RKMBs Forums .::Robegories::. Comic Books Superhero comics are bloody boring.

...I tells ya.

A few of years ago I was all about the capes and tights. Superhero comics were kinda cool and fun and interesting. But then, a few years ago, I was fifteen. Lots of things seemed cooler then than they do now.

There are some interesting things happening in the world of superheroes. I anxiously await the second Ultimates TPB. Planetary is kinda superheroish, I guess, and that's cool. Morrison's New X-Men would be good if they could've found it a proper artist. Quitely, how I miss thee... (interesting pattern I've noticed in my examples: Slowness equates to quality). Um... what else is there? The Implausibles is pretty good (that's a comic I invented in my head on the way home from the train station today).

But for the most part, I look over the racks at the comic store and just see piles upon piles of stuff that looks like utter shit. Or what might be even worse... stuff that just looks dull. Yay, Superman is fighting vampires. Exciting stuff. Batman is looking grim on a rooftop. Spidey is cracking wise while punching Doctor Octopus. Gee, I'm glad I stopped by the comic store today.

I read the first Judd Winick Outsiders TPB the other day. It was fucking shit. Ooh, the robot doesn't get jokes so she takes them literally! Out-rageous! Shut the fuck up, Judd.

Let's look at Marvel's recently launched titles. The new stuff from the home of comic's hottest properties.
Iron Fist. She-Hulk. Captain America and the Falcon. Thank you for pushing the boundaries of the artform, House of Ideas. Didn't I watch these same books get cancelled two years ago? And two years before that? Fuckoo, Quesada. Fuckoo right in the eye.

Sigh. I used to like superheroes as a genre.

Ah, well. At least I have Hopeless Savages to keep me happy. And I still gotta get my hands on the latest Grrl Scouts TPB. Plus I've heard good things about The Losers...

Flash by Johns/Kolins
Hawkman by Johns/Morales
JLA/Avengers
New Frontier by Darwyn Cooke
Capt. Marvel by David/co.
Formerly Known As by Giffen/DeMatties/Maguire

All really good unapologetic spandex books. I'm especially impressed with New Frontier.


Daredevil by Bendis/Maleev
Sleeper by Brubaker/Hester
Wildcats 3.0 by Casey/Nguyen
Catwoman by Brubaker/Cooke

All essentially crime books with elements of superhero drag in them. Consider yourself recommended.

I don't think I'll be reading X-Men anymore. I checked the preview pages of next weeks issue and it looks like shit. why did Marvel choose Austen to write Grants follow up instead of somebody with talent? I think even Millar would've pulled off a better 5 page preview than Austen did.

I listed spandex books that I personally find to be not "boring."

Take the recommendations or don't, but I think you're acting like a bit of a wanker.

I tend to agree with Danny.

The books in the 1st column clearly have no appeal to anyone under 30. They're written and published specifically for people like us who grew up in the 70's-80's. So they're basically like getting new episodes of any Nick at Nite show. They are the cream of the crop though in the genre of "traditional" spandex superheroics. Tailor made for an audience who likes continuity and tradition.

The latter column are good examples of writers trying to find new ground apart from the cliches, slugfests, and costumes of the past.

There's nothing wrong with any of those books but you really have to appreciate them for what they are and are not and what they represnt in the context of this thread.

Eh. I was a little prickly earlier. (yes, earlier.)

I really enjoy Bendis' DD. Fantastic stuff. If you like Mack's art, you'll probably dig his last arc which just finished up a few months back.

Hey, I just remembered Madman is a superhero comic. So is X-Statix. No way those are boring!

Superman/Madman is more a Superman comic than a Madman comic thought it's written by Allred and drawn in his style. It's a superhero comic and it's far from boring.

You can have "riff raff" or "newbie", Grimm. I'm tired of those titles.

I prefer "thrusting piston of sexual mastery".

That's the funniest thing I've ever read.

This Danny chick sounds pretty.

That Son of Mxy is such a rip-off bitch.

Quote:

---

Danny said:
...I tells ya.

A few of years ago I was all about the capes and tights. Superhero comics were kinda cool and fun and interesting. But then, a few years ago, I was fifteen. Lots of things seemed cooler then than they do now.

