What do you hate about comic books?

[Heretic]

Actually, it's just a storyline recycled from the JSA back in the 70's. Secondly, as I already mentioned, they already did the Registration thing for Mutants and they are in fact already registered. (At least the ones that are still alive.) So, yeah. Acceptance of that one sentence is justifiable. Why would they be fighting? They already lost.

Which is why the voters in California passed Prop 8, and the same sex marriage issue went away forever.

This massive registration story should have been a major deal for the X-men...not..."oh we got registered a while back in a story that wasn't really a big deal, so we're going to sit this out"

 

[Tron Bonne]

Wasn't a big deal? It decimated like 90% of the mutant population...

 

[SuperFerret]

Which is why the voters in California passed Prop 8, and the same sex marriage issue went away forever.

Real.

This massive registration story should have been a major deal for the X-men...not..."oh we got registered a while back in a story that wasn't really a big deal, so we're going to sit this out"

Fiction.


Superhero stories are action-oriented, you said it yourself. Why should they strive to simulate real life?

 

[Anubis]

Wasn't a big deal? It decimated like 90% of the mutant population...

Yeah. Which also adds more depth to Emma's statement, where the f**k where they when they lost 90% of their population?

 

[Heretic]

Wasn't a big deal? It decimated like 90% of the mutant population...

Actually, that was Scarlet Witch, not a mutant registration that killed those who refused registration...right?

 

[Heretic]

Real.



Fiction.


Superhero stories are action-oriented, you said it yourself. Why should they strive to simulate real life?

Actually...they SHOULD.

I am NOT saying that everything should be realistic...but the people should act like people. Things should make sense. Just because we are used to Punisher coming back from the dead, entire histories being wiped out for storyline reset etc doesn't mean that it is right to do it. It is lazy and bad writing...even though fans accept it.

 

[SuperFerret]

But there's not just a single writer writing these stories, and the tone and style changes with each writer change, it's the nature of the stories. If one writer was doing it, it would be lazy and bad writing, but most superhero stories are the fruit of a collaborative effort, so a little slack can be given to the writers.

 

[The Question]

But there's not just a single writer writing these stories, and the tone and style changes with each writer change, it's the nature of the stories. If one writer was doing it, it would be lazy and bad writing, but most superhero stories are the fruit of a collaborative effort, so a little slack can be given to the writers.

Which is why.....

The lack of cohesive, serialized narratives with lasting consequences for the characters' actions and the circumstances they find themselves in, where the people we meet in the first issue aren't the same in the last and there are some kind of themes present throughout that tie together even the most tangential installments. I know we get more of that slightly outside the mainstream, but I'd like to see more in the mainstream and for more mainstream characters.

Now, I don't have a problem with, say, Batman's series being episodic and kind of loose with continuity by literary standards. In fact, I rather like that Batman is this timeless thing with multiple interpretations and a wide array of creative talent behind it. But at the same time, I want to see Batman with a narrative, and continuity, and growth. And I don't just want to see a story with Batman, as nice as GNs and Elseworlds can be. I want to see Batman's story. Taking all these varied interpretations and voices for the character and crafting a solid narrative out of the best parts, not unlike what T.H. White did with Arthurian lore, while still leaving the mainstream cannon intact for Batman to be available to everyone after Batman's story has been completed. Marvel's Ultimate line had the potential for this, but for the most part they squandered this potential in favor of being EXTREME!!!!1!11 DC's upcoming Earth One line also has this potential, but only time will tell.

BAM!


Everything is cyclical. Everything.

 

[Heretic]

But there's not just a single writer writing these stories, and the tone and style changes with each writer change, it's the nature of the stories. If one writer was doing it, it would be lazy and bad writing, but most superhero stories are the fruit of a collaborative effort, so a little slack can be given to the writers.

The tone and style should only change slightly. Can you imagine the new James Bond movie coming out, and James is a romantic peace activist who doesn't drink? Of course not. Characters have certain qualities...and the world they inhabit has certain qualities...and those things should stay consistent. In superhero comics, EVERYTHING can change on the whim of a new writer. Every character should have a "bible" for them that must be stuck with, or aspects should be slowly changed in a natural way. If a writer has the wrong tone or style, then that writer should not be writing the book.

 

[Max J Power]

The problem is that your initial assumption is wrong. The indie comics scene has a great deal of love and respect for all of the great classic writers and artists. They never knock comics as a medium, or the superhero genre...they merely state that the superhero genre has been running on steam with little creativity for decades. That's why when Marvel and DC give indie creators a shot, they generally take it, in hopes of breathing new ideas and styles into the genre.

And, comics like Maus ABSOLUTELY made comics more legitimate. I'm not saying that superheroes cant contribute to that end, but nothing has ever even come close to what Maus accomplished. Obviously it is rare that any comic (or any other artistic work) truly elevates or supports the integrity of the medium, but when it does, it is generally an indie comic, not a superhero.

