Brian Bendis Illuminates The Illuminati

[Kotagg]

I'm sorry Darth, but we're simply not going to come to an agreement here. You're ignoring the definition of fantastic elements, and logic itself.

I'd advise you to read "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy," by Orson Scott Card, or some other collection as such, that illuminates how laws of physics and suspension of real-world facts work.

And Doc Destruction, I think you're very wrong in that quote. The most intelligent people in the world can still be affected by the heaviest cases of bias - actually, we're a little more susceptible than others, because we're confident enough to hold our opinions very highly in our own minds.

That said, not everyone hates change. Don't let my earlier statements seem like I stereotype all comics fans together. However, I think I've seen a large majority who would be just fine having the characters and elements stay the same forever.

I'm on the other wing, by far. I think that the characters that have been around since the 50's should thus be in their 70's by now, and newer heroes should have taken their places.

 

[Darthphere]

I'm sorry Darth, but we're simply not going to come to an agreement here. You're ignoring the definition of fantastic elements, and logic itself.

I'd advise you to read "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy," by Orson Scott Card, or some other collection as such, that illuminates how laws of physics and suspension of real-world facts work.

Thats fine we wont agree, but please dont talk down to me. And I have read that book, its a good book. I know the things stated in that book and some even back up my arguments. In a fantasy setting, logic can be applied and taken out when necessary. Im not ignoring anything, I just believe its incorrect.

 

[Doc Destruction]

Whoever likened comic characters to the Simpsons...that was brilliantly accurate.

I want my Spider-Man to have trouble paying the bills and fight villains, thus making him late to dinner with Aunt May.

I want my Superman to fight for truth, justice and the American Way.

I want my Batman to be dark and brooding, forever the vigilante.

Now...if we want to see radical transformations of these characters, then do it in the Ultimate line, alternate universes, etc. That works SO well there, and people eat it up.

When you deviate radically from a concept, then it is no longer the concept. That's the best way to lose people who LOVE THE CONCEPT. "Jump the shark" mean anything to anyone?

 

[The_Mystery]

Whoever likened comic characters to the Simpsons...that was brilliantly accurate.

I want my Spider-Man to have trouble paying the bills and fight villains, thus making him late to dinner with Aunt May.

I want my Superman to fight for truth, justice and the American Way.

I want my Batman to be dark and brooding, forever the vigilante.

Now...if we want to see radical transformations of these characters, then do it in the Ultimate line, alternate universes, etc. That works SO well there, and people eat it up.

When you deviate radically from a concept, then it is no longer the concept. That's the best way to lose people who LOVE THE CONCEPT. "Jump the shark" mean anything to anyone?

Then when the characters get stale because there is no change, people will walk away and complain about the lack of character development. If you want your characters unchanging, read the Marvel Age kiddie books.

 

[Darthphere]

Then when the characters get stale because there is no change, people will walk away and complain about the lack of character development. If you want your characters unchanging, read the Marvel Age kiddie books.

What hes saying is radical changes like making Batman gay, or Superman grow an extra arm.

 

[DBM]

Then when the characters get stale because there is no change, people will walk away and complain about the lack of character development. If you want your characters unchanging, read the Marvel Age kiddie books.

Obviously you don't read the Marvel Age books. Some of them are substantially different and changing.

 

[The_Mystery]

What hes saying is radical changes like making Batman gay, or Superman grow an extra arm.

I'm not talking about idiotic change. Change like when JMS made the Green Goblin Gwen Stacey's baby's daddy is ridiculous and pure shock tactic. But change like the return of the Winter Solider or like Spider-man becoming a teacher are well written and long lasting and important changes. They add to the mythology of the character instead of being insignificant.

 

[Darthphere]

I'm not talking about idiotic change. Change like when JMS made the Green Goblin Gwen Stacey's baby's daddy is ridiculous and pure shock tactic. But change like the return of the Winter Solider or like Spider-man becoming a teacher are well written and long lasting and important changes. They add to the mythology of the character instead of being insignificant.

I was reffering to Doc in the first place.

