Chuck Dixon on “ambiguity is the new hip in comics”

[Mr. Green]

Sleeper isn't Spider-Man though. That's pretty much what half the piece is about: mucking with certain essential characteristics of a character, either by changing them or blowing them up.

I found myself agreeing with a lot of Dixon's points, personally.

Yeah, I did too, don't get me wrong. I guess I read some of his comments as generalizations when they were actually aimed at specific comics. I think he should have straight up pointed fingers and said exactly what he was talking about but on the other hand I can see why he didn't.

It was a great blog nonetheless and Dixon definitely knows what he's talking about.

 

[Blader5489]

Old people are always hating on what's hip.

 

[Fenwick]

An entire drawer of stories in which Frank kills an innocent and quits? I want to read those. I really do, cause honestly who here has not had the "WI Frank killed an innocent?" thought in their head. I always shake it off and go he'd keep fighting and accept a mistake or something like that.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I agree completely. That's exactly what bothered me when I was reading the blog. In fact, I think comics are getting better with time.

I actually agree. I don't think, back in the sixties, anyone would ever dream of attempting to write Walking Dead. As much as I respect Stan Lee and Kirby, not even they could capture the breathe of human emotions that are in comics now. I can read comics about an angry hero, a lost hero, a hero who suppresses his murderous tendencies. I can see people in desperate circumstances doing desperate things, I can read love stories with actual sexuality in them, and I can read stories that approximate people a lot better. There has left a lot of the exposition and needless referencing that used to be slow down stories.

As I say, I get that his article is probably directed at a few rather than all, but comics always have one or two "hip" things that get overplayed.

As I recall Mr. Dixon, didn't you write this guy...

Not saying the story sucked, at all, but at the time "Bat Broken" and "Knightfall" played into the exact same XTREME and shock and awe story lines of the nineties. Certainly this story featuring villains like Bane and Azrael were not much different than Doomsday, Apocalypse, Carnage...uber-powerful, ultra-violent story lines and baddies of the ninties. Well at least your characters didn't have mullets...

...besides Nightwing, huh?

Well at least you never wrote a book in the nineties about guys with huge guns and pouches.

and here you thought I forgot about Team 7.

Look, my point is not about what's hip or what isn't. The fact is comics are many and varied, and for every story that's bad there is probably a good one out there. You have to understand some people really like Michael Bay movies, but sometimes they might want to read some Shakespeare and there are comics for both. World War Hulk, Secret Invasion and Civil War are the summer blockbusters of comics, they exist to fulfill the wishes of a certain segment of readers. Very few major market crossovers are remembered, very few become classics. To say all comics are going downhill though is absurd. I remember reading Green Lantern and thinking to myself "man, this is the sh***iest book I've ever read" and then Geoff Johns wrote a new series and I was blown away. I remember once reading DareDevil and thinking it was unsalvagible. Within a few years Wizard was talking about how much better he was than even Spider-Man. Bottom line is you can't say because their are bad books on the rack, even if they are popular books, that comics are in the sh***er.

 

[fifthfiend]

I actually agree. I don't think, back in the sixties, anyone would ever dream of attempting to write Walking Dead. As much as I respect Stan Lee and Kirby, not even they could capture the breathe of human emotions that are in comics now. I can read comics about an angry hero, a lost hero, a hero who suppresses his murderous tendencies. I can see people in desperate circumstances doing desperate things, I can read love stories with actual sexuality in them, and I can read stories that approximate people a lot better. There has left a lot of the exposition and needless referencing that used to be slow down stories.

As I say, I get that his article is probably directed at a few rather than all, but comics always have one or two "hip" things that get overplayed.

As I recall Mr. Dixon, didn't you write this guy...

Not saying the story sucked, at all, but at the time "Bat Broken" and "Knightfall" played into the exact same XTREME and shock and awe story lines of the nineties. Certainly this story featuring villains like Bane and Azrael were not much different than Doomsday, Apocalypse, Carnage...uber-powerful, ultra-violent story lines and baddies of the ninties. Well at least your characters didn't have mullets...

...besides Nightwing, huh?

Well at least you never wrote a book in the nineties about guys with huge guns and pouches.

and here you thought I forgot about Team 7.

****, SB has a point.

You have to understand some people really like Michael Bay movies, but sometimes they might want to read some Shakespeare and there are comics for both.

The problem there is when you make Shakespeare start rewriting his plotlines because Michael Bay killed half his characters and mangled the other half beyond recognition.

 

[hippie_hunter]

If the majority has lost patience, why was Civil War such a high selling miniseries? That's a story incredibly guilty of warping characters so they'll fit certain roles in the story. That very attitude is the very thing that kept the New Avengers on the run from the Mighty Avengers for months afterward. It's the very thing that kept "One More Day" and "Brand New Day" in the Top 10. It's the very thing that has so many people saying Cyclops is cooler than he's ever been.