-I didn't say that indie comics didn't respect the classic creators and the medium. I doubt they'd dedicate their lives to comics if they didn't love them. I meant that fans, critics, and academics writing about indie comics tend to undersell genre comics (not just mainstream superhero comics, but fantasy, sci-fi, etc. indie books too) as artistically legitimate. Not that they oversell the more dramatic or reality-based works.

I took a class on comics once, and asked my professor about the book "How to Read Superhero Comics and Why" that I had seen in the university library. He said it had some notable flaws, but that I could use it as a source (I was doing a paper on Tom Strong and Promethea) because there wasn't much written on the genre. I think the reason this was the case is that people in the critical or academic comics community do not give genre comics enough credit. I'm not saying I want people do to in-depth analysis of Civil War, but that I'd like so see things like the comics discussed in the superhero book (Planetary, Morrison's JLA, and Marvels are a few examples) be embraced more outside the superhero fanbase.

-Can't argue with that. The book won a Pulitzer Prize, so it clearly made an impact on people outside the comics community, more so than any other comic. I'd say Watchmen is probably second, but its impact outside the comics community hasn't been as great.

Good post. Being a supporter of indie comics and creators doesn't make you inherently opposed to mainstream comics or the superhero genre.

For example, I LOVE the superhero genre, always have. As an aspiring comic writer, the first comic I've produced is, yep, a superhero story. I think there is something special and magical about the genre, and it's perfectly tailored to the medium. But on the flipside, let's do a cinema analogy. I love Westerns. But at the same time, I think if the multiplexes showed nothing but Western movies for decades on end, with the same gunslingers in endless sequels, then I'd be desperate to see something different.

I don't think different genres, or even different superhero stories, should replace the Batmans and the Supermans and the Spider-Mans of the comic industry. I just think they deserve to stand alongside them. Variety is the spice of life.

I didn't say I disliked indie comics or variety. I like a lot of different comics; I just don't think their genres are equally respected.

 

[Heretic]

-I didn't say that indie comics didn't respect the classic creators and the medium. I doubt they'd dedicate their lives to comics if they didn't love them. I meant that fans, critics, and academics writing about indie comics tend to undersell genre comics (not just mainstream superhero comics, but fantasy, sci-fi, etc. indie books too) as artistically legitimate. Not that they oversell the more dramatic or reality-based works.

I took a class on comics once, and asked my professor about the book "How to Read Superhero Comics and Why" that I had seen in the university library. He said it had some notable flaws, but that I could use it as a source (I was doing a paper on Tom Strong and Promethea) because there wasn't much written on the genre. I think the reason this was the case is that people in the critical or academic comics community do not give genre comics enough credit. I'm not saying I want people do to in-depth analysis of Civil War, but that I'd like so see things like the comics discussed in the superhero book (Planetary, Morrison's JLA, and Marvels are a few examples) be embraced more outside the superhero fanbase.

-Can't argue with that. The book won a Pulitzer Prize, so it clearly made an impact on people outside the comics community, more so than any other comic. I'd say Watchmen is probably second, but its impact outside the comics community hasn't been as great.

I still disagree.

First of all, indie comics DO respect quality work in sci fi and fantasy etc. Books like A Distant Soil, Sandman, Black Hole, Cerebus, Watchmen etc etc etc are HIGHLY respected and regarded as among the best in modern comics literature.

Regarding books and studies on superheroes...

There have been other books, and plenty of tv shows, that focus solely on superhero comics and their impact on culture. The thing is, superheroes obviously focus more on iconography, action, broad strokes of morality (truth, justice and the american way etc) so the impact superheroes have is more on entertainment culture rather than any sort of literary importance. While superheroes may have originally stood for more, certainly over the last several decades they have devolved into very basic concepts (and there is no high art to Cable, Lobo or most characters created by Marvel or DC in the past several decades). So, I think that there is little to discuss as far as contemporary superhero comics goes.

Since superheroes have basically become shells of what they could be, we are left with the archetypes, and superheroes rarely invent the archetypes. There are plenty of far older legends that handle most of what superhero archetypes contribute. That's what happens when you rely solely on action and archetype rather than actually trying to contribute to legitimate literature...you get one-upped by stories from hundreds or thousands of years before.

If the comic companies and creators actually understood this and wanted to change things (like Alan Moore did with Watchmen) then they could do so. There is just very little to discuss in a serious literary discussion about Secret Wars, Brand New Day or whatever Marvel is shoveling out this month.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

• Bad art,bad art,bad art!
• Characters who look lame
• Stupid explanations
• No explanations
• Lame designs for costumes
• Really bland characters
• Loathsome behaviors
• Unnecessary changes and additions
• Characters with lame abilities and special powers
• Unattractive chicks
• Bad stories
• Too much simplistic dialog
• Too many words that I don't know the meaning of
• Really silly characters(i.e. the math equation that is a part of the Green Lantern Corps)
• The cost
• Poor story telling
• Lame characters who get their own comic book series

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Sorry, bringing this up on a point I'm pondering recently. Now I have a love/hate relationship with superhero comics. To me, they can be exciting, or in a large number of cases, some of the biggest dreck you've ever seen. I hate the cyclical way superhero comics work, retcons, resets, reboots, restarts, retakes etc.

