Who Are The People Who Actually Like Meltzer's JLA Narrations?

[Johnny Triangles]

What are your opinions of Meltzer's JLA narrations? Does anyone else hate them? I don't see much online dialogue directed toward this topic, more is focused on the infamous rape, but to me his narrations are his worst offense.

First the "man crush" stuff just comes off creepy: "Hal is the best of us" "People think I like Roy because he reminds me of Ollie, but no. It's bigger than that. It's his fearlessness." Then when he goes into badass narration mode, it just gets worse: "He thinks fast. I think faster."

I will say, the best badass dialogue I've seen in a superhero comic to this day remains Dark Knight Returns: "You've got rights. Lots of rights. Sometimes I count them just to make myself feel crazy." I think Meltzer is trying to get his own classic badass line of that caliber but is just a little too geeky to pull it off.

[Rob on the Job]

Just once, I wish a character would tell the reader to mind his own business and stay out of his thoughts.

[suedenim]

It's definitely an overused gimmick. Loeb's another writer who's driven it into the ground, but the technique seems to work for him more often than not - it covers for weaknesses elsewhere more than drawing attention to itself. Loeb uses it as a crutch, to strain a metaphor, but it's the kind of crutch that lets him hobble along with reasonable efficiency (for a guy on crutches.)

But Meltzer's crutches seem to break a lot, making him fall down. I was especially shocked in Justice League of America #4, to see that he wasn't even following his own internal rules about how to use narrative captions. After several issues clearly establishing the captions as internal narrative, there's a bit where they're clearly used to indicate spoken dialogue. Very, very clumsy.

[Rob on the Job]

Nevertheless, I enjoyed Meltzer's "Identity Crisis" very, very much.

[Johnny Triangles]

It's definitely an overused gimmick. Loeb's another writer who's driven it into the ground, but the technique seems to work for him more often than not - it covers for weaknesses elsewhere more than drawing attention to itself. Loeb uses it as a crutch, to strain a metaphor, but it's the kind of crutch that lets him hobble along with reasonable efficiency (for a guy on crutches.)

Loeb, I will admit, is marginally better at the gimmick than Meltzer, although I've found out that alot of Loeb's quotes are lifted directly from other movies and comics.

[Rob on the Job]

It would be interesting, if even for a story arc or two, if a writer took the Ernest Hemingway approach and showed us little or nothing of what a character is thinking ... and making us focus instead on what a character says or does, and deduce from those alone.

It's difficult, I admit, but it might make people study what was really happening on the page.

[Shellhead]

But Meltzer's crutches seem to break a lot, making him fall down. I was especially shocked in Justice League of America #4, to see that he wasn't even following his own internal rules about how to use narrative captions. After several issues clearly establishing the captions as internal narrative, there's a bit where they're clearly used to indicate spoken dialogue. Very, very clumsy.

I hated Identity Crisis. I think that it's one of the worst things that ever happened in comics. I won't read any other comics written by Meltzar, because I just can't forgive him for Identity Crisis.

That said, it's possible that the problem with the captions in JLA #4 is not Meltzar's fault. He writes the script, but he doesn't personally lay out the panels, let alone place word balloons or captions.

For what it's worth, after Identity Crisis, I did check out one of his books from the library, to see how well he writes books. The First Counsel was actually a pretty good read. It was a compelling page turner, although the plot twists sometimes strained credibility with fantastic coincidences, and the revelation about the main female character invalidated a great deal of characterization in my eyes, downgrading the whole book from great to just okay.

[suedenim]

It would be interesting, if even for a story arc or two, if a writer took the Ernest Hemingway approach and showed us little or nothing of what a character is thinking ... and making us focus instead on what a character says or does, and deduce from those alone.

It's difficult, I admit, but it might make people study what was really happening on the page.

A lot of writers do take this approach, but one problem with it is that you have to rely on your artist to carry some of the load, and an awful lot of artists these days simply aren't capable of that.

Which incidentally makes me wonder if overuse of narrative captions and similar devices is a sort of self-defense mechanism for the writer? It reminds me of something Kevin Smith (I think) said once - that the main reason he became a movie director was to protect his scripts. In Hollywood, the writer doesn't have the clout to insist on his screenplay being filmed as written, but the director does.

An interesting analytical experiment might be a comparison of writers vs. writer/artists - I'd guess the ones who draw their own work make less use of internal narration and thought balloons.

[Matthew E]

I am okay with the captions in Justice League.

[Matt Algren]

First the "man crush" stuff just comes off creepy: "Hal is the best of us" "People think I like Roy because he reminds me of Ollie, but no. It's bigger than that. It's his fearlessness." Then when he goes into badass narration mode, it just gets worse: "He thinks fast. I think faster."Beyond the man crush, people just don't think like that.

It'd be one thing if the narration were self-aware, like in Mark Waid's Flash, where every issue started with “My Name is Wally West. I’m the fastest man alive. I’m the Flash!” Or Dixon's Nightwing, where (I'm going from memory, here) the narration was past tense, like Dick was telling someone the story. But things like "I like Roy for his fearlessness" is just clunky and rings false.

[Sean Walsh]

Oh, Meltzer's narration in JLA and anything else of his I've read is leagues (no pun really intended) beyond Loeb using historical speeches and dialogue from other mediums in his stories.