I thought that everyone was in agreed that Cyclops is *****ier than he's ever been

 

[Manic]

It's a mixed bag. You'll find a lot of readers who say he's a badass or a *****e. Either way, Marvel is showing no signs of toning it down.

 

[yenaled]

Well the whole point of the AzzBat's character was to show that someone else with the same drive and passion of Bruce Wayne couldn't be Bruce Wayne and it was so easy to take costumed vigilante into extreme violent Anti-Hero.

That's a plot point not gritty for grimeys sake.

 

[BrianWilly]

Wow. I loved that article.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Dixon and Bendis should just fight each other. He was clearly calling him out

 

[Red]

My money's on Bendis

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Haha. BTW, thanks for having that avatar, forgot it came back tonight

 

[ShadowBoxing]

The problem there is when you make Shakespeare start rewriting his plotlines because Michael Bay killed half his characters and mangled the other half beyond recognition.

Yeah but even if you hired only "teh best" you'd still have that. Ed Brubaker's run on Captain America has been nothing short of stellar, and yet he killed Steve Rogers, or to go with a more classic tale, those who killed Jean Grey and Gwen Stacy certainly took those characters off the board and if any writer after them decided he/she wanted to do another brilliant story with them, they'd have to bring them back.

 

[Doc Destruction]

Smart people are always hating on what's crap.

Fixed.

 

[Doc Destruction]

Yeah but even if you hired only "teh best" you'd still have that. Ed Brubaker's run on Captain America has been nothing short of stellar, and yet he killed Steve Rogers, or to go with a more classic tale, those who killed Jean Grey and Gwen Stacy certainly took those characters off the board and if any writer after them decided he/she wanted to do another brilliant story with them, they'd have to bring them back.

Killing characters is never a problem if done right. Neither is reincarnating them. Brubaker has an EXCELLENT mix of action, characterization and dialogue.

Bendis and his ilk have a TON of awful, stilted dialogue, NO characterization and worthless action.

 

[November Rain]

Radical comic changes all depend on whether the ends justify the means, only that can be determined with time.

Personally i'm not a fan of characters going against their moral code for no apparent reason. Say If I drank drove and killed someone, and that made me wanna become a superhero, i certainly wouldn't drink drive again.

This could be seen to be similar to spidey's unmasking. He's always been adamant about revealing his identity to be something he couldn't do for fear of his loved ones. After stacy's death, it seems bizzare he would rethink his stance on that considering she's portrayed sometimes of being the love of his life.

when you have people beating that into you for decades, it feels kinda cheap for someone to unwrite it because they think they have no where to go with the character.



I don't believe you should squeeze certain characters into certain plot types, you should envision a situation and then think about how the characters would take themselves through it and what outcome it may bring 'based on everything that has come before'.

If you can't squeeze one particularly hero in, use another one or simply 'make one up'. Watchmen is no less of a great book considering it's universe is entirely encased. If the stories are good enough, people will read them, you don't need big named heroes towing the line in massive events to bring in the sales.

most people then buy out of curiousity rather than satifaction of content.

 

[The Overlord]

I actually agree. I don't think, back in the sixties, anyone would ever dream of attempting to write Walking Dead. As much as I respect Stan Lee and Kirby, not even they could capture the breathe of human emotions that are in comics now. I can read comics about an angry hero, a lost hero, a hero who suppresses his murderous tendencies. I can see people in desperate circumstances doing desperate things, I can read love stories with actual sexuality in them, and I can read stories that approximate people a lot better. There has left a lot of the exposition and needless referencing that used to be slow down stories.

As I say, I get that his article is probably directed at a few rather than all, but comics always have one or two "hip" things that get overplayed.

.

I think the thing Dixon is talking about character derailment, characters having their decade long personalitties ejected just to serve the plot.

Like in Civil war, Tony Stark was acting like a immoral fascist. Why? Doesn't matter it is done to make the CW plot work. That is character derailment and its not good writing.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I think the thing Dixon is talking about character derailment, characters having their decade long personalitties ejected just to serve the plot.

Like in Civil war, Tony Stark was acting like a immoral fascist. Why? Doesn't matter it is done to make the CW plot work. That is character derailment and its not good writing.

Well characters don't have decade long personalities. The Spider-Man, Iron Man and Captain America you know are not the ones your parents grew up with. Cyclops is a bartardization of several Cyclops' before him, yet most would agree he is cooler now. Wolverine is most certainly a far cry from the shrimpy squirt who used to get his ass handed to him, but now he has a movie deal. Things and characters change, and people should not believe their interpretations of a character are the "correct" interpretations, nor should they allow nostalgia to fool them into believing it was the only one.

