence entirely in favor of stuff like calling the Silver Surfer a "silver bastard" repeatedly or throwing hissy fits whenever someone offers him advice or just yelling or grunting or cursing has.

JMS' Thor wasn't Simonson's Thor or Lee's Thor, but they all shared a lot of commonalities. Having read all three at great length, I could easily recognize overtones of each in all the others. Fraction's comes off like a totally different character--a specific character, in fact: this is the young, earlier, arrogant, and fairly stupid Thor shown in previous Ragnarok cycles, especially the ones Fraction himself wrote about in Ages of Thunder. He fails to grasp that while that was a great characterization for a Thor who still desperately needed his infamous lesson in humility, it simply doesn't fit the modern-day Thor whose entire f***ing personality is based on the fact that he received and understood said lesson in humility. The line between artistic license in interpreting an established character your own way and writing him or her totally out of character is vague, granted; but I think we can all agree that neglecting to recognize literally the primary formative factor in Thor's modern personality and mannerisms--his lesson in humility as a crippled human--probably lands you on the latter side of that line.

[runawayboulder]

So I finally was able to read the interview with Fraction. First, the writer is totally pro-Fraction. The conversation about criticisms from readers was plopped right in the middle of the interview about Casanova. The interview went right off the tracks then back on as if there was more to Fraction's views and there may have been more of a rant involved. The interviewer seemed to agree with Fraction thus sliding it into the middle of their printed conversation. I could be wrong but that's my vibe.

Anyway, before the quote kguillou posted, there was another paragraph that helps make things more clearly:

The first part is Fraction referring to a previous question about Casanova.....MF: Theoretically. Theoretically, everybody's going to die. We even changed it from the version you've seen so it's even more ambiguous now. But my argument would be that there are these characters, and if they live, then surely they will all die. I love that the producers of Sesame Street had to come out and remind everybody that Bert and Ernie are puppets. And they don't really have sex lives, because they're puppets. You know why warp nacelles can't really go the speed of light? [whispers] Because they're not real.

CA: One of the sentiments that bothers me the most on comic book forums and in comments --

MF: You and I have gotten into this before, but those add nothing of value, except to remind you how repugnant humans are when given anonymity. Make people have to enter in their real name, home address and credit card number, and the quality of comments will increase 800%. Watch how much better your life gets. And listen, Marvel's just come through a heart-breaking couple of weeks. Victorious and heart-breaking at the same time. For every amazing, wonderful response about [new half-black, half-Hispanic Ultimate Spider-Man] Miles Morales (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/08/02/new-ultimate-spider-man-miles-morales/), you get one saying "dear [racial slur]-lovers, die." I just don't understand. It's this collision of racism and continuity obsessives. "It's not the real Spider-Man!"

CA: Yeah, that's what I was going to say. I hate this sentiment that somehow people think characters exist without conscious intent of a creator, which I think was best exemplified by that guy who was convinced that Nightrunner (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/03/02/batman-the-daily-show-and-the-fall-of-western-civilization/) was somehow going to be a secret terrorist because he's Muslim. He can't have secrets. Secrets from whom? From the editors? From the people who write him? He's a character; he can't have secrets.

MF: I just did an interview on Fear Itself #5, and it's gone from having questions to being told, now, that Thor wouldn't say "ass." Thor isn't real. My Thor doesn't talk like Stan [Lee]'s Thor and his Thor didn't talk like [J. Michael Straczynzki]'s Thor, and his Thor didn't talk like Walter [Simonson]'s Thor. Everybody's Thor talks differently. Also, being told that Spider-Man wouldn't leave. Spider-Man, who has single-handedly kept the costume-shaped trash can industry afloat in the Marvel Universe. Spider-Man, who has quit numerous times. I've been accused of misspelling the name of a character I made up. I made it up; I can spell it however I want to. I can spell Odin with a "U" if I want to. Bert and Ernie are puppets. One of my favorite parts of Supergods (http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/07/25/supergods-grant-morrison-review/) was that whole thing about how [super-heroes] are legendary. Nobody really lives and nobody really dies. It's all make-believe; it's all stories. And it is. The past is the future, the past is the future. It's time travel.

[B]CA: So is your frustration with commenters --

MF: It's the heartbreak of... The worst thing you can ever do to a cynic is prove him right. Cynics are really just secret romantics that don't want to get hurt again. I don't know how you do [comment moderation]. I literally don't know how you do it.

I do agree with Fraction about internet anonymity and how it's easy to type nasty comments when no one knows who you are, it sickens me too sometimes. I try to keep myself in check and most quality forums like SHH have moderators to keep people in line. But he's being a bit nasty in return to all the fans and unfairly include some of them that aren't like the rest.