[Paperghost]

he's awful. if he and dan didio ever got it on, they'd spawn a race of evil super beings capable of destroying your childhood with a single bound.

apart from all that "the panther in me" garbage, there was one page that made me howl out loud and mutter to myself for a few minutes. the one in the latest issue (I think) where the....oh god, what's her name....lets call her Manimal.....was flying with birds and there were these HORRENDOUS pieces of dialogue about her being lost or whatever done in animal-stylee.

Can't remember exactly what it said, but no. just........no.

[Michael P]

I find it horribly dull.

Speaking of Kevin Smith, his abuse of the narrative caption completely killed "Guardian Devil" for me.

[Matt Algren]

It would be interesting, if even for a story arc or two, if a writer took the Ernest Hemingway approach and showed us little or nothing of what a character is thinking ... and making us focus instead on what a character says or does, and deduce from those alone.

It's difficult, I admit, but it might make people study what was really happening on the page.Read All-Star Superman. We haven't read a word of Superman's thoughts yet, and ain't no Superman like All-Star Superman.

[BillR]

A lot of writers do take this approach, but one problem with it is that you have to rely on your artist to carry some of the load, and an awful lot of artists these days simply aren't capable of that.

Which incidentally makes me wonder if overuse of narrative captions and similar devices is a sort of self-defense mechanism for the writer?

That was the reason for it in the 60's, but we were supposed to have outgrown that by now.

I don't like the new overabundance of these narrative captions-- I've thought about simply ignoring their existance and reading the comic without them.

And Meltzer's writing is awful so it especially doesn't help.

[AaronJ]

I think it works. So I am one of those people, I guess.

There are certainly different approaches to take. Joe Kelly doesn't have ANY captions in Supergirl, and there it fits. But that is, as someone else mentioned, putting more burden on the artist to tell the story, to define the characters, to create that psychological space. Kelly uses panel layout and non-linear progression to give the reader a sense of how Kara's mind works.

OTOH, Meltzer is writing a different sort of story. I don't have a problem at all with the way he depicts these characters' thoughts. No, no one thinks that way. That's sort of the point. I don't want Hal Jordan to think like I do. If Justice League of America were a different title, about some guy who read CBR forums, then it might be out of place. But, it isn't that different title, it's Justice League of Americe, and in that milieu, the narration works.

[Johnny Triangles]

I think it works. So I am one of those people, I guess.

There are certainly different approaches to take. Joe Kelly doesn't have ANY captions in Supergirl, and there it fits. But that is, as someone else mentioned, putting more burden on the artist to tell the story, to define the characters, to create that psychological space.

Problem is, I don't think Meltzer's narrations take any of the weight off the artist because they don't really advance the story. They just wallow in meandering introspection. Chris Claremont, for example, when he goes into excessive dialogue mode, is at least talking about the story. Meltzer's writing doesn't take any weight off the artist, it just keeps talking about how great every character thinks the other character is.

[Evan Waters]

Problem is, I don't think Meltzer's narrations take any of the weight off the artist because they don't really advance the story. They just wallow in meandering introspection. Chris Claremont, for example, when he goes into excessive dialogue mode, is at least talking about the story. Meltzer's writing doesn't take any weight off the artist, it just keeps talking about how great every character thinks the other character is.

What this sort of thing does is remind me of fanfic. It's that same kind of indulgence where the idea is not to tell a new story but to finally explain everything that can be explained about one's idols.

Meltzer being a novelist might also have something to do with it. The mix of story and introspection usually works better in a big fat book that you buy all at once. It's not so good for serial fiction, though.

And yet this is selling. I just don't know.

[JeffreyWKramer]

What this sort of thing does is remind me of fanfic. It's that same kind of indulgence where the idea is not to tell a new story but to finally explain everything that can be explained about one's idols.


Yes, it reads very much like really awkward fanfic, of the sort that usually crosses over into slashfic.


And yet this is selling. I just don't know.
Crappy stuff often sells. Witness INFINITE CRISIS and IDENTITY CRISIS and NEW AVENGERS and THE DA VINCI CODE and most of the popular movies.

[Johnny Triangles]

Yes, it reads very much like really awkward fanfic, of the sort that usually crosses over into slashfic.



The slashfic thing crossed my mind too, as if Meltzer is kinda dancing on the dege between fanfic and slashfic but just can't take that final step.

[yo go re]

I don't mind it. I don't really notice it, in fact, which is probably why I don't mind it. Yes, everyone here loves to rag on the "panther in me" stuff, but I think that's one of the coolest little things that's been brought not only to the book, but to Vixen as a character.

So, people don't think the way Meltzer writes? Well, no, of course they don't. Most people don't think in complete sentences most of the time, either. It's all fragments and feelings, edited together in retrospect when we're asked what we're thinking about. Well, except when you're typing - I'm thinking all this right now. But it's not like I just thought a coherant sentence about how thirsty I was and how tasty my glass of water was while I was drinking it.

I only picked up the new JLA because of Meltzer - I knew from IC that he could do good work, so this was worth a shot. So far, each issue has managed to get me to pick up the next one, which is what a comic's supposed to do, yes?

[Sean Whitmore]

What this sort of thing does is remind me of fanfic. It's that same kind of indulgence where the idea is not to tell a new story but to finally explain everything that can be explained about one's idols.