There are some interesting things happening in the world of superheroes. I anxiously await the second Ultimates TPB. Planetary is kinda superheroish, I guess, and that's cool. Morrison's New X-Men would be good if they could've found it a proper artist. Quitely, how I miss thee... (interesting pattern I've noticed in my examples: Slowness equates to quality). Um... what else is there? The Implausibles is pretty good (that's a comic I invented in my head on the way home from the train station today).

But for the most part, I look over the racks at the comic store and just see piles upon piles of stuff that looks like utter shit. Or what might be even worse... stuff that just looks dull. Yay, Superman is fighting vampires. Exciting stuff. Batman is looking grim on a rooftop. Spidey is cracking wise while punching Doctor Octopus. Gee, I'm glad I stopped by the comic store today.

I read the first Judd Winick Outsiders TPB the other day. It was fucking shit. Ooh, the robot doesn't get jokes so she takes them literally! Out-rageous! Shut the fuck up, Judd.

Let's look at Marvel's recently launched titles. The new stuff from the home of comic's hottest properties.
Iron Fist. She-Hulk. Captain America and the Falcon. Thank you for pushing the boundaries of the artform, House of Ideas. Didn't I watch these same books get cancelled two years ago? And two years before that? Fuckoo, Quesada. Fuckoo right in the eye.

Sigh. I used to like superheroes as a genre.

Ah, well. At least I have Hopeless Savages to keep me happy. And I still gotta get my hands on the latest Grrl Scouts TPB. Plus I've heard good things about The Losers...

---

I blame Vertigo, Danny. If not for generally high quality books written for mature audiences, we'd have no idea that comics can be something other than bogfodder.

I am increasingly of the view that superheroes probably aren't the problem. You can have well-written superhero genre comics. You won't get a Watchmen or a Planetary every month, but you might get a Black Panther or a Wanted.

The fundamental problem which everyone is missing is hack writing.

If most of these guys had any talent they'd be writing novels (Rucka does) or TV scripts.

You really think anyone would buy a novel by Geoff Johns? Without the crutch of continuity and a confusing cast of thousands in a meaningless slugfest, what would he have left to write about?

Even Marvel are sensible enough to give the scripts for their motion pictures to real screenwriters, not to any of the hacks in their bullpen. I didn't see John Byrne get anywhere near the Spider-man script.

Doug Moench once said in an interview that Warner Bros treated DC as the creative gutter in their house. Its where all the deadbeat writers end up, after all - writing She-Hulk and Green fucking Lantern.

Same recycled bird shit sandwiches we've been reading for decades. "JL Elite"? Who comes up with this crap? I don't know whether to blame the writers, or the editors, but the result is the same - the writing smells like a water-rotted turd that just won't flush after two weeks, and the weather is hot, and yoou're going to have to kneel over the cistern to fish it out. That's how much it stinks. Right there.

Innovation would hurt their poor brains, but it would be refreshing for ours.

And that post, is right there, is why someone would pay lots of money for a fancy lawyer education.

The writing on most superhero comics seems to be nothing more than formula. What was that thing Denny O'Neil said? Something like fight-chase-bigger fight being the basis of every superhero comic ever written.

I think one big problem is fucking continuity. You see entire storylines dedicated to nothing but push continuity foward, making references to comics from ten years ago so that the people that spend their money buying every fucking issue of every fucking comic feel like it's worth it. The problem is that when the focus is on continuity the actual story takes a secondary place. The worst part is that there's a whole audience for that kind of comics, people who put continuity first and care little about the story. I'm all for giving those people their space in comics, as long as that's not all that gets published.
According to Dan DiDio DC will be worrying more about the stories and less about how they fit into continuity from now on. Time will tell if he's full of crap or not.

John Byrne has written two novels.

Geoff Johns worked in film before entering comics, and has one creator owned series to his belt. So I don't discount the guy yet.

Hackwork is a problem, yes, but I think the bigger problem is the public perception that hackwork is all that goes on.

Dave's Doug Moench anecdote is the very definition of a self fulfilling prophecy: If you treat something like crap, fully expecting it to be crap, then when it becomes crap, you can say "oh, I was right all along." It's a defense mechanism for the lazy of thinking who don't want to move past their own personal biases.

And one look at WB's Smallville, Birds of Prey, Constantine, and Catwoman projects shows no lack of hack thinking on their side of the fence. Ultimately ninety percent of everything in any genre or medium works out to be crap. Comics are no different in that regard.