 

[Doc Destruction]

I'm not talking about idiotic change. Change like when JMS made the Green Goblin Gwen Stacey's baby's daddy is ridiculous and pure shock tactic. But change like the return of the Winter Solider or like Spider-man becoming a teacher are well written and long lasting and important changes. They add to the mythology of the character instead of being insignificant.

Then we are talking about the same thing, man. You ARE on my side of the fence.

 

[The_Mystery]

Then we are talking about the same thing, man. You ARE on my side of the fence.

I can respect that.

 

[BrianWilly]

No, it is two different kinds of logic.

Good sci-fi/fantasy takes something that can't happen, changes reality so that it can, and writes about what happens next. But it proceeds in a logical fashion from that changed reality. "If A, then B."

Bad sci-fi/fantasy assumes that since what it's writing about isn't real, you can do any old darn thing and the readers won't notice, or if they do, they're just geeks so who cares. "If A, then... I dunno, L? Pick a letter."

That's where the old "write what you know" shtick comes in, to my mind. It's not that you have to have experienced what you're writing about-- for SF writers, that's quite impossible. It's that you have to know your situation-- know it so well that you understand automatically what WOULD happen if any of this WERE real.

Concepts can be outlandish. In the words of Emma Frost, "I turn into a diamond sometimes-- are we really going to discuss what's possible?" That's fair enough.

But LOGIC has to remain. Emma didn't say "I turn into a diamond sometimes, therefore we can also assume the moon is made of Jell-O."

Having rambled for so long, I do agree with the idea that it would probably have been smarter to write it so the Hulk kills NOW and deal with those consequences, rather than retroactively rewriting the last 40 years. If only because the fans are bound to react to the first way better...

EXCELLENT post.

You've so clearly described exactly what I've been trying to explain to people for so long but have been unable to and eventually just gave up.

People who keep saying "This is a comic book, logic doesn't have to apply" are not getting it. Logic always applies, no matter how fictional your universe is. Just because characters can fly and shoot lasers from eyes doesn't mean that someone is going to survive if his head gets chopped off. The two lines of thought aren't even remotely on this same train of logic. rjb is completely right, you'd literally be saying something like "Fire burns paper so therefore, ah, paper eats kangaroos."

As for the question of why Hulk's rampages might have killed people but Superman's hasn't, well, the key word is rampage. Superman is of sound mind and responsible with his immense powers, and even then he's not going to be able to prevent every single casualty caused in a fight against every megapowerful villain. Hulk has the intellect and maturity of a child and has been shown throwing police officers through walls and punching down whatever gets into his way. Even if he's got the best intentions in mind and even if he tries to be cautious about innocent people -- an attitude that's been switched on and off depending on the situation -- he's just not as equipped intellectually or emotionally to be as responsible as he needs to be given his sort of powers.

 

[Wolverazio]

But by the same token, if people can fly around and shoot lasers from their eyes, is it that much of a leap forward that someone can have their head chopped off and survive (ala undead/mystical characters).

You can follow the same logic back that because one unbelievable thing can occur, another is as likely to occur (such as, Hulk not accidentally killing anyone as it has been stated; it seems ridiculous in a world where radiation causes cancer but in a world where a mutant has the power to recreate a ship on the molecular level in the split second after blasting a massive hole in it...maybe not so much).

And so what if Superman is not on a rampage? Superman (and every other hero in both universes) fight massively powerful villains that (it can be argued) would not exist/be so dang persistent if not for presence of said super hero. If Hulk is so bad b/c of his rampages every super hero in both universes should have been stripped of their powers/killed a long time ago since their conflicts have threatened the fate of the universe before.

Not registered, not controlled, eliminated.

 

[The Question]

Its all the same logic Question.

No, it's not. The type of logic you use to say "okay, Spider-Man can walk on walls" is not the same kind you use to say "okay, so The Hulk can smash through buildings and not kill anyone." Of course comics take liberties with certain workings or reality. Most works of fiction do. But to throw away any and all common sense is simply ludicrous.

You either believe it all or dont believe it and move on. As ive said, by that same logic Superman has killed hundreds of people in his battles in metropolis where he destroys half the city. Oh no but its SUperman he doesnt kill. But its almost the same exact situation.