VERY good way of putting it.


And yet this is selling. I just don't know.

I'm finding the stuff like the Red Tornado army, Mister Miracle's evil brother, and a scheming Gruny intriguing. I just let the non-important captions (60-70%) go in one ear and out the other (if you'll forgive the awkward use of the idiom).


SEAN

[Paperghost]

Yes, everyone here loves to rag on the "panther in me" stuff, but I think that's one of the worst little things that's been brought not only to the book, but to Vixen as a character.

Fixed your typo for you ;)

[Gingold]

I'm finding the stuff like the Red Tornado army, Mister Miracle's evil brother, and a scheming Gruny intriguing.

For me, the tone and style of Meltzer's writing is sucking the fun out of cool ideas like this. I'm just not enjoying them, and they should be loads of JLA-style fun, but it's not working for me.

[Chad]

When writing Superman, Dan Jurgens had an annoying habit of writing really bad one liners which he would then follow with a splash page. It didn't matter if the line had only three words in it, it would always take two pages to deliver. "Some people call me a boy scout, well you know the boy scout motto..." turn page, giant splash..."ALWAYS BE PREPARED!!!" (Superman's holding a gun in case the line was too subtle).

"OK Doomsday, it's time to...(turn page) TAKE YOU DOWN!!!" (Superman's head is on fire).

I'm not a fan of Meltzer's work so I haven't followed his stuff too much, but I did look at my brother's copy of JLA 3. He does a lot of the same things.

"I used to think Ollie was the toughest of us all..." (turn page)

"I was wrong" [Giant splash of Black Canary's ass]

"Hal, some ring slinging?"

"OK...ring..." (turn page)

"Sling" (Two page spead of Green Lantern blasting a bunch of Red Tornado's).

"The man who deceived you was..."

"A Stranger" (Giant splash of the Phantom Stranger).

It's as if Meltzer considers his writing to be so great that he doesn't need to give the reader anything more than five words a page to astound him. Meanwhile, I'll bet that in the time it took me to complete this message, he's written another issue.

[Johnny Triangles]

When writing Superman, Dan Jurgens had an annoying habit of writing really bad one liners which he would then follow with a splash page. It didn't matter if the line had only three words in it, it would always take two pages to deliver. "Some people call me a boy scout, well you know the boy scout motto..." turn page, giant splash..."ALWAYS BE PREPARED!!!" (Superman's holding a gun in case the line was too subtle).



That line was written by Karl Kesel. I'm not sure about your Doomsday example though. Out of all the Superman writers of that era though, the one most guilty of the two panel sentence was David Michilinie.

[Joe Rice]

It would be interesting, if even for a story arc or two, if a writer took the Ernest Hemingway approach and showed us little or nothing of what a character is thinking ... and making us focus instead on what a character says or does, and deduce from those alone.

It's difficult, I admit, but it might make people study what was really happening on the page.

It's something that better comic writers do all the time, as I now see has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread. All Star Superman is a great example. Morrison rarely tells what he can show; it helps that he works with some of the finest artists in mainstream comics.

Meltzer's JLA is unreadable to me. Folks are right: There are occasional good ideas I've seen while paging through, but the execution of the writing and the art are so bad I can't bother with putting down money for it. Meltzer writes like exactly what he is: the kind of writer whose books get advertized on public transportation. Lowest common.

[lonesomefool]

Meltzer, much like Geoff Johns share the same problem IMO which is they tend to try and force the reader to respect their characters. By that I mean they often seem to have supporting characters fawn like school girls at a Chris Brown concert over character they "love". That's my biggest problem when I read their books is they usually write a lot of good stuff, but sometimes fall back on the "tell" dont show method of storytelling. Meltzer is trying way too hard to get readers to see Arsenal, and other "lesser tier" characters as equals to the big three. I get that the heroes respect each other, but why not SHOW the reader why Arsenal or Vixen or Black Lightning deserve to be in this new JLA? Having Hal Jordan proclaim his undying love for Roy Harper doesnt sell the reader why he should be in IMO.

That said the book sure does look nice, and while I have problems with the story's pace notably, I still think it's a decent enough comic. It looks good and if you can get over all the mutual super hero love you can generally enjoy the story as well.

[suedenim]

Meltzer, much like Geoff Johns share the same problem IMO which is they tend to try and force the reader to respect their characters.

That's a good observation, and more accurate than referring to them as "Mary Sue" characters, which is a related syndrome, but not the same.

It's more like this phenomenon, noted by bad-movie scholars at http://www.jabootu.com/glossary.htm :



Informed Attributes (n): When a character displays a mediocre or even inept level of skill in some discipline (anything from dancing to writing to fighting), yet we are shown other characters lauding their talents. This is to signal the audience that, at least in the universe presented in the film, these people are to be considered as highly proficient at their craft, however much this belies the evidence of our eyes and/or ears. EXAMPLE: When we watch actor ‘Frankie Fane’ chew up the scenery in The Oscar, yet learn through dialog that his performance was considered to be skilled. Informed Attributes can also pertain to non-apparent character traits, as when one character notes another’s purportedly high intelligence or sexual magnetism.