But that's what makes those of moments when you find something that to you, is sheer gold, worthwhile. What that gold is, is up to opinion. "one man's trash. . ."

Nowadays most movies and novels are crap as well. Isn't that the problem with the last century of popular culture? There are indeed diamonds sprinkled on the huge lumps of shit, but it's mostly shit. You can't glorify the past because it was as crap filled as the modern era is...the crap just usually never gets a second printing or gets nowhere near a DVD version..unless it's new or discounted.

The market is there to serve a purpose, but like all it is "buyer beware". I bought dozens and dozens of comics monthly for the past 30 years, and I still buy many. My rose-colored glasses still allow me to enjoy much of the energy of the early silver age and even up to the early 80's. I love comics. Period. I hate most modern comics because I am not a fanboy, but I appreciate someone like Geoff Johns because he entertains me. He doesn't masturbate to his own ego like Morrison and Ellis-as of yet.

Comics role and purpose was to appeal to the under 18 year old crowd. That crowd now likes video games, cable tv, the internet and have sex at age 11 and 12. Comics are not high on the priority list. that market is gone and comics are going through a change to rediscover what they are and what their goal is. Is it the teen and pre-teen market or is it the 21-50 crowd?

Danny, I understand where you are coming from and recently I posted "why I hate modern comics" thread. It agreed and it was opposite to what you said though. I think comics are about fantasy and when too much reality sets in they lose what their purpose is...Escapism from that same reality.
It's nice and all that people like ellis and Millar have their heroes as grey and full-on shit kickers...but isn't that a little immature??? Are we so childish and easily pleased that Captain America kicking the Hulk in the nuts and the Wasp flashing people is "adult" storytelling? I personally don't think so. I think that as we get older we become more lazy to thinking of ourselves as being able to be anything other than what we are currently. Which is generally de-sensitized, apathetic, morally ambiguous, bored, and self-indulgent. This isn't true across the board and I know it. Isn't it easier to bring the capes down to our level than make them interesting enough to be something to aspire to-to make us want to be better than what we are?

I don't know. It just seems that some of the "new" writing is just as childish as some of the traditional to me.


Dave is correct that Vertigo is excellent and serves it's purpose well. It tells adult graphic fiction and is generally very good. Comics are about humor and superheroes in my mind though. Comics like the EC library and the like blurred the line of what comics were. And what they should be is 2 things. Some comics targetted at all audiences and some at adult audiences.

The modern comic world is filled with self-congratulating fanboys as you insinuate. That is very true, but there is some good stuff out there. I suggest you step away for about 6 or 7 months and see if you miss them. And when you do think of what you do miss--if you miss them at all. I mean I wa s a Marvel fan big time but I quit buying them for a period of 3 years-mostly because Quesada and Jemas both personally said things to me that offended me as a buyer. Guess what I don't miss them. I wish they would tell stories that entertain me, but they don't. I don't buy them anymore. If they do I'll try them again.

My comic list has diminished greatly in the past 3 years and now my list looks something like this:

Age of Bronze
Oh My Goddess!
Hellboy books
Bone
Most of the ABC line
Sleeper
Planetary
Batman Adventures
Catwoman
Flash
JSA
DC: The New Frontier
Teen Titans
Soon...Doom Patrol.
I also get the trades for Y: The last man, Fables and Powers.
And any new Craig Thompson or Scott Mills book.

Frankly most of my money goes to tracking down back issues and getting hardcover collections of older stuff.


To you I highly recommend Blankets, Goodbye -Chunky Rice, Age of Bronze, Y: The Last Man and Big Clay Pot. I think you'd enjoy any of them.

Seriously though, I think you should quit for atleast 6 months and then see if you feel any differently or atleast have a renewed interest. There is burnout (or being fed up) and I've had it several times.

I think you can still have fantasy escapism and still have good writing.

Look at issue 1 of The Losers. They steal a bloody big helicopter. How do they do it? Trank some soldiers on patrol, pretend to be them and call for a rescue helicopter, trank the helicopter guys. Standard stuff so far... but then they lay the soldiers in recovery psosition so they don't choke in their own vomit, send the radio transponder out of the copter and off by a rocket to start a wild goose chase away from them, and paint the helicopter in NYPD insignia so it won't get shot at by cops in thier next gig. A lot of thought has gone into that scripting.