No it's not. There have been very few fights that Superman had that have destroyed half of Metropolis. And any deaths that occour are the fault of the villain he's fighting. Usually, in those fights, Supes is doing his best to minimize loss of life. And, like I said, there are rarely fights of that magnitude in Metropolis. Superman usually ends them before they can reach that level, or takes the fight out of the city. The only Superman fight I can think of that caused that much damage was the fight against Doomsday.

But since Hulk is a big green monster, yeah hes a killer.

No. Because in some of his rampages he's blindly smashed things with little or no regard towards the safety of others, it makes no sense that no one would have died. Especially against the military. I mean, do you honestly think that when The Hulk was throwing around tanks and plowing through groups of soldiers that no one got hurt?

We all forget that theres a man under all that and most of the time hes provoked. I can believe that he hasnt killed anybody because I read freakin' comics. If I wanted to read about a Hulk that killed id read Ultimates and watch him bite people's heads off.

Not the same thing. Ultimate Hulk is a representation of Bruce's nastyer 616 personalities. I tend to veiw him as a sort of amalgam of Mindless Hulk and Joe Fixit. However, I'm not talking about intentionally killing people for ****s and giggles. That would be bull****. What I'm talking about is, in all of those times where he's randomly smashed through buildings, it makes no sense that no one's died. And yes, there is a man underneath all of that muscle. But when he goes into a full blown rage, he's never seemed very concerned with hurting anyone or not. And even when Bruce's mind is in control, he's been perfectly willing to kill people if he has to.

I dont know why its so importnat for you guys to have Hulk be a killer. Is it logical? Yes. Is it possible hes never killed anyone? Yes. Logic can be applied in a way in form to any side of an argument.

But it's not possible that he's never killed anyone. When he's gone on full blown rampages, the ones where he isn't giving a **** as to who and what he smashes (and there has been a few), there should be a body count.

 

[BrianWilly]

But by the same token, if people can fly around and shoot lasers from their eyes, is it that much of a leap forward that someone can have their head chopped off and survive (ala undead/mystical characters).

Then it should be mentioned or at least apparent that those characters are undead or mystical. If it is not explained within the logic of this fictional universe, then it is of course bad writing.

You can follow the same logic back that because one unbelievable thing can occur, another is as likely to occur (such as, Hulk not accidentally killing anyone as it has been stated; it seems ridiculous in a world where radiation causes cancer but in a world where a mutant has the power to recreate a ship on the molecular level in the split second after blasting a massive hole in it...maybe not so much).

Then the exact line of logic resulting in why no one is ever killed by the Hulk should be explained within the context of this fictional universe. The problem is that there is no explanation for this fact: I'm literally being told, "The Hulk never killed anyone because this is a comic book." That is not a reason at all because one has nothing to do with the other. A reason that fits within the context of this universe might go something like "The Hulk never killed anyone because his punches have magical anti-death juice." It'd be a reason stupid as all hell, but at least it would be explained.

And so what if Superman is not on a rampage? Superman (and every other hero in both universes) fight massively powerful villains that (it can be argued) would not exist/be so dang persistent if not for presence of said super hero. If Hulk is so bad b/c of his rampages every super hero in both universes should have been stripped of their powers/killed a long time ago since their conflicts have threatened the fate of the universe before.

Not registered, not controlled, eliminated.

Superman never initiates any attacks. The supervillains are always the ones who start attacking people and therefore Superman has to protect them. Blaming Superman -- or any other superhero for that matter -- for the casualties that occur during a fight against a supervillain is like blaming police officers for casualties that occur during a shootout with terrorists. The villains/terrorists/aggresives should be the ones registered and restrained and eliminated; doing so to the heroes/officers/defensives is not going to solve anything.

Whereas, the Hulk has initiated several rampages. Sure, he's done it to protect people many times in the past, but not nearly close to all the times. In these instances he takes on the role of the "aggresive," not the defensive.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I'm not talking about idiotic change. Change like when JMS made the Green Goblin Gwen Stacey's baby's daddy is ridiculous and pure shock tactic. But change like the return of the Winter Solider or like Spider-man becoming a teacher are well written and long lasting and important changes. They add to the mythology of the character instead of being insignificant.