It reminds me of the incident with Dan Slott not too long ago, where (on another board) he told a guy f**k you. Dan needed to have a thicker skin in that situation as does Fraction needs to have here. It's a process somewhat, back in the 80's, writers didn't have to worry about the internet where any joe-blow has his say. Thee only time they heards the fans voices were at conventions in a face to face controlled environment and through fan mail that was and still is heavily filtered by assistant editors. The internet has been prevalent in households for 15 yrs now. Someday soon hopefully writers will be more adapt to handling criticism from the anonymous/faceless critics that call themselves "sooperThorfan09" and take some of this stuff with a grain of salt.


At the end of it all, I never really was a huge fan of Fraction's work. I liked most of Invincible Iron Man and about 35% of his Uncanny stuff. I always heard Fraction's Casanova was terrific, I never read it but I'll take most folks word for it. But this......this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The only thing I read of Fraction's was The Mighty Thor and it's decent in my eyes, I think I'm going to drop it.

[kguillou]

My introduction to Fraction was that beautiful one-shot he wrote about Peter and Mary Jane right before One More Day tore them apart. I mean, that comic REALLY touched me, it captured Peter and MJ's love for each other perfectly. And then he did Invincible Ironman which i thought was great (albeit a little long). But his Thor just.isn't. right. He has no charm, no humility, and where the heck is Donald Blake?

[StreetWarrior]

Fraction can be quite the d-bag. His Punisher (from WarJournal) was horribly out of character. It's kind of sad how the major Marvel writers feel that they can ignore everyone else's work. First Bendis, now Fraction.

Does anyone (besides Slott and Gage) respect continuity/characterizations?

[runawayboulder]

Waid, Gillen, Parker.

[StreetWarrior]

Waid, Gillen, Parker.

Well, then my hat is off to them. Maybe some other writers cough*bendismillerfraction*cough should take notes.

[TheCorpulent1]

The "they're not real" argument is silly. Everyone knows they're not real. Everyone also knows about this thing called internal consistency. A fictional universe that is potentially going to go on forever kind of hinges on it. Otherwise, you might as well just change the names of every character whenever someone new starts writing.

[StreetWarrior]

It all comes down to ego and laziness. Both are traits that should be looked down upon.

[runawayboulder]

The "they're not real" argument is silly. Everyone knows they're not real. Everyone also knows about this thing called internal consistency. A fictional universe that is potentially going to go on forever kind of hinges on it. Otherwise, you might as well just change the names of every character whenever someone new starts writing.

So I guess Fraction is saying we shouldn't care or fans are way too serious? Maybe we should all be less passionate about the characters? Maybe we should stop buying his books and lining his frigging pockets?

What a jerk.

[The Question]

How hard is is to write Thor in character? He's fairly distinct.

[TheCorpulent1]

Verily.

(A word I don't think Fraction has ever had Thor use, coincidentally.)

[runawayboulder]

Or "thou"....

[TheCorpulent1]

Well, that one's fair. Neither JMS nor Simonson nor even Lee had Thor say "thou" all that often. That was more Stern, Wein, Jurgens, and the Avengers writers.

[runawayboulder]

I remember the preview for Invincible Iron Man #500 and Thor was in a scene. I said at the time Thor's dialogue was rough and this was gonna be an issue.

[The Question]

Well, that one's fair. Neither JMS nor Simonson nor even Lee had Thor say "thou" all that often. That was more Stern, Wein, Jurgens, and the Avengers writers.

Honestly, I don't think the old timey shakespear talk is all that necessary for Thor. It's just as anachronistic for a Viking from the dark ages to talk like that as it is for him to speak modern english. But there is a certain meter and tone to his speech that should remain pretty consistent.

[Franklin Richards]

Thor's most famous line has "thee" in it. Don't look down on the Shakespeare Speak.



:thor: :thor: :thor:

[The Question]

Thor's most famous line has "thee" in it. Don't look down on the Shakespeare Speak.



:thor: :thor: :thor:

True, but that's because of the awesome context. You would have worked just fine there. All I'm saying.

[TheCorpulent1]

I'd be more in favor of it if more writers knew how to use it correctly.

[Franklin Richards]

True, but that's because of the awesome context. You would have worked just fine there. All I'm saying.

No.


"We would have words with you." sounds like something Cindy Brady might say to Alice.


"We would have words with thee." sounds Biblical.


:thor: :thor: :thor:

[The Question]

No.


"We would have words with you." sounds like something Cindy Brady might say to Alice.


"We would have words with thee." sounds Biblical.


:thor: :thor: :thor:

I don't see the difference.

Or how "We would have words with you" sounds anything like XCiny Brady. :huh:

[WildcatNC]

If you write Doom like Joker, you've failed. Don't make excuses.