Compare this to Black Reign in JSA/Hawkman. How much thought went into that comic? Atom-smasher goes rogue with some other characters, and punches out thier jet, somehow conveniently knocking all of the JSA unconscious. Dr Fate's amulet inexplicably holds another bunch of old Infinity Inc characters. It was pure crap. Where is the clever writing in that?

I mentioned Black Panther as a book which had some very decent writing. It was eventually cancelled because ultimately it was a book about a minor black character in the Marvel line-up. I'm told Ennis' The Punisher is of equally skilful writing (I need to check this out) If some decent quality thought went into a comic like JSA, I'd probably buy it.

As for Byrne's novels....the fact that they were commercially non-viable despite Byrne having a pre-existing public profile probably says volumes about their quality.

So commercial viability and quality always go hand in hand? We all know that ain't true. Generally, if it's not commercially viable, I expect higher quality. It means less cooks stirring the pot at corporate levels and interfering with creativity. I'd say Byrne's novels were at about middle level Stephen King quality (not at Green Mile or Dark Tower but probably closer to say, Dead Zone), which puts them ahead of most of what was out there.

But my point was intended to be: Comic writers aren't always working in comics because they have to. The majority of them are doing it because they want to. Peter David's written several novels, and still does comics. Many other creators have written for the screen and television, as well. But they all come back to comics because they love the medium. The "ghettoization" stereotype is more a matter of public perception these days than truth.

Why else would "respectable" people such as Harlan Ellison, Kevin Smith, Strascyinski (fuck if I know how to spell it or can be arsed to look it up), Joss Whedon, Brad Meltzer, Bryan Singer, etc. clamoring to write comics? They love the medium. They're doing it because they want to. And the companies involved are smart enough to know that these guy's names attached will improve the public's perception of the industry. (Whedon's X-Men is gonna suck balls, btw. At least Cassaday's art will be nice.)

Black Reign and JSA have their problems, true. But that doesn't mean there haven't been worthwhile moments, at least to me. My biggest concern is that the book would turn into Infinity Inc., which it seems to be inching more and more towards.

Ennis' Punisher is brilliant. I'd advise you to just start fresh with the Max relaunch.

When did comics turn from fun to high art though Dave? JSA is fun for it's intended audience. There are great moments in JSA...it isn't Kafka, but it's also more than Atom Smasher smashing a plane as well.

Comics should be allowed to be anything anyone with money is willing to buy and anyone with a story is willing to tell. I don't have to like everything that is put out in comic form, but I also don't have to buy it. If someone else is, then fine by me. I don't want to be all MOTAesque in my comic habits.

Dave, have you been following JSA for a while; or did you just read the Black Reign arc? Or have you even read it at all? Your synopsis of it is really lacking. Atom Smasher didn't go rogue. The point of the story was that two differing ideas on what makes a hero clashed. Good characterizations were brought forth of individual characters as well as their team dynammics. In all that were nice fight scenes as well as happy little fanboy moments. Johns is a writer who makes stories that are mixed grabbags of goodies for differing audiences in comicdom. If you just want it one way, then he isn't the writer for you. Not everyone can be Alan Moore or write like him. I think it is unfair to demand an across the board writing style for all comics.

The big problem with comics nowadays is the tendency to start generalizing. We too easily want to make the worst example of something the definition of what that medium is. At the same time, we take the best of something and want to make it the measuring stick by which everything else should be held up to instead of simply regarding it as and exceptional piece of work. Do you honestly think that I like Loeb's return of Krypto or multi-colored kryptonite into the mainstream DCU? No, I fucking hate it. It's hack writing in my opinion. Does that mean I label all Superman comics and stories as silly or superheroes in general as obtuse? No, because there are things in both classifications that I really like. Just like there are people who drool over Loeb's writing, I have books out there with superheroes and Superman that I really enjoy and spend money on.

We're too quick to label. Even Danny, in his first post, notes that there are exceptions to his superheroes are boring creed. If we prejudge and label something, then we're not going to give it an honesty try, are we? It's just going to fall short of our expectations no matter how good it is. This is a problem both within and without comics. There are people who buy comics become snobbish and pretentious and refuse to give anything a try because it doesn't fit inside their specified criteria of approval. The main contention with people who don't read comics is that they are childish and silly and not worth their time. Yet they'll watch The Bachelor or any other reality schlock that gets thrown on the airwaves.