Neither of those changes deviate from the underlying concept of the characters.

 

[GOODT!MES]

And Gwen sleeping with Norman did?







That was a joke, by the way.

 

[Wolverazio]

Then the exact line of logic resulting in why no one is ever killed by the Hulk should be explained within the context of this fictional universe. The problem is that there is no explanation for this fact: I'm literally being told, "The Hulk never killed anyone because this is a comic book." That is not a reason at all because one has nothing to do with the other. A reason that fits within the context of this universe might go something like "The Hulk never killed anyone because his punches have magical anti-death juice." It'd be a reason stupid as all hell, but at least it would be explained.

But there is no exact logic given why Bruce Banner can be hit with radiation and become a monster while someone else can be hit with a carcinogen and get cancer (a super hero as well, Captain Marvel) but it is accepted because it is necessary for the function of the comic.

At the same time, I read somewhere on these boards that Peter David (I could be wrong) wrote an arc of Hulk some time ago where everyone and their mother chased down the Hulk because he had supposedly killed a child. This created a necessity for Hulk never killing anyone, if he had he would never have been given a moment's peace.

Personally, I think it could be stupid and ridiculous that radiation still gives some people cancer in the Marvel universe and others powers...but I don't dig that deep because it upsets the balance of the comic. At the same time, if Bendis writes someone being exposed to gamma radiation and getting cancer in modern times, I don't care as long as he doesn't say everyone who ever has does, including Banner (...unless the Hulk has kept the cancer at bay...hmm...interesting idea...).

Superman never initiates any attacks. The supervillains are always the ones who start attacking people and therefore Superman has to protect them. Blaming Superman -- or any other superhero for that matter -- for the casualties that occur during a fight against a supervillain is like blaming police officers for casualties that occur during a shootout with terrorists. The villains/terrorists/aggresives should be the ones registered and restrained and eliminated; doing so to the heroes/officers/defensives is not going to solve anything.

Whereas, the Hulk has initiated several rampages. Sure, he's done it to protect people many times in the past, but not nearly close to all the times. In these instances he takes on the role of the "aggresive," not the defensive.

I'm not as big a DC guy but...has Superman ever been mind-controlled? Batman? The rest of the "heroes"? How do you explain to the average shmoe, "oh yeah, your mother that Superman killed? He was just under mind control, it wasn't really his fault." Same thing with Wolverine (though they at least have been keeping characters jittery after his latest out of mind experience).

If you want to, you can pick apart logic too far and ruin anything. I agree there needs to be some consistency...but again, that's why continuity should be respected.

 

[Xofenroht]

Whenever I encounter change in a comic, I usually A) Accept it and continue on with the series or B) I argue with myself for a bit, then decide to drop the title.
JMS' "Sins of the Past" story arc did change Gwen's character in the eyes of many people. But the way I look at it is that this kind of thing DOES happen in real life. People DO seemingly act out of character every once in a while. With that thought in mind, I accepted that change. Did I like the story? Not really, I would have preferred for one of them to have been Pete's children.
As far as the Hulk goes, I've ALWAYS thought SOMEONE was killed during his rampages. It really is not at all that farfetched of an idea. If a large semi goes crashing through a building, the first thing you think is "Alright...what's the body count like?" So why not apply this to the Hulk? The argument of logic not working in a fictional setting is ridiculous. For instance, Banner getting bolted by gamma rays at that level SHOULD have died and this has been acknowledged countless amounts of times in the comics. It was a freak accident with an even freakier outcome. The appeal of stories like this is that they ask things along the line of "Hey, what if [insert accident] happened and the guy turned into [insert OTHER]?" Besides, radiation was the source of much paranoia when the Hulk was created, it's only reasonable to give into that paranoia and use it to perpetuate a story.
A good story makes loopholes in reality. It doesn't just totally abandon logic.

 

[The Question]

But there is no exact logic given why Bruce Banner can be hit with radiation and become a monster while someone else can be hit with a carcinogen and get cancer (a super hero as well, Captain Marvel) but it is accepted because it is necessary for the function of the comic.

