The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **chap22** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:15 pm

Punchy wrote:
Exactly, Daredevil was a character who's actions had consequences when the tone was dark. A swashbuckling DD goes against those consequences unless it's the result of a mental breakdown.

Or a mix of denial plus refusal to dwell on the past. People refuse to be depressed or refuse to be miserable in the face of bad circumstances all the time; doesn't mean they've necessarily had a breakdown.

But Waid may play it that way, and I'll buy his explanation either way. But let's not act like Matt hasn't done this before.

by **Punchy** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:20 pm

chap22 wrote:Or a mix of denial plus refusal to dwell on the past. People refuse to be depressed or refuse to be miserable in the face of bad circumstances all the time; doesn't mean they've necessarily had a breakdown.

But Waid may play it that way, and I'll buy his explanation either way. But let's not act like Matt hasn't done this before.

He has, but not to this ridiculous extent. The scene with the Coffee-vendor may have been played for laughs, but it was disturbing in a way too.

by **Johnny Smith** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:45 pm

chap22 wrote:meh, you talk about Waid establihing he may have gone through a psychotic break now, but marrying Milla in the first place was the result of a psychotic break. Bendis pretty clearly set that out.

and why can't he just move on? there's precedent!! Matt moved on pretty damn quick after Heather Glenn killed herself because being with Matt drove her nuts...at least Milla's still sucking in air and blowing it back out again.

as far as Milla goes, good riddance to bad rubbish, IMMO. if Waid never mentions her, it'll be too soon.

Agreed. The issue of Milla has been beat to death (figuratively) - Brubaker spent more than enough time dealing with her situation.

by **Victorian Squid** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:26 pm

Still believe deep at the heart of this debate is readers' constant fear of change. Even those who advocate for it in comics grieve mightily when it comes for something they happened to be liking just fine.

Also, no one has a problem with Peter Parker's persona when he quips his way through his darkest hours, and that character has also had his share of loss and death.

by **Punchy** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:42 pm

Asmodeus Jones wrote:Still believe deep at the heart of this debate is readers' constant fear of change. Even those who advocate for it in comics grieve mightily when it comes for something they happened to be liking just fine.

Also, no one has a problem with Peter Parker's persona when he quips his way through his darkest hours, and that character has also had his share of loss and death.

It's not a fear of change, it's a fear of change that doesn't make sense.

And Peter Parker and Matt Murdock are very different people, it's like how both Dick Grayson and Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered, but one of them is still able to laugh and have fun, while the other becomes Batman.

by **Starlord** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:47 pm

Daredevil #1

Sorry this has taken me so long, and it was the first thing I read on Wednesday. Loved this book. The stories, the art, the editing, the lettering. All picture perfect. Too bad Daredevil still sucks as a character.

Story: 10
Art: 10
My Score: 9.5

by **Daringd** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:43 pm

DD #1

Was a perfect comic....nothing else to say

10/10

by **False Prophet** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:53 pm

Punchy wrote:
It's not a fear of change, it's a fear of change that doesn't make sense.

And Peter Parker and Matt Murdock are very different people, it's like how both Dick Grayson and Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered, but one of them is still able to laugh and have fun, while the other becomes Batman.

DD used to be the one who laughed and had fun, while Spiderman was ultimately the dour and pessimistic, even when he was cracking wise.

by **Eli Katz** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:55 pm

I will review this book tomorrow, I hope. I still haven't read it. But boy, the pictures sure are pretty.

by **Victorian Squid** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:05 pm

False Prophet wrote:
DD used to be the one who laughed and had fun, while Spiderman was ultimately the dour and pessimistic, even when he was cracking wise.

Yep.

by **Amoebas** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:12 pm

chap22 wrote:well, i disagree with your charcterization of it as a "fan war", personally, because i don't fit into either of the 2 camps you ascribe to the war. i myself worship at the altar of Miller's DD. it is by miles and miles the best work on the character ever, and one of IMMO the top 10 superhero comic runs of all time (when looked at all together: the initial run, BA, and MWOF). i love DD in dark stories, mixing himself with gritty, noir elements like Turk, Josie's Bar, gang wars, etc. yet i also like my DD more swashbuckley, b/c that's who Matt is as a person.

b/c here's the thing that the recent decade or so's worth of writers (Bendis, Bru, Diggle) have forgotten: even Frank knew when enough was enough. yeah, he beat on DD and beat on him and beat on him, but in the end Matt overcame and found himself. he was "born again" as himself. Nocenti pulled a similar trick, laying defeat and disgrace and shame and bad decisions on him for 50-60 issues until Matt, because he is the HERO of the story, fought his way back up out of literal Hell to find himself again. and that waas just nowhere to be found in Bendis, et al's runs.

and yes, i'll buy the fact that events change a man. but here's where i think your true divide lies: most of us realize this is a serial medium. and most of us realize that in such a serial medium, while stories matter, characters matter more. and there's only so far and so much you can change a character until he's no longer recognizable to the fans that follow him. and once you do that, not every writer is going to be able to write stories of a high enough quality to keep those readers who read the book for Matt Murdock as opposed to those who read for BMB, or for Bru, or for "let's see how much shit Writer X can pile on DD this arc"

Here here. :smt023

by **Amoebas** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:14 pm

Asmodeus Jones wrote:Still believe deep at the heart of this debate is readers' constant fear of change. Even those who advocate for it in comics grieve mightily when it comes for something they happened to be liking just fine.

Also, no one has a problem with Peter Parker's persona when he quips his way through his darkest hours, and that character has also had his share of loss and death.

It's not "fear of change". It's fear of change for change's sake or fear of crappy change. A lot of today's writers try to cram thier round story into a square character instead of taking the time to whittle both both pieces so they mesh. Frank Miller made radical sweeping changes to Daredevil, but because he took the time it worked incredibly.

And to correct you, no one has a problem with "Spider-Man" making jokes during the tough times, because it's been well established that that is both his coping mechanism and a battle tactic to annoy and anger his opponents into making a mistake.

Peter Parker isn't a tenth the wise-cracker that Spider-Man is.