 

[Blader5489]

Fixed.

That's not really what I was saying, but thanks for playing.

 

[The Overlord]

Well characters don't have decade long personalities. The Spider-Man, Iron Man and Captain America you know are not the ones your parents grew up with. Cyclops is a bartardization of several Cyclops' before him, yet most would agree he is cooler now. Wolverine is most certainly a far cry from the shrimpy squirt who used to get his ass handed to him, but now he has a movie deal. Things and characters change, and people should not believe their interpretations of a character are the "correct" interpretations, nor should they allow nostalgia to fool them into believing it was the only one.

And exactly how was fascist Tony Stark a good change?

But change for change's sake isn't a good in of itself. Imagine if a writer turned Superman into a serial rapist/killer and there has no explaination. Is that a good change?

Change should happen due to character development, not character derailment, it should happen organiacally, not seem like a forced plot point from the writer.

That's what makes good writing and guess what, character derailmet is not good writing.

 

[fifthfiend]

Yeah but even if you hired only "teh best" you'd still have that. Ed Brubaker's run on Captain America has been nothing short of stellar, and yet he killed Steve Rogers, or to go with a more classic tale, those who killed Jean Grey and Gwen Stacy certainly took those characters off the board and if any writer after them decided he/she wanted to do another brilliant story with them, they'd have to bring them back.

Except those aren't actually the same because Ed Brubaker's run on Captain America has been nothing short of stellar, and the deaths of Jean Grey and death of Gwen Stacy were also excellent stories. Whereas Civil War was, you know, awful ****.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Killing characters off doesn't bother me as much as twisting their characterizations around on a whim to suit a story. I get that characters change over time, but stuff like Reed's behavior in Civil War removed the "over time" part. Millar just decided, hey, I need Reed Richards to act this way; who cares how he got there or the fact that it doesn't make sense with stories that happened less than a year ago? A dead character can come back; mischaracterization taints a character for a much longer period of time in much worse ways, since future writers now have to deal with one a**hole's careless mess.

 

[random_havoc]

And exactly how was fascist Tony Stark a good change?

But change for change's sake isn't a good in of itself. Imagine if a writer turned Superman into a serial rapist/killer and there has no explaination. Is that a good change?

Change should happen due to character development, not character derailment, it should happen organiacally, not seem like a forced plot point from the writer.

That's what makes good writing and guess what, character derailmet is not good writing.

Aww, but perhaps you don't know that Shadowboxing has gone on the record in another thread as believing that continuity doesn't matter even a tiny little bit outside of each individual story arc. So next week when Reed Richards is committing incest and Thor is killed by the Vulture, don't worry, it's all fine because writers shouldn't have their freedom of what they want to write restricted.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

And exactly how was fascist Tony Stark a good change?

I didn't say that it was, although Tony has been a control freak before.

But change for change's sake isn't a good in of itself. Imagine if a writer turned Superman into a serial rapist/killer and there has no explaination. Is that a good change?

It's not "good" or "bad" change. If you write a good story about a character, no matter how drastic the change, fans will ultimately accept it. Was Ann Nocenti's run on DareDevil bad because he was a short-order cook? No, in fact it was incredibly badass. Ultimately fans have this nature where they'll uphold drastic changes as "good" simply because they like the finished product. Case in point: X2: X-Men United. For many this was a pinnacle achievement for comic movies, despite the fact it didn't resemble any known incarnation of the X-Men. Or perhaps the Superman: Red Son storyline. Very well received, despite the fact that it was a major departure from any story before it.

Change should happen due to character development, not character derailment, it should happen organiacally, not seem like a forced plot point from the writer.

Yet sometimes "character derailment" is needed. If a character grows too unpopular it's not wise for a company to spend tons of money dragging a dying book along, rather they will completely revamp the character.

That's what makes good writing and guess what, character derailmet is not good writing.

You may personally enjoy something, and maybe to you it's very good, but if it doesn't sell and doesn't connect to a wider audience, it's not worth the paper it's printed on. The stories that go on to be classics in comics sold well and connected with a large group. I have a list of books, stories and characters I like that never went anywhere. You have to understand comics is a business, and it's founded on the principle of marketing it's characters. If it fails to do so, then you won't have any comics, period.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Aww, but perhaps you don't know that Shadowboxing has gone on the record in another thread as believing that continuity doesn't matter even a tiny little bit outside of each individual story arc. So next week when Reed Richards is committing incest and Thor is killed by the Vulture, don't worry, it's all fine because writers shouldn't have their freedom of what they want to write restricted.

...Oh, and you don't have to buy it. You keep forgetting you have no power, no say, and these characters don't belong to you. If a comic wants to make Reed Richards a child molester it has every right to do so.