In comics, I think it *is* a fan-ficcy tendency. The writer thinks Vixen or Arsenal or whomever is "underrated," and bends over backwards to portray them as really cool instead of being confident enough to let their coolness speak for itself.

[Johnny Triangles]

In comics, I think it *is* a fan-ficcy tendency. The writer thinks Vixen or Arsenal or whomever is "underrated," and bends over backwards to portray them as really cool instead of being confident enough to let their coolness speak for itself.

That "informed attribute" description is not only right on the money, it explains alot of my problems with DC in general. Many writers that I find readable at Marvel I find intolerable when they write over at DC, and I think informed attributes are why: suddenly when people write at DC they feel compelled to crowd the work with informed attributes. It's almost a house style at DC.

Informed attributes are bad in general, but they're at least tolerable when the actions match up to the statements. But I really hate it when they diverge, like in Countdown to Infinite Crisis where Blue Beetle is fawning over all the heroes and how great they are, meanwhile they're behaving like elitist cliquish dicks from page one.

The character that suffers most from informed attributes from his Wolfman New Teen Titans days to today is Dick Grayson. All he's been shown doing for decades is losing fights, crying, whining about his daddy issues. Yet due to informed attributes you'd think the guy was the most confidence-inspiring badass ever.

[Rob on the Job]

Read All-Star Superman. We haven't read a word of Superman's thoughts yet, and ain't no Superman like All-Star Superman.

Will do.

"The Watchmen" also was a stellar example of letting a character's words and actions reveal their thoughts/motivations.

[Joe Rice]

Will do.

"The Watchmen" also was a stellar example of letting a character's words and actions reveal their thoughts/motivations.

It's really like THE basic rule in the craft of writing. That so many superhero writers don't get it is alarming, but not altogether surprising, considering how many of them learned by reading other bad superhero comics.

[lonesomefool]

I think that's why I enjoy so many writers that have influences outside super hero comics or didnt grow up on them. I mean some of my favorite writers are guys like Ed Brubaker, Bendis, BKV, etc. Guys who cut their teeth on non-super hero comics, or guys that are clearly influenced by writers outside of super hero comics. I think that's partly why a lot of comics, to be blunt, sucked in the 90's. So many of the writers in that time period seemed to have no clue how to write a super hero comic for someone that didnt have an ecyclopedia knowledge of the characters they were working on.

[Pól Rua]

Brad Meltzer's trying for Dashiell Hammett and getting Ed Pembleton.
He's a hack who's shitty attempts at tough guy monologues could only possibly appeal to the sort of socially maladjusted 15 year old who still thinks that Steven Seagal is 'bad-azz' and wishes there was a REAL Punisher out there.

I would rather eat my own vomit.

[lonesomefool]

You were a Sue Dibney fan werent you.....


J/K

[Pól Rua]

You were a Sue Dibney fan werent you.....


J/K

JLA fan.
I grew up on the Superfriends and my favourite comics as a kid were Justice League and Legion of Superheroes (more superheroes for your buck, as it were).
Frankly, this faux Mike Hammer stuff just really rubs me the wrong way.
It's all, "I kick him in the knee. Hard. Like I mean it."
Don't get me wrong, I like Sin City as much as anyone, but enough is enough.
Hal Jordon's a daredevil test pilot, not a hard-boiled headcase from the mean streets of fuckery.

Honestly, it all sounds like badly re-hashed Dave Sim Wolveroach dialogue, or to put it in a way Meltzer would understand:

"The rag's garish colours raked my eyes like Ric Flair. The dialogue rattled in my ears like a jazz quartet at 4 am on New Year's Day. Something was wrong. Very wrong. Everyone was talking in short, truncated sentences. Like extras from a B movie... maybe C.
"There were no smiles, no jokes. This was serious. Serious as a roomful of rainbow coloured killer robot superheroes. Stop Laughing."

[jaguarshark]

Honestly, it all sounds like badly re-hashed Dave Sim Wolveroach dialogue, or to put it in a way Meltzer would understand:

"The rag's garish colours raked my eyes like Ric Flair. The dialogue rattled in my ears like a jazz quartet at 4 am on New Year's Day. Something was wrong. Very wrong. Everyone was talking in short, truncated sentences. Like extras from a B movie... maybe C.
"There were no smiles, no jokes. This was serious. Serious as a roomful of rainbow coloured killer robot superheroes. Stop Laughing."

Fucking brilliant.

[shyguy]

I will say, the best badass dialogue I've seen in a superhero comic to this day remains Dark Knight Returns: "You've got rights. Lots of rights. Sometimes I count them just to make myself feel crazy." I think Meltzer is trying to get his own classic badass line of that caliber but is just a little too geeky to pull it off.


The problem - which a lot of posters in this thread have nailed - is that Metzler (and Johns does the exact same thing) tries for that Frank Miller coolness, but doesn't possess that thing that lets Miller pull it off so well - his sense of humor.

To write really bad-ass dialog, you have to realize on some level how utterly stupid it is. Miller does, while Metzler and Johns often read like the script of a straight-to-video action flick. Johns in particular is a fan of truly awful one-liners that sound like he heard them on Spike TV at 3am (the worst that comes to mind is Superman's, "Like Hell!" in Infinite Crisis; gah!).

Metzler's awful thought captions for Green Arrow took me right out of the story during some points in Identity Crisis (like when he's talking about Kyle Rayner or Superman).