:doom: :doom: :doom:


Did this actually happen???? :dry:

[The Morningstar]

Well Bendis had Doom call Ms Marvel a fat cow once.

Whereas if Doom was written correctly he'd call her something like "gluttonous wench".

I've been saying it for a while, but Marvels "architects", Bendis and Fraction (Brubaker isn't bad) are their worst mainstream writers, ironically. Bendis and Fraction simply don't have a thing on the likes of Parker, Waid, Gillen, Remender and plenty of others.

When Bendis and Fraction first started out they got it. They were hungry, they were great. But it seems now that they have risen to the top, they've rested on their laurels. They don't give a **** anymore, to be frank.

[El Bastardo]

I don't see the difference.

Or how "We would have words with you" sounds anything like XCiny Brady. :huh:
There isn't one, and it doesn't.

[Franklin Richards]

If you don't see it then I can't show it to you. Sounds like you're just being contrary because it doesn't fit with your agenda.


There is an obvious difference.


:thor: :thor: :thor:

[The Morningstar]

"Ultron, we would have words with thee!"

Is an iconic comic book line.

"Ultron, we would have words with you!"

Just isn't the same. That line would never become iconic.

Neither would "you're a pain in the ass" for that matter. God, Fraction sucks so much at writing Thor.

[kguillou]

Well Bendis had Doom call Ms Marvel a fat cow once.

Whereas if Doom was written correctly he'd call her something like "gluttonous wench".

I've been saying it for a while, but Marvels "architects", Bendis and Fraction (Brubaker isn't bad) are their worst mainstream writers, ironically. Bendis and Fraction simply don't have a thing on the likes of Parker, Waid, Gillen, Remender and plenty of others.

When Bendis and Fraction first started out they got it. They were hungry, they were great. But it seems now that they have risen to the top, they've rested on their laurels. They don't give a **** anymore, to be frank.

Brubaker isn't innocent either. Speaking of out of character, he almost single handedly destroyed Prof. X's character in X-men: Deadly Genesis. To this day i am baffled as to how he wrote such an atrocious story.

[The Question]

If you don't see it then I can't show it to you. Sounds like you're just being contrary because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

That's very rude.

There is an obvious difference.

If you can't show it to me then maybe it's not as obvious as you think.

"Ultron, we would have words with thee!"

Is an iconic comic book line.

"Ultron, we would have words with you!"

Just isn't the same. That line would never become iconic.

Why not? I just don't see why both versions don't have the same iconic potential.

Besides, the line itself isn't anything special. I mean, the "thee" makes it distinctively Thor-ish, but it's the context of a beaten and bloody Thor fighting his way through hundreds of Ultron drones to burst through a wall with a team of Avengers to deliver the line in a tone that's calm and intelligent and full of rage and hate that gives it it's punch.

[The Morningstar]

True, it is about the context. But it's like you say, the "thee" makes it distinct. It's pure Thor. If it was "you" it wouldn't be distinct or unique and thusly, iconic. It could have been anyone saying it.

[The Question]

True, it is about the context. But it's like you say, the "thee" makes it distinct. It's pure Thor. If it was "you" it wouldn't be distinct or unique and thusly, iconic. It could have been anyone saying it.

The tone and meter of the line is still very Thor-ish. And iconic doesn't necessary mean unique. It just means how well it sticks in people's minds. The context of the line is so awesome I think it would have stuck in people's minds regardless.

[The Morningstar]

I disagree. I don't think it would have stuck in peoples minds as much.

I mean, we could just mention it out of context on here, in like a favourite comic book quotes thread or whatever. And immediately people would say it's Thor. If it was "you" it could have been anyone saying it.

[The Question]

I disagree. I don't think it would have stuck in peoples minds as much.

I mean, we could just mention it out of context on here, in like a favourite comic book quotes thread or whatever. And immediately people would say it's Thor. If it was "you" it could have been anyone saying it.

But just being able to identify it's Thor isn't what makes it an iconic Thor line. It's the knowlege of the context that does that. If someone who never heard of that Avengers issue saw the line but it said "You," they'd say "so what, what's that?" If someone saw it with the "thee," without the context, they'd say "Wait, is that from Thor or something? So what?"

But everyone who is aware of the context has pretty much agreed that is the iconic Thor line, not because there is a thee in it but because it captures Thor's nature of a calm, intelligent warrior full or righteous fury and it's in the context of the coolest thing Thor did during Busiek's run on Avengers.

[WildcatNC]

^ Your both right IMO. "Thee" makes it uniquely Thor and plays into why its so iconic, yet all the other reasons are just as important.