But what I hate most of all is a lack of diversity. And I don't just mean race, so I'll list some of my various points here:
1. Race, I'll get this out of the way. There is a huge lack in superhero comics of racially diverse characters, and I hate creators' excuses that "The new Aqualad shows our diversity!" because its just another new character. We need someone who's going to last like Batman, not just be killed off like Ryan Choi and then have a different minority character turn up.
2. Different nationalities. So many writers complain that its not their fault coming up with new characters is hard, when most of them just plow straight into "middle-class American" territory. It is not that hard to research a country and have a different character nationality.
3. Body types. Really, it is a little irritating seeing that almost, if not practically all superhero characters and supporting characters a thin and able bodied, and if not augmented with robotic limbs. Where are the fat people? People with missing limbs? Skin disorders? etc?
4. Sexuality & religion. Seriously, this one is odd for me, are there any religious superhero characters? At all? At DC it seems also that you're gonna die if you aren't strictly heterosexual, unless of course you're a lesbian which is apparently okay.
5. M.O. Why does every person with powers HAVE to just be fighting crime? It strikes me as very dull. I almost cheer when I see a superhero comic have someone using their powers for something other that good&evil. Why can't there just be an Atom-like figure shrinking the world's garbage? An illusion creator as a stage magician? A mind reader as a cop?

There's a few others I can think of, it just strikes me that superhero comics, particularly DC since I read them more, suffer an enormous lack of imagination in characters. There are so many original concepts for characters out there and I keep getting stuck reading straight white middle-to-high class Americans battling crime and all sharing the exact same moral beliefs, political views and morality.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I think the "realism" movement has been taken too far.

 

[E-Man]

It's funny that realism is advocated in some cases by a comics company, but they don't respect continuity at the same time. If things were truly real, then certain stuff wouldn't cease to exist because the editors don't know or care about a character's past history.

 

[Anubis]

Editors? What are these Editors you speak of? The Writers pretty much do as they please. The Editors just send their stuff to the printer.

 

[TimBisley]

Yeah, I hate this apparent need to be "real" and "gritty" in comics. Its boring. If I never read another Frank Miller story, I'll die a content man.

Also, I've grown tired how a lot of the time, comics seem like story boards for a movie rather than a comic book.

 

[Click SSL]

i hate that comic book because writer not follow some rules for comic book.

 

[Chris Wallace]

What?!?!?!?

 

[Chris Wallace]

Yeah, I hate this apparent need to be "real" and "gritty" in comics. Its boring. If I never read another Frank Miller story, I'll die a content man.

Also, I've grown tired how a lot of the time, comics seem like story boards for a movie rather than a comic book.

Is it me, or did we get better comics when comic book movies were fewer and further between? When the idea of Spider-Man, the Hulk and the X-Men hitting the big screen seemed like an elusive dream, debacles like Vampirella were thrown out and quickly forgotten, the only FF movie could only be seen on bootleg, fans were bandying about the idea of Brad Pitt as Daredevil, and the most commercially successful comic book movie of the decade was "Batman Forever"? Now we (seemingly) have a new movie in production every other week, and the comics are being altered to either emulate the movies or appeal to the Hollywood crowd-and more often than not, in all the wrong ways.

 

[The Question]

Is it me, or did we get better comics when comic book movies were fewer and further between? When the idea of Spider-Man, the Hulk and the X-Men hitting the big screen seemed like an elusive dream, debacles like Vampirella were thrown out and quickly forgotten, the only FF movie could only be seen on bootleg, fans were bandying about the idea of Brad Pitt as Daredevil, and the most commercially successful comic book movie of the decade was "Batman Forever"? Now we (seemingly) have a new movie in production every other week, and the comics are being altered to either emulate the movies or appeal to the Hollywood crowd-and more often than not, in all the wrong ways.

I think it's just you. Sure, there've been some stand alone tie in comics, but I don't see how, for example, Iron Man has been altered to fit with the movies.

 

[Anubis]

Yeah, you look at the Ultra "realistic" Batman of the Nolan movies, then look at what Morrison's been doing with time travel, and sci-fi and that entire statement is made moot.

 

[BigSams50]

One thing i hate is when a comic book i'm reading has bad art. It makes it less appealing to me.

 

[Anubis]

I can take bad art as long as the story's good. But if the story sucks, I don't care how great the art is.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I think it's just you. Sure, there've been some stand alone tie in comics, but I don't see how, for example, Iron Man has been altered to fit with the movies.

Iron Man, no. X-Men, Spider-Man, the creation of the "Ultimate" line, on the other hand...