That said, neither of them are as bad as Jeff Loeb when it comes to "Batman is super awesome!" thought captions. His entire run on Superman/Batman was just painful in that - and every, actually - regard.

[Kid Kyoto]

When writing Superman, Dan Jurgens had an annoying habit of writing really bad one liners which he would then follow with a splash page. It didn't matter if the line had only three words in it, it would always take two pages to deliver. "Some people call me a boy scout, well you know the boy scout motto..." turn page, giant splash..."ALWAYS BE PREPARED!!!" (Superman's holding a gun in case the line was too subtle).



I have to know, what comic is that from? It sounds hideous.

[Johnny Triangles]

I have to know, what comic is that from? It sounds hideous.

It was from one of the final chapters of the Return of Superman saga where Superman came back from the dead with a spanking new mullet. It wasn;t by Jurgens though, it was by Kesel (writer) and Grummett (penciller) and it was in Adventures of Superman. Superman, Steel and someone else (maybe the Eradicator?) enter the Cyborg Superman's stronghold. Superman finds some huge Liefeldesque guns. Steel sees Superman picking up said guns and says (I'm paraphrasing) "Wow, I thought you were a boy scout." Superman answers "Well, you know the boy scout motto---" Next panel, posing all bad-ass with his huge guns cocked: "ALWAYS BE PREPARED!!!" So fucking 90s, I laughed out loud even back then.

90% of all David Michilinie comics tend to have an awful two-panel sentence as well.

[MacQuarrie]

A lot of writers do take this approach, but one problem with it is that you have to rely on your artist to carry some of the load, and an awful lot of artists these days simply aren't capable of that.

Which incidentally makes me wonder if overuse of narrative captions and similar devices is a sort of self-defense mechanism for the writer? It reminds me of something Kevin Smith (I think) said once - that the main reason he became a movie director was to protect his scripts. In Hollywood, the writer doesn't have the clout to insist on his screenplay being filmed as written, but the director does.

An interesting analytical experiment might be a comparison of writers vs. writer/artists - I'd guess the ones who draw their own work make less use of internal narration and thought balloons.

I wish they still used thought balloons. Nowadays it's all narrative captions, which sets the reader at a remove from the action and takes the narrator out of the story. A good old fashioned thought balloon is immediate and it keeps the character in the story rather than yanking him out and making him a too-self-aware observer in his own adventure.

Sadly, some idiot decided that thought balloons are childish and smack of Silver Age goofiness. Well, yeah, if they're done badly. But then the same can be said of speech balloons.

We really have to stop being embarrassed by the fact that comics books are comic books.

[Dubbilex]

When writing Superman, Dan Jurgens had an annoying habit of writing really bad one liners which he would then follow with a splash page. It didn't matter if the line had only three words in it, it would always take two pages to deliver. "Some people call me a boy scout, well you know the boy scout motto..." turn page, giant splash..."ALWAYS BE PREPARED!!!" (Superman's holding a gun in case the line was too subtle).

Bad one-liner? I haven't read the story it comes from, so maybe I'm not getting the proper context, but that sounds like a hilarious line! It's the perfect kind of one-liner for a Superman comic, one that doesn't take itself too seriously and revels in the silliness inherent in stories about a man who can fly.

[StrikeForce Albert]

JLA fan.


"The rag's garish colours raked my eyes like Ric Flair. The dialogue rattled in my ears like a jazz quartet at 4 am on New Year's Day. Something was wrong. Very wrong. Everyone was talking in short, truncated sentences. Like extras from a B movie... maybe C.
"There were no smiles, no jokes. This was serious. Serious as a roomful of rainbow coloured killer robot superheroes. Stop Laughing."

LOL at Ric Flair

WOOOOOOO!

[suedenim]

Oy, it even gets worse in Justice League of America #5....

I think if you're going to go nuts with this caption technique (not that I advocate this), you've gotta do it in a solo book or something like Superman/Batman. At least there, you know that pretty much only two guys are gonna be talking to you in the captions, and it's pretty easy to know who they are.

Several times during JLA #5, I had to stop and puzzle through "Whose thoughts am I hearing, now?" And again (suggesting the first time wasn't an accident) he switches between the captions being used for thoughts and for off-panel spoken dialogue!

Setting aside how good or bad the writing itself is, it's just bad storytelling!

[lonesomefool]

And to top it off, as someone said in an earlier post, more and more DC books seem to be doing that. Either DC is trying for a more traditional style of writing on ALL their books, or it's just the writers working there, but I see it more and more in their books.

[bannermanonemillion]

Totally off topic, but I thank God that Rags Morales isn't the artist on Justice League. I'd start getting bad flashbacks to IC: mindwipes, rapes, Leaguers acting stupid.....

You'd find me laid out in a bookstore bleeding from the eyes like that guy in Casino Royale....

I found myself a little turned off by the man-love captions, particularly when Hal's talking...er, thinking, whatever. Darwyn Cooke and even the hated Geoff Johns make for a tolerable Hal but Meltzer? Ugh. Brad, you like Hal, we get it, move on, please.

[Sean Whitmore]

It's not even just Hal. Every character apparently feels so strongly about at least one other character that they feel the need to wax poetic for three pages.

