The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[Amoebas]

I agree, but I still don't think that's Waid's point. He's talking more about tone, not content.

B/c end of the day, even Irredeemable (and certainly Kingdom Come) doesn't end As a cynical story. It ends on a message of hope, both in-story for the characters involved and kind of as meta-commentary. Waid says he can't properly write a cynical superhero story, b/c he doesn't believe that's what the genre's about. The totality of Irredeemable falls right in line with that statement...he didn't write a cynical story

I have many issues to catch up on, but just because he apparently turns things around in the last issue doesn't mean he wasn't writing cynically all along. This reminds me of the old Chic Track where Mr. evil old man gets to go to heaven so long as his last words are "I believe in Jesus H Christ".

I don't disagree with Waid, but this is the same guy who created Magog, wrote Empire and "Eat it Grandpa" Legion. He's very capable of 'do as I say not as a I do'.

[Amoebas]

But the problem has always been when creators want to have their cake, like having Bludhaven nuked, but then have no consequences for Deathstroke so they can keep telling stories with them.

I hear ya. Like Black Goliath getting murdered and zero consequences for those responsible.

[ElijahSnowFan]

The problem is these stories aren't followed upon not that these stories are written in the first place.

It's the same thing, at the end of the day -- again, this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. They KNOW it's a shared universe. There's no secrets to this stuff, anymore.

If you are unwilling to follow up on these stories, as you say, then it is just as bad -- and I would argue worse -- than not moving the characters at all.

If you're not willing to tell, "Daredevil: The End," then stop pretending like destroying his life and maiming/killing his girlfriend for the eighth time is anything more than shock storytelling. Stop pretending that taking the character to those dark places is a valid technique when there is no end and you're going to do it again.

That is the height of cynicism. Where companies don't have the courage to take the characters to their logical conclusions in their mainstream line because they are profitable, so creators tell stories without consequence because at the end of the day, they don't matter.

[chap22]

I have many issues to catch up on, but just because he apparently turns things around in the last issue doesn't mean he wasn't writing cynically all along. This reminds me of the old Chic Track where Mr. evil old man gets to go to heaven so long as his last words are "I believe in Jesus H Christ".

I don't disagree with Waid, but this is the same guy who created Magog, wrote Empire and "Eat it Grandpa" Legion. He's very capable of 'do as I say not as a I do'.

But Irredeemable technically isn't a story about superheroes, is it? Tony acted in that role for a while, but the more we learn about him through the course of the series, that's never really what he was or ever really had a chance to fully be. And even in a story about a supervillain, Waid ties it all up together in a way that gives hope to not one but two different "worlds", turning into a non-cynical story about heroes in the end.

I'd say that Irredeemable was written darkly, yes, but it was also written honestly, not cynically.

[Cat-Scratch]

Given Kingdom Come, his viewpoint is obvious as it is perfectly illustrated there. No not Alex Ross art, but... you know...

[PDH]

I feel like I'm the only person here who gets Waid's point. He's not saying Batman can't or shouldn't be dark. Or even, I think, that he himself can't be cynical.

But there's a difference in writing Batman as a cynic, and writing him cynically. Don't write the character as "aw this is bulkshit, nobody can do the stuff he does so let me take the piss out of him." don't turn him into a murderer b/c you think "this moral code is bullshit, nobody believes that."

Put him in dark stories. Push him, by all means. But always remember Bats is supposed to be a hero...deep down he doesn't fight crime for vengeance, he does it to keep any other child of Gotham from having to grow up an orphan.

Which reminds me of what I think is TERRIBLE cynical writing: any writer who writes Batman like they believe he's as crazy as the Joker. Yeah, realistically...he may be. But don't write him that way. It bores me, and it doesn't entertain me.

I think you've had the key insight here. It's not cynical stories that Waid is complaining about, it's cynical writers.

The characters can be dark, the tone can be gritty, the stories can contain violence and so forth all without the writer having a cynical attitude to the stories.

I think what Waid means by cynical is that on some level the writers are thinking, 'this is stupid, the people who like this are idiots.'

Now, having said that I think it's pretty clear that a lot of comic book creators do and have had that attitude. Stan Lee probably had a very low opinion of his audience. The whole notion of a 'No-Prize,' for example, is a pretty clear instance of utter contempt for the audience. This is a man who knows that people will buy any old shit and is happy to sell it to them. That's cynicism. The stories he wrote, on the other hand, were all ultimately positive stories.

Most superhero movies are deeply cynical even when they're hokey. That's why Avengers was so awesome, it's one of the few superhero movies that was genuinely created by people who like and understand the genre. With Green Lantern, say, it's pretty obvious that everyone involved thought that it was adequate. They thought, 'it's sufficient to just put some schmuck in a mask and spends hundreds of millions of dollars on SFX and marketing. They might not care about Super Lantern Man now but wait till they see the trailers, then they'll turn around. Whatever, you know? It's only superheroes.'

[Dragavon]

Now, having said that I think it's pretty clear that a lot of comic book creators do and have had that attitude. Stan Lee probably had a very low opinion of his audience. The whole notion of a 'No-Prize,' for example, is a pretty clear instance of utter contempt for the audience. This is a man who knows that people will buy any old shit and is happy to sell it to them. That's cynicism. The stories he wrote, on the other hand, were all ultimately positive stories.

I have to disagree with that. In all his interviews he states that he was tired of writing comics that speak down to his audience. That's what prompted Fantastic Four and Amazing Fantasy #15. Now that could be revisionist history but I personally doubt it. Stan or Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko (or whomever) basically wrote realistic and flawed characters and didn't say that we as readers would not be able to handle it.