They explained the radiation. Banner has a mild mutation in his DNA. Not enough to be noticeable, but it's what caused him to survive the radiation and turn into the Hulk. It was a one in a million thing. They've demonstraited this in The Hulk when the Leader set off a gama bomb in a small town. Every single person in the town died of radiation poisoning, with the exception of a handful of people who had unique genetic structures that allowed them to survive.

At the same time, I read somewhere on these boards that Peter David (I could be wrong) wrote an arc of Hulk some time ago where everyone and their mother chased down the Hulk because he had supposedly killed a child. This created a necessity for Hulk never killing anyone, if he had he would never have been given a moment's peace.

When has he ever been given a moment's peace? The military's been hounding him from the moment he was created.

Personally, I think it could be stupid and ridiculous that radiation still gives some people cancer in the Marvel universe and others powers...but I don't dig that deep because it upsets the balance of the comic. At the same time, if Bendis writes someone being exposed to gamma radiation and getting cancer in modern times, I don't care as long as he doesn't say everyone who ever has does, including Banner (...unless the Hulk has kept the cancer at bay...hmm...interesting idea...).

As I said, they've already explained it.

I'm not as big a DC guy but...has Superman ever been mind-controlled? Batman? The rest of the "heroes"? How do you explain to the average shmoe, "oh yeah, your mother that Superman killed? He was just under mind control, it wasn't really his fault." Same thing with Wolverine (though they at least have been keeping characters jittery after his latest out of mind experience).

Superman was mind controlled. Nearly beat Batman to death. Would have succeeded if Wonder Woman hadn't shown up to pull Bruce's ass out of the fire. And, were it explained that Superman wasn't in control of his actions, most would forgive him. Some, might not, though. And really, Supes hasn't been mind controlled that often, or long enough to pile up a body count.

If you want to, you can pick apart logic too far and ruin anything. I agree there needs to be some consistency...but again, that's why continuity should be respected.

As should logic.

 

[BrianWilly]

But there is no exact logic given why Bruce Banner can be hit with radiation and become a monster while someone else can be hit with a carcinogen and get cancer (a super hero as well, Captain Marvel) but it is accepted because it is necessary for the function of the comic.

Personally, I think it could be stupid and ridiculous that radiation still gives some people cancer in the Marvel universe and others powers...but I don't dig that deep because it upsets the balance of the comic.

On the other hand, so many people get powers through radiation in the Marvel universe that it's reasonably safe to say that there is something about radiation in the Marvel universe. Different people have different reactions to different sorts of radiation and there's not an exact science about it, but we know that the science exists and is applicable in the context of the universe. The reason that some people are affected and some people aren't could be as simple as pure chance or it could be as complicated as genetic predisposition, but there is an inherent reason. Is it only applicable because this is a fictional universe where that sort of logic can apply? Of course. But it is applicable. And we know exactly why it is applicable. And it is very, very different from saying that because we are in a fictional universe people all of a sudden don't die from a rampaging monster.

Look, rjb182 explained the two kinds of logic incredibly well and succinctly in his post. All of the points being addressed here have already been addressed by him, and I really don't know how to make it any clearer. There is an inherent logic to even very fantastical elements in a fictional universe and we all instinctively know what it is or else we'd never be able to discuss anything about comic books logically. If you say that certain people get superpowers by radiation in this fictional universe then there is a logic to that because in this fictional universe, that sort of science exists. The fictional element is supported by another fictional element. If you say that the Hulk never kills anyone when he knocks over a building in this fictional universe, there's no logic to that because there is no science for explaining why people are all of a sudden immune to death by giant monster. Nothing in this fictional universe supports that.

 

[BrianWilly]

I'm not as big a DC guy but...has Superman ever been mind-controlled? Batman? The rest of the "heroes"? How do you explain to the average shmoe, "oh yeah, your mother that Superman killed? He was just under mind control, it wasn't really his fault." Same thing with Wolverine (though they at least have been keeping characters jittery after his latest out of mind experience).

This is very interesting, because you're applying the same exact argument that Max Lord used in his crusade against metahumans in the OMAC Project.