Captions, at least in the way they're being used here, are basically supposed to be stand-ins for thought balloons. But Meltzer's captions sound more like they come from the diary of an eight-year-old girl.


SEAN

[Paperghost]

I performed my monthly ritual at the comicstore - pick up the latest JLA, flick through to a random Vixen panel, LOL MY PANTS OFF and put it back down in disgust.

Someone needs to tap this guy on the shoulder and tell him what he's doing is poo. Seriously. I'm just waiting for a Hal to Batman dialogue containing the words "me, so" and "horny" to make the series really come alive.

[suedenim]

Was Identity Crisis this bad? I rather liked it, all in all, at the time, though perhaps my senses were off.

Each issue tends to have one or two really neat little ideas (like the bit with the microscope), but this is seriously amateurish-looking stuff.

[bannermanonemillion]

Was Identity Crisis this bad?

How can I respond to this without ranting and breathing fire?

[yo go re]

Was Identity Crisis this bad?

remember, this is the internet - you're not allowed to like IC here...

[suedenim]

To put it another way, I think the problems a lot of people had with Identity Crisis came from its basic plot and character developments, but the problem with JLA is fundamental craftsmanship.

It's a perfectly serviceable story in this case, just one told poorly.

[Shellhead]

remember, this is the internet - you're not allowed to like IC here...

Ah, thank you for that clarification. And here I thought that I hated Identity Crisis for being a poorly plotted murder mystery, for having a completely gratuitous rape scene, atrocious characterizations, ludicrous fight choreography (the Terminator fight scene), and the very unnecessary death of one of DC's nicest supporting characters. But it was the internet after all... that wicked internet.

[Johnny Triangles]

I didn't get the latest issue, were there any more slashfic mancrush moments or cheesy badass talk?

[ChrisMRich]

I haven't read Meltzer's Justice League, mostly because I'm not the kind of person who reads Justice League. I hated JLI when I was a kid, for different reasons, and it sounds like Meltzer is a fan trying to overcompensate for what he didn't like about JLI from reading other people's comments.

I do have plenty of opinions about narrative captions, however.

They suck. Except when they're great.

They're wonderful. Except when they suck.

Narrative captions were a staple of comic books in the Golden and Silver ages and still reasonably common in the 80s. Good narrative captions contribute to the storytelling process without rehashing the art. For Stan Lee, the captions were a cheerful banter between writer and fan, the way of bringing the reader into the story as he saw it. It worked in a lot of those old comics. Not just for Stan Lee, but for the Claremont/Byrne X-Men and later on the Roy Thomas Conan stories. I always liked Roy Thomas' captions in his other stuff too. Lots of guys on the 'great writer' list used captions and used them well.

Captions work when they add something to the reading experience without merely parroting the action in the art and without becoming more important than story.

I actually would use Batman's first person narrative in Dark Knight Returns, and Miller's use of first person captions for Batman and Superman in the story, as one of the really great examples of when captions suck. Batman comes off as a raving psychotic and Superman as a wishy washy paternalist and it reveals just how poorly Miller understood the real nature of either character. It's what became wrong with Batman ever since, and what lead to the awful depictions of the 'strained and distrustful' relationship between Batman and Superman throughout the 90s. Mind you, DKR is still a great story, but it's so much of what went wrong with Batman and Superman later at its worst.

Writers like Neil Gaiman and James Robinson have used narrative captions brilliantly, other writers have done brilliantly by using no captions at all or confining them to first person exposition in flashback or expository panels.

A good writer will tell the story well in whatever style works best for them.

A shitty writer will blow whether they use captions or not.

[John Nowak]

They suck. Except when they're great.

They're wonderful. Except when they suck.


I agree. In fact, I think it sums up any technique used in fiction.

[Paperghost]

"Batman comes off as a raving psychotic"

.....because jumping round rooftops in a gigantic man-bat costume with pointy ears, a swishy cape beating up bad guys he decides have crossed the line with a young teenage girl in tow isn't somehow the living, breathing definition of "psychotic"? Miller is attempting to present a "real world" backdrop for the character and it stands to reason we have to accept the fact that yes, this man is clearly something of a nutball if we're trying to go down the realism route. Based on the events in the story, the direction his life has taken up to that point and the heightened aggression of the antagonists, Batman would come off as more of a nutball to me if he was running round acting "normal" in his captions or (god forbid) they took it to the other extreme and robin piped up at some point with "holy eaten jugular, batman!"

Theres a basic level of dishonesty in batman comics that has always annoyed me. we might not like it, but face it, he's a loon. he's a big loon in a pointy eared costume that beats people up! The only thing that separates him from someone like the punisher is his refusal to kill people - if you're a vigilante, you're already making a silent admission that you're going beyond the boundaries of the society you live in. but a vigilante in a batsuit, with a batcave, and batgas and batarangs and a penchant for popping up out of the darkness and doing your whole COWER, BRIEF MORTALS thing before you punch them in the face?

sorry, he's a nut.