[Amoebas]

Stan Lee has always said he wrote stories HE wanted to read.

That could easily be interpreted as having a low opinion on the other readers.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

[PDH]

I have to disagree with that. In all his interviews he states that he was tired of writing comics that speak down to his audience. That's what prompted Fantastic Four and Amazing Fantasy #15. Now that could be revisionist history but I personally doubt it. Stan or Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko (or whomever) basically wrote realistic and flawed characters and didn't say that we as readers would not be able to handle it.

Possibly. Of course that is exactly what you'd expect a cynical businessman to say.

[chap22]

Man, in 30+ years of comic reading, I have never contemplated the No-Prize as a sign of "utter contempt" for the audience. Quite the opposite in fact...I always saw it as a sign of respect. Stan and others were basically admitting hey, we're only human and we make mistakes. We know a lot of you out there are probably smarter than us and can "fix" this for us, so here's our little way of engaging you in the books we thank you for buying, and allowing you to help explain our snafus. Do it well, and we'll give you some non-monetary recognition.

I always dug the idea.

[Stalzer2002]

That really is my point -- there's plenty of "consequential storytelling" out there for anybody who wants it.

You know, I haven't bought a new big two superhero book in almost a year. I'll eventually get the rest of Brubaker's Cap/Winter Soldier stuff, but other than that and MAYBE Fraction/Aja's Hawkeye series, I have no interest in spending my money on them anymore. I have utterly no interest in consequence free, "timeless" storytelling. On a personal level, that's okay I suppose, because I can just take that money and spend it on great, creator owned books that focus on storytelling instead of preserving IP. So yeah, you're right, there is plenty of consequential storytelling out there. But there's more to it than just that. Anyone who thinks that there isn't a point where Disney and Warner Brothers will pull the plug on Marvel and DC comics because the audience is too small is an idiot. Everytime you tell someone "well there's plenty of [insert whatever you want] out there" there's a chance that person will say, "you're right, I'm not going to spend my money on this crap and I'm going to find it!" Every time that happens, we're one step closer to the corporate bean counters shutting down publishing. What do you think will happen to the rest of the medium when that happens?

Different writers want to write different things and different readers want to read different things. My interests are just as valid as yours and my money is the same color too. Marvel and DC will need us both and many others with still different interests and opinions if they're going to remain viable for another fifty years. I believe that optimistic, uplifting stories and characters can co-exist in the same ongoing universe as dark, cynical ones. But even if I were to concede the point that is difficult to reconcile all of that, I'd say it is too bad, because they have to co-exist. The minute you set down a rule that narrows what superhero comics can and should be, you narrow your audience. And as Mark Waid once said, "Superhero comics aren't about rules, they're about flying."

[Keb]

... because I can just take that money and spend it on great, creator owned books that focus on storytelling instead of preserving IP.

Strongly agree!

[PDH]

Man, in 30+ years of comic reading, I have never contemplated the No-Prize as a sign of "utter contempt" for the audience. Quite the opposite in fact...I always saw it as a sign of respect. Stan and others were basically admitting hey, we're only human and we make mistakes. We know a lot of you out there are probably smarter than us and can "fix" this for us, so here's our little way of engaging you in the books we thank you for buying, and allowing you to help explain our snafus. Do it well, and we'll give you some non-monetary recognition.

I always dug the idea.

Most creators get inundated with complaints from nitpicky fans. Stan has to be the only creator in history who managed to get those same fans to answer their own questions. Then to throw salt in the wounds, he 'rewards' them with literally nothing. Worse than nothing. A symbol of all the time they wasted.

It's his way of saying, 'you think about this too much, I don't give a shit.'

I say this out of respect for his achievements. This guy knew exactly how to deal with nerds.

[chap22]

Anyone who thinks that there isn't a point where Disney and Warner Brothers will pull the plug on Marvel and DC comics because the audience is too small is an idiot. Everytime you tell someone "well there's plenty of [insert whatever you want] out there" there's a chance that person will say, "you're right, I'm not going to spend my money on this crap and I'm going to find it!" Every time that happens, we're one step closer to the corporate bean counters shutting down publishing. What do you think will happen to the rest of the medium when that happens?

man, that's a problem for future Marshall and future Ted. Let those guys worry about it.

/oldasshole'sresponse'd

[Vic Vega]

No, I mean for the universe that the story is told in.

I absolutely read Squadron Supreme back in the day, and didn't fire off a letter to anyone or anything, and Mark Gruenwald was always one of my favorite creators.

But to me, that just proves my point: He didn't tell that story with the Avengers or the Justice League. Because you can't -- the kinds of stories you tell with Hyperion have different end points, at the end of the day.

I know you know that. I'm making sure people know I know that -- I've got JMS' Supreme Power, Robinson's Golden Age, etc, etc.

That really is my point -- there's plenty of "consequential storytelling" out there for anybody who wants it.

But the problem has always been when creators want to have their cake, like having Bludhaven nuked, but then have no consequences for Deathstroke so they can keep telling stories with them.

I'm not sure that is cynicism as it is bad story telling. If Nightwing's failure to protect Bludhaven has a consequence, so should Deathstroke's nuking of it.

If anything Waid seems (to me,anyway) to be talking about about the kind of piss-taking that Ennis did in the DC Universe.Y'know holding the characters themselves up for ridicule. Either that or the kind of literalism where Frank Miller's Catwoman is a dominatrix/hooker.

When you make Toyman a child molester for whatever reason, you kind of paint yourself in a corner and you kind of make the character damn near unusable.