And it's also very interesting because Max Lord's argument has a very big flaw: he was the one mind-controlling Superman in the first place! The fact is, you can't blame victims of mind-control for acts that they were made to do by someone else. You have to look to the mind-controller, at the source, the person actually pulling the figurative trigger. Max Lord literally says, "If I can control Superman, then anyone could control Superman, and so Superman should be eliminated." But that's totally backwards. If anything, doesn't that mean that the people controlling Superman and the other heroes-- ie Max and other potential mind-controllers -- should be the ones to blame? See, Max's argument isn't even that Superman himself instigates these threats, because he knows that isn't true: Superman himself would never instigate anything. Other people instigate these threats. If anything, doesn't that mean we should work all the harder to make sure that these other people -- the mind-controllers, the villains -- are eliminated so that they won't mind-control anyone anymore? If Superman ever does instigate threats against innocent people of his own free will, then he could be held accountable. Not before.

Of course, Batman has a very good point when Superman points out that he's not responsible for acts that Max made him do: "You're the most powerful man on Earth! You don't have the luxary of that excuse!"

But even so, the point remains that restraining/registering/eliminating Superman isn't going to solve anything, because Max would still be out there! And he'll continue to mind-control superhumans into killing each other, and if you continue to blame his victims for crimes that he causes, nothing would have been solved. You'd literally be attacking the wrong problem. When superheroes get mind-controlled by villains, the problem isn't that there are superheroes for villains to mind-control. The problem is that there are villains who control superheroes.

Compare that to the Hulk's situation. Of course he doesn't intentionally want to cause problems for people, but he's also the source of those problems. He's not mind-controlled. He's not being forced into these situations. Even if you say that's he's only a subconscious manifestation of Banner and not representative of Banner's conscious free will, the fact is that Banner is responsible for the Hulk. If he, for some reason or another whether intentionally or not, is unable or unequipped to take responsibility for the Hulk then it is up to other people to take responsibility for him.

 

[GNR]

Wow.

 

[Darthphere]

No, it's not. The type of logic you use to say "okay, Spider-Man can walk on walls" is not the same kind you use to say "okay, so The Hulk can smash through buildings and not kill anyone." Of course comics take liberties with certain workings or reality. Most works of fiction do. But to throw away any and all common sense is simply ludicrous.



No it's not. There have been very few fights that Superman had that have destroyed half of Metropolis. And any deaths that occour are the fault of the villain he's fighting. Usually, in those fights, Supes is doing his best to minimize loss of life. And, like I said, there are rarely fights of that magnitude in Metropolis. Superman usually ends them before they can reach that level, or takes the fight out of the city. The only Superman fight I can think of that caused that much damage was the fight against Doomsday.



No. Because in some of his rampages he's blindly smashed things with little or no regard towards the safety of others, it makes no sense that no one would have died. Especially against the military. I mean, do you honestly think that when The Hulk was throwing around tanks and plowing through groups of soldiers that no one got hurt?



Not the same thing. Ultimate Hulk is a representation of Bruce's nastyer 616 personalities. I tend to veiw him as a sort of amalgam of Mindless Hulk and Joe Fixit. However, I'm not talking about intentionally killing people for ****s and giggles. That would be bull****. What I'm talking about is, in all of those times where he's randomly smashed through buildings, it makes no sense that no one's died. And yes, there is a man underneath all of that muscle. But when he goes into a full blown rage, he's never seemed very concerned with hurting anyone or not. And even when Bruce's mind is in control, he's been perfectly willing to kill people if he has to.



But it's not possible that he's never killed anyone. When he's gone on full blown rampages, the ones where he isn't giving a **** as to who and what he smashes (and there has been a few), there should be a body count.

Heres my little secret, I actually agree with you guys. Its a lot more fun to argue against something instead of for it. But I wont ever give give into Benids reasoning that he thinks its dumb so hes going to chage it all.

 

[The Question]

So, you're basically argueing against Bendis because you don't like Bendis?

 

[Darthphere]

So, you're basically argueing against Bendis because you don't like Bendis?

No, im arguing against bendis because hes reasoning is arrogant and self centered.