[Johnny Triangles]

"Batman comes off as a raving psychotic"

.....because jumping round rooftops in a gigantic man-bat costume with pointy ears, a swishy cape beating up bad guys he decides have crossed the line with a young teenage girl in tow isn't somehow the living, breathing definition of "psychotic"? Miller is attempting to present a "real world" backdrop for the character and it stands to reason we have to accept the fact that yes, this man is clearly something of a nutball if we're trying to go down the realism route. Based on the events in the story, the direction his life has taken up to that point and the heightened aggression of the antagonists, Batman would come off as more of a nutball to me if he was running round acting "normal" in his captions or (god forbid) they took it to the other extreme and robin piped up at some point with "holy eaten jugular, batman!"

Theres a basic level of dishonesty in batman comics that has always annoyed me. we might not like it, but face it, he's a loon. he's a big loon in a pointy eared costume that beats people up! The only thing that separates him from someone like the punisher is his refusal to kill people - if you're a vigilante, you're already making a silent admission that you're going beyond the boundaries of the society you live in. but a vigilante in a batsuit, with a batcave, and batgas and batarangs and a penchant for popping up out of the darkness and doing your whole COWER, BRIEF MORTALS thing before you punch them in the face?

sorry, he's a nut.

You're right, if you apply real-world standards to Batman he's a psychotic loon. Problem is, so is Spider-Man, Captain America, Nightwing, Iron Man and everyone else who runs around in bright costumes punching people once you apply real world standards. The problem is, these guys were never meant to have real world standards apply to them in the first place, which is why I think it's stupid to depict Batman as a psychotic loon. It's like trying to prove how smart you are a writer by showing how classic fairy tales break the laws of science. Comics were never meant to hold up to that level of scrutiny in the first place, and writers that point out their internal flaws to look smart are just picking an easy target.

Batman is not a psychotic because he is not supposed to be in the real world being judged by real world standards of sanity in the first place. If Batman was in the real world he'd never be deputized by the police, no one would still bother living in Gotham City, all the crime would have crippled its economy by now, Arkham Asylum's security problems would be a national disgrace, the public would be outraged by the constant Joker escapes and Joker would be dead by now from police bullets or the death penalty.

[suedenim]

Batman is not a psychotic because he is not supposed to be in the real world being judged by real world standards of sanity in the first place. If Batman was in the real world he'd never be deputized by the police, no one would still bother living in Gotham City, all the crime would have crippled its economy by now, Arkham Asylum's security problems would be a national disgrace, the public would be outraged by the constant Joker escapes and Joker would be dead by now from police bullets or the death penalty.

This is a point I keep coming back to about why I see things like Civil War being deeply and inherently flawed from the get-go, regardless of how well they're executed.

You *can* tell good stories while going "all the way" with real-world logic (e.g., Miracleman, Watchmen, Squadron Supreme, a host of others), but the resulting world isn't one that traditional four-color superheroics will fit into. Certain things you simply have to resolve not to analyze with real-world logic for the DC or Marvel universes to remain both coherent and true to their histories.

For instance, to take the Joker example. There are basically two possible explanations for why the Joker escapes over and over again:
1. It's an indictment of the criminal justice system of the DC Universe, which is either corrupt and incompetent at all levels. The system doesn't work!
2. The Joker's a great villain, so writers like using him, and readers like reading about him, so he has to stay alive and escape frequently.

#1 (which Frank Miller used in Dark Knight Returns) can seem kinda gritty and realistic, sure... but it also makes Batman look like a fool! Because ultimately Batman *does* work within "the system." If he evaluated the apparent reality of the revolving-door justice system that can't keep super-villains off the street, like, EVER... he'd re-evaluate his own mission, probably becoming a true revolutionary or Punisher-style vigilante. But if you want a traditional Batman, you have to "look the other way" on this stuff, and just chalk it up to genre convention.

[Matt Algren]

Cribbed from that awesome review (http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/pop/?frames=n;read=28386&expand=1#28386) of the awesomely bad Countdown special, but I swear this guy is a prophet. Tell me he isn't talking about the JLA narration.


ughhhh, i mean, i really can't even read this anymore because of how awful this narration is. "Green Lantern shows up. i want to rub my penis its so hard because i think he's so cool and i hope he likes me. i'm a fanboy just like you are, i don't get laid, noone likes me-- so if green lantern likes me, he'll like you, and ... oh, god, i wish i could just put myself into his mouth just for a second. just the tip." that's how dc comics read to me now... when did heroic fiction comic books become so explicitely about hero worship??? what the fuck is that???

[Paperghost]

You're right, if you apply real-world standards to Batman he's a psychotic loon. Problem is, so is Spider-Man, Captain America, Nightwing, Iron Man and everyone else who runs around in bright costumes punching people once you apply real world standards.

are they? only if you apply the same standard to them as you do to the batman. batman openly admits he's a "vigilante". he has no issues with punching people through walls and putting them into a hospital. he's happy to put that impression across to everybody. by and large, he is a street level pain infllicter - yes, he goes up against standard fare batman villains but by and large, he's the guy who goes round smacking up street level punks and takes down the big guys by (eventually) working his way up. There are many different layers of superhero, and you can't just class them all as nutcases.

don't forget, batman has no super powers. are those characters born with super powers nutcases too, purely because they chose to use those powers for the greater good? isn't that a little unfair? or how about those like hal jordan, GIVEN a power ring by some blue alien guy? when the latest galactic invasion comes knocking, who are you gonna call? batman with his batarangs, or superman with his heat vision and demigod punches? is superman classed as psychotic too then purely because he flies around saving people? of course not.