So maybe we shouldn't throw out blanket statements and, instead, make judgements on a case by case basis.

Yes, I might have to use that one for you.

I've been posed with a few questions, which I'll deal withnin no particular order:

With Black Reign, I flipped through an issue in the comic shop. that is what I gleaned. There was nothing sufficiently engaging abut the story to attract me to buy it. So no, I didn't pick up the internal tension within Atom-Smasher about his motivation for heroism. If it played out at all in the cross-over story, it was oblvious to me as a casual potential purchaser. I suspect that is another flaw to the storywriting, in its lack of immediacy, rather than any sort of carelessness on my behalf.

Commerical success and quality generally do go hand in hand. There are exceptions to this, but generally speaking if something is good people will pay money for it. I haven't read Byrne's novels, but on the back of his comics writing I wouldn't go near them.

Whedon, Ellison, Smith and others who participate in writing comics as well as other mediums are a very low percentage of all capable writers out there. I'm sure there is an equal statistical correlation between those people who can pilot a plane and perform stage magic, compared to tose people who write for mainstream media and write for comics. You have simply picked the only examples.


The final question: when did comics stop becoming "fun" and start becoming a medium of high art? I never said they became a medium of high art, nor did they stop being fun. I merely assert that in today's market, the lack of quality writing is hurting sales. Once, comics might have been able to get away with it. Now, for a variety of reasons, they cannot. Some people look back on the Silver Age with nostalgia - quite a few people here have said they mostly buy old silver age stuff. But a new Silver Age type Superman would never sell to a mass market nowadays, unless it was very high quality. I think we are seeing that in any event, from the sounds of it.

OK. I don't want rehash either. I can buy the old stuff.

I don't happen to think many of the hailed writers are worth a crap at writing superheroes though. Rucka, Azzarello, JMS, etc. I think they should stay to what they know rather than trying to fit a hero to what they know. I don't think it works personally.

I agree that superhero comics are extremely boring nowadays, but I don't think that's a fault of the genre itself. I think it's the way the genre has been mishandled.

It used to be that superhero comics were vibrant and full of life and energy. You plunked down whatever it cost at the time and you got your money's worth with a good story that usually ran maybe an issue or two, tops. Continuity, if it was used at all, was a tool at the writer's disposal, not an unbreakable covenant. Plus, the stories were FUN! It's impossible not to look back at the Golden and Bronze Age stories and the truly good Silver Age stories (provided you weed out the excesses of the period) and not enjoy the hell out of them. They reveled in their fantasy and outlandishness, and it made for some truly wonderful stuff. I loved seeing a Batman who could laugh and enjoy the company of his best friends when called for and still be able to scare the bad guys at night, a Superman who was truly a larger-than-life leader of men, a Wonder Woman who actually had a clearly-defined character and purpose, a Spider-Man who absolutely loved life and could even joke in the face of the worst disasters...the characters felt like real people, like they could actually exist.