[moraldeficiency]

Thee and Thou have their moments. For example in civil war 7 Herc crushing Clor's head with his own hammer screaming "Thou art no Thor!" was probably the best part of civil war and just wouldn't have had the coolness subbing you for thou

[The Question]

Thee and Thou have their moments. For example in civil war 7 Herc crushing Clor's head with his own hammer screaming "Thou art no Thor!" was probably the best part of civil war and just wouldn't have had the coolness subbing you for thou

Honestly, I thought him saying "Thou" there made the line kind of clunky.

[Captain Useless]

"Imma smack you with my hammer, yo"

[moraldeficiency]

Honestly, I thought him saying "Thou" there made the line kind of clunky.

I thought of it as a tribute line, him speaking like thor and such.

[El Bastardo]

Honestly, I thought him saying "Thou" there made the line kind of clunky.
Yes, it did.

I don't remember. Have Pak and van Lente used plenty of olde speak like that in their Hercules run? It's not present in Herc, but was it present in Incredible Herc?

[TheCorpulent1]

No, it wasn't. Not even the other gods used "thee" and "thou." I think Herc actually made fun of Thor for still speaking like that in the "Thorcules" arc, in fact.

[Iron_Stark]

Iron Man was the villain of the entire Civil War saga. He was a very thinly veiled caricature of the Bush Administration and neocons in general. Whether he said 52 was temporary or not, he was still suspending due process and the justice system to hold people he personally deems as bad indefinitely...a disgrace to the Constitution. The entire Civil War saga made Tony the bad guy and Cap the good guy. I don't think Spidey came out any better because first he was the unbelievably naive puppet of Tony (unmasking) and then OMD.

That also doesn't make bad writing now better in anyway.

What I was trying to say is every writer took a dump on Iron Man before, during and after Civil War and the end result was people who knew squat about Iron Man or never picked up a comic screamed bloody murder and wanted his head on a platter.

NOW, a writer is taking a dump on certain fan favorite charaters and rather than blaming the character, they want to blame the writer.

:whatever::whatever::whatever:

[Kitsune]

"imma smack you with my hammer, yo"

"hammer time"

[slim_summers]

A writer has creative license to do what he wants. I give more leeway to those who actually adapt or reinterpret something. For example I'm more lenient on how let's say Christopher Nolan or Sam Raimi choose to adapt a character (usually rooted in what was popular in pop culture decades earlier) into another medium. Similarly, I want to see Neil Gaiman push his interpretation or reinterpretation of the Marvel Universe in 1602 as far as he can. If you're going to do an "Ultimate" alternate universe, creating a (quality) different and unique vision of the characters is to be commended.

However, if you're actually attempting to continue a character with decades of development and backstory....well first good luck coming up with something unique, original and interesting (which is unfortunately why formulas are so often recycled in comics). Secondly, if you make a character behave arbitrarily to achieve a plot point it will feel arbitrary. It goes back to that famous line, "What's the motivation?" If I can find something irrational or untrue about how a character behaves in a finite plot in a book I read, a play I see or a film I watched....you better bet it's going to be 20x more apparent in a character who has been written about infinitely.

Best example: Peter Parker selling his soul....err marriage to save Aunt May will never ever....ever make any sense or feel authentic. It felt like an arbitrary plot device--and an awful one at that--to achieve a narrative goal by the editorial board....to make Peter Parker single without having to cause him to go through divorce or being a widower. But Peter Parker would never make that decision given it is so unlike anything he's done in the last 40 years, not to mention his relationship with MJ in the last 20 years of comics. Another is Peter Parker unmasking himself in Civil War. It will never make sense for a character who wore the mask to protect his loved ones and saw what happened when a few enemies (Norman Osborn and Eddie Brock) found out who he was...Gwen Stacy dead, his Aunt May kidnapped and "killed," Flash Thompson in a coma, the loss of countless apartments and most of all the disappearance of his daughter (who btw no longer exists because editorial decided that ages him too much as well). He would never take his mask off on national television.

You can say that Stan Lee's, Gerry Conaway's, Roger Stern's, DeMatthis's, etc.'s Peters wouldn't, but JMS and Mark Millar's Peters would. However, if you read they're earlier stories from a few years prior to those events, you'd see they wrote him in line with earlier interpretations and not the idiot and tool he became.

Bad writing is bad writing. You can say "this is my version!" but if the writing stinks because it feels arbitrary, don't whine when the critics get their knives out in some cases.

Well said.

I find it more than a little depressing personally - three of my favourite heroes are Cyclops, Spidey and Iron-Man, all of whom seem to have had personality/motivation transplants in recent years. I get that it's incredibly difficult to come up with fresh new ideas after 50 years, and you need to strike a balance between character progression and tradition, but I never wanted to see Cyke throw away his ideals, Spidey throw away his marriage/memory/credibility etc or Tony clone Thor/play the villain.