§ Greg Burgas argues that Kurt Busiek (unwittingly) ruined Marvel and DC superhero comics via MARVELS, which tipped off the avalanche of literary re-imaginings of canon as opposed to making new canon:
So, the hypothesis: Kurt Busiek, marvelous writer and obsessive continuity geek, ruined superhero comics. One must prove such a contentious hypothesis if one is to remain in the good graces of one’s readers, but first one must explain how the hypothesis was arrived at in the first place. I mean, heck, I love Busiek’s writing. Why would I say such a horrid thing?
One word: Marvels. You remember Marvels, right? A four-issue mini-series that came out in early 1994 and made the careers of both Busiek and its artist, Alex Ross? Good stuff, right? Well, yes. Marvels is a brilliant work, actually. So brilliant and so popular that, like other brilliant and popular works, it spawned imitators. And therein lies the problem. Much like the brilliant Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns spawned imitators to the detriment of superhero comics, so to did Marvels. Interestingly enough, though, Marvels seems to be even more influential than those two seminal works. Odd, that.
§ Meanwhile, at obssessed with film, Ray DeRousse wonders if SCOTT PILGRIM will spell doom for comic book movies, an opinion which stems from his own dislike of the material:
But I remain unconvinced. What could these people be seeing in this footage? Is it the Michael Cera routine yet again on display? Flaming swords? Words appearing onscreen to accompany action beats? The Juno-like banter? The stupid concept? Everything in the trailer we’ve seen in some permutation before; for instance, action words like “BAM!” appearing onscreen happened forty years ago. Nothing shown here looks revolutionary or inspired. It’s like saying that scrambled eggs taste revolutionary when they’re shaped into an omelette.
However, watching the trailer did give me one thought: could this film and Kick-Ass signal the merciful end of comic book adaptations?
Prognosis: unlikely.
§ Video corner: One New Hampshire state representative’s dislike of anime leads to an unfortunate remark and controversy — surely there is a better way?
§ Neil Gaiman went to the Oscars and became a nobody.
§ Finally, there is only one real life superhero among us.
“…for instance, action words like “BAM!” appearing onscreen happened forty years ago.”
When you have to go back 40 years ago to find the lastest occurence of a gimmick now on screen, yes, you can pretty call it revolutionary or inspired if it works well with the story.
I cant’ believe what I’m reading. Movies are NOT video games: it’s not because you have the lastest CGI or billions-3D textured thing that’s it’s inspired or even revolutionary. It’s following this thread that is trying to feed us with awful comic-book inspired movies that are only relevant to video game or special effect addicts.
I’d argue that the current people at Marvel Editorial ruined Marvel by:
1) Deciding that violating plot and/or character continuity was okay whenever a plot idea that did so seemed like it could appeal to new and casual readers.
2) Favoring plot-driven events and tie-ins over individual series that allowed writers to do character-driven and plot-driven stories as they felt was appropriate.
3) Publishing decompressed stories that emphasized stylistic techniques, particularly cinematic artwork, over plot content.
4) Employing writers who don’t (seem to) respect superhero fiction as a genre, and indulge in mocking conventions (Millar), trying for realism, e g., “Civil War,” that conflicts with the characters (Millar, Bendis, Reed), or placing the heroes in crime fiction situations, generic plots, or hackneyed superhero plots (Bendis).
At the CBR forums, the only superhero forums I check out regularly, Bendis fans use “Busiek” as a curse word when challenged about their reading preferences. They’d rather do anything else than read a traditional superhero story.
If DC Comics were a person, I’d think she was suffering from arteriosclerosis. If a character fails to attract readers after “n” revamps and reboots, the basic problem probably is with the character concept, not the execution.
I’d hire a consultant to redesign the universe, define a single version of each character for writers to use, and forbid writers from using a change in a character’s origin or history (retcon) as plot material. The universe would then resume operations with the new status quo. If a character’s series were to fail, he’d be retired or die.
SRS
Everything’s been done before, in some way or another. Go back to 1977. All the pieces of Star Wars had been done before: space opera, rescue the princess (how old is that story?), sword and sorcery, robots, the rough-and-tumble frontier town, the old wizard who tells the young nobody that he’s secretly the heir to some sort of power. It was the way the elements were put together that made the movie work phenomenally and inspire 5 more moviews, a zillion spinoffs across multiple media, and a merchandising machine that practically gives George Lucas the ability to print money.
Several weeks ago, I read a similar piece speculating that KICK-ASS and its deconstruction of superheroes signaled the decline of superheroes as material. I’m guessing that’s not the case and that, as time goes on, deconstruction will only be an approach taken by people who don’t value superheroes as useful storytelling concepts.
SRS
Comic book adaptations, like any other fad, will tail off at some point as they lose steam. I think that’s a given. But even if Kick Ass and Scott Pilgrim perform poorly, they alone won’t stop all the comic book movies. They’ll diminish over time, just like any other kind of movie.
If The Spirit and Watchmen couldn’t kill comic book movies, what possible chance could Scott Pilgrim and/or Kick-Ass have?
Is it kinda scary that I saw that photo of Lady Gaga and thought there was a chance she could be Barbara Streisand?
Fanny Brice…Barbra Streisand…Gaga…the heritage continues.
I’m actually a big Gaga fan. She is soup to nuts.
Synsider, why does deconstruction necessarily have to mean you don’t value the non-deconstructed version of a trope? One could argue that in order to do a really good deconstruction, you need to know the original inside and out – and who is more likely to know the source material well than the people who love it?
There *are* some deconstructions that are all about how superheroes are a bad fascist concept, oh no, violence and unaccountable aliens etc, but that doesn’t seem to be what Scott Pilgrim and Kick-Ass are about. Isn’t it possible for people to take their superhero toys out of the box and want to play with them in a different way just for fun and the sake of novelty?
I’m skeptical about metafictional treatment of superheroes because it’s intellectual showmanship, not suited to continuing characters. Witness the fate of the Sentry, who succeeded for a while as a metafictional character, but had nowhere to go within the Marvel universe. Treating him as a normal superhero ruined him. The skepticism re KICK-ASS was Graeme McMillan’s:
I’m much more in favor of SF treatments of superheroes that develop them fully as characters and celebrate the underlying concepts. There seem to be few writers in comics who are familiar enough with SF and science to connect paranormals to scientific concepts. A different approach to zombies would be to write about living zombies, humans with fungal symbiotes that provide internal functions and powers. Marvel could have a “Crisis,” with seven or so timelines, each with its own versions of the Marvel characters, forced to battle each other for survival. There’s so much unrealized potential in Marvel characters that opting for deconstruction or “illusion of change” stories just seems like a waste of time.
BTW, if you want to read an intellectual essay about deconstruction in WATCHMEN –
SRS
“BTW, if you want to read an intellectual essay about deconstruction in WATCHMEN”
This is not a complete sentence. :-P
How many people have read THE ULTIMATES, Vol. 2, in which Millar has the Hulk, manipulated by Captain America into getting mad, kill the chief villain and has Thor get rid of a bomb by casting it into another dimension?
The plot wasn’t imaginative, creative, interesting — there was nothing good about the climax(es) or the storyline overall except for the pacing and the artwork.
How typical was that laziness in Millar’s superhero comics writing?
SRS