But ever since the mid-'80s and especially the '90s, that fun, that exuberance, that sheer bloody humanity that made the stories and characters so great...all of it was gone. Comics had become pretentious, self-important dross that became dependent upon hollow gimmicks/"events," shallow and unnecessary heapings of "angst" that were more damaging than they were timely, and an unmasked disdain for the earlier and far superior stories of years past turned superhero comics into depressing, one-note bilge. Fun and energy was out; in its place was a pompous, self-righteous "seriousness" and often misguided and poorly-conceived attempts at making the characters "relevant." Also, continuity had gone from being a tool to being the slavemaster, resulting in the books becoming inbred, convoluted, and completely inaccessible to newcomers. The selfish, continuity-obsessed zealots soon overpowered the reader base and helped to turn comics fandom into a jealous, exclusive clique where you either subscribe to the given party line whole-hog or you’re not welcome…a situation that’s even more prevalent today. The albatross of rigid continuity also contributed to superhero comics’ nose-dive in quality by transforming the books into plodding soap opera, forcing readers to buy books they might not like or even be able to afford just to follow one single story. Instead of getting a tight, concise tale of, say, Superman matching wits with Brainiac, you got a drawn-out, multi-month "events" where something stupid and superficial happened to Superman and the supporting cast ate up 80% of the page count with their personal problems. Instead of a nice 2 or 3-issue arc of Batman and the Joker squaring off for the fate of Gotham City, you got months and months of stuff like, for example, Ra’s Al Ghul’s Ebola virus—stuff that should only have run for maybe a month or two at most and endless pages wasted on Commissioner Gordon’s marriage. And poor Spider-Man got stuck with the "Clone Saga," "Mary Jane left me and is presumed dead," etc. Instead of being the escape from the gloom of reality that they once were and should be, superhero comics actually became even more depressing and painful than reality, out of some stupid idea that the worse the heroes’ lives were, the better the reader would feel about their own lives. What they refused to take into account was that except for the anal-retentive continuity zealots, most folks read superhero comics to lose themselves in epic fantasy, heroism, and high adventure. That’s why Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter are so popular; they provide that sense of escapism and exuberance that superhero comics have since shunned and gone out of their way to avoid.

The worst part of all is the fact that superhero comics have degraded themselves to the point where a renaissance of quality and popularity is impossible now. The reliance on gimmicks, "grim-n-gritty angst" BS, the stranglehold of rigid, inflexible continuity, and the entrenchment of treating these characters as nothing more than low-grade soap opera in capes is now permanently ingrained into these characters. And the more this crap continues to pollute the characters, the more potential new readers and even old readers who gave up once things started going downhill will avoid superhero comics like the plague. And the intolerant continuity zealots who’ve come to dominate the fandom have become so egotistical and self-satisfied that they think the comics belong to them and them alone, and they’re quick to stamp out anything that might even hint at breaking away from their narrowminded grip. It also doesn’t help that the publishers are going out of their way to cater exclusively to the fewer and fewer but louder and louder zealots and baldly refusing to reach out to a newer, younger audience. Look at the way Birthright was mishandled; DC refused to market and support the book properly, and it bombed despite good reviews. That, and it was skinned alive by the continuity obsessives for even daring to try integrating all the different incarnations of Superman together. (It’s my belief that DC only said it was the official canon just to avoid making Mark Waid feel like he was killing himself for no reason—which he is, sadly.) Matt Wagner’s outstanding Trinity, a yarn that wouldn’t have been out of place in the glory days of the Golden, Silver, and Bronze Ages, was crucified for allegedly contradicting Legends, and it too was not supported or marketed properly by DC. Like Birthright, it ended up a failure. Darwyn Cooke’s New Frontier has been similarly savaged for daring to contradict post-Crisis continuity just because it doesn’t bear an Elseworlds logo. The current readership is just too intolerant, too selfish, and too elitist to allow any kind of moves to bring new readers and former readers into the fold. And the publishers don’t have the balls to finally ditch all the garbage that they’ve become dependent on; they’re perfectly happy to keep treading water and relying on the same tired old crutches that only the continuity obsessives want to see. It would take a massive, legitimately radical change in the way these characters are written, marketed, and treated to make superhero comics good again, and to restore them to the popularity they once had. And nobody has the balls to make it happen, and the few stories that do try to make inroads into making comics fun and high-quality again (the works of Waid, Wagner, and Cooke, for example) are punished for it and left to languish. There never will be another Golden, Silver, or Bronze Age, because neither the industry or the selfish minority of readers they cater to will stand for it. They’d rather commit slow suicide by preaching to the conservative converted.

And that, people, is definitely our loss.

I think Madman proved that you can do something silly, simplistic, and retro-looking, and at the same time make it fresh and have a modern sensibility. If it was up to me I'd put Mike Allred in charge of DC.

Quote:

---

Dave sed: Commerical success and quality generally do go hand in hand. There are exceptions to this, but generally speaking if something is good people will pay money for it.

---

I'll have to disagree with you heartily on this. Will Smith films are considered commercially viable and they're total crap. Filmmakers like Sam Raimi and the Coen Bros. toiled for years under the "cult" label, while people flocked to see crapfests by Roland Emmerich like Independence Day. George Romero has difficulty raising money for his films, yet garbage like House of the Dead and Resident Evil is regularly foisted upon public audiences.