All the characters you describe perform different functions, at different levels of "super hero-ing". If you line up ten of the best martial artists on the planet in front of me, you can't class them all as "potential nucases" purely because they have the power to kick me into next week. similarly, it makes no sense that we'd automatically class every single person with super powers as a nutcase purely because they were out there doing their thing. especially as with the good guys, would come the BAD guys. Like the police or whoever would bother trying to shoot the heroes in the head when in actual fact the heroes would be the ones stopping them from being fried by (insert super villain and his crazy gadget of the week here). It doesn't make sense to think that they wouldn't be grateful for their help, and that they'd be trying to arrest Red Tornado every other week.

But batman? I think they'd have a case for hunting him down, purely because "deranged vigilante" is his angle. Its not like hes some bright, fluffy, primary coloured super hero, is it? But its even MORE unrealistic to say that we'd treat all of these people the same way in real life.

[Joe Rice]

The distinction is silly. They're all insane if you want to look at it from a real life perspective. Super hero comic books thrive on a separation from reality.

[Paperghost]

The distinction is silly. They're all insane if you want to look at it from a real life perspective. Super hero comic books thrive on a separation from reality.

So a Superman would be "insane" if someone actually ever did happen to get launched here from some other planet through no choice of his own and found he had amazing powers and could right wrongs, leap tall buildings and all that jazz, but didn't have a penchant for gunning people down punisher style or got no enjoyment from the sweet, sweet snap of fist on bone?

Why?

[Johnny Triangles]

Cribbed from that awesome review (http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/pop/?frames=n;read=28386&expand=1#28386) of the awesomely bad Countdown special, but I swear this guy is a prophet. Tell me he isn't talking about the JLA narration.

Nailed it. Like I said, it's become a house style at DC. Informed attributes, all the time.

[Black Atom]

I wish they still used thought balloons. Nowadays it's all narrative captions, which sets the reader at a remove from the action and takes the narrator out of the story. A good old fashioned thought balloon is immediate and it keeps the character in the story rather than yanking him out and making him a too-self-aware observer in his own adventure.

Sadly, some idiot decided that thought balloons are childish and smack of Silver Age goofiness. Well, yeah, if they're done badly. But then the same can be said of speech balloons.

We really have to stop being embarrassed by the fact that comics books are comic books.

Really couldn't have said it better myself. Marvel and DC have become so preoccupied with creating comicbooks that read like screenplays or novelizations that they've forgotten how to create comicbooks that read like comicbooks.

[Sean Whitmore]

Cribbed from that awesome review (http://www.comicscommunity.com/boards/pop/?frames=n;read=28386&expand=1#28386) of the awesomely bad Countdown special, but I swear this guy is a prophet. Tell me he isn't talking about the JLA narration.

The part you quoted was funny, but I couldn't make it through the actual review.

When a reviewer starts making fun of captions that say "20 minutes ago", it means it's time for him to take the tampon out.


SEAN

[John Nowak]

This is a point I keep coming back to about why I see things like Civil War being deeply and inherently flawed from the get-go, regardless of how well they're executed.


Yeah. Running around in a mask and fighting crime in the real world is not only seriously illegal, but it's also seriously stupid for all sorts of reasons. It's just not a good idea to examine a genre convention like this too seriously, and it's just laughable to pass it off as "social commentary."

The best Civil War could have been was an adventure story with good, character-based melodrama. And it's amazing that some of the tie-ins have worked as well as they have.

[Gottaluvit]

I like the dialogue boxes Meltzer uses. Though I admit the stuff Hal was prattling about Roy in #4 was a tad odd, and a little creepy for an 'Uncle figure", but maybe I just have a warped mind.

[Pól Rua]

2. The Joker's a great villain, so writers like using him, and readers like reading about him, so he has to stay alive and escape frequently.

You are excellent.
Have a cookie.
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/6/66/250px-Tv_sesame_street_cookie_monster_interested.jpg

[Johnny Triangles]

So a Superman would be "insane" if someone actually ever did happen to get launched here from some other planet through no choice of his own and found he had amazing powers and could right wrongs, leap tall buildings and all that jazz, but didn't have a penchant for gunning people down punisher style or got no enjoyment from the sweet, sweet snap of fist on bone?

Why?


Yes, Superman is insane if you apply real-world standards to him. Pre-Crisis when Superman was the real guy and Clark was the disguise, you had a guy who wore a disguise and pretended to not have powers, and for what? He pretends to be clumsy, oafish and get a job why exactly? To play pranks on humans? Even if he's going to disguise himself, why not just be a relatively cool, socially normal guy, why go so far into the geek route? Then he keeps trying to get the girl of his dreams while in his geek disguise, setting himself up for dating failure after dating failure, which makes no sense. He can't be doing it to see if she likes the "real" him, since the real him is Superman and she's already heads over heels in love with Superman. It just seems like more of Superman's toying with humans.

Post-Crisis Superman, Clark Kent is the real guy and Superman is the disguise, which is even weirder because that means the man wears a physical disguise when being his real self, the guy he grew up as, then shows his real face when it's time to assume his disguise. He can only be himself when covering up his face, he reveals his face when playing a role and putting on a false identity. A psychiatrist could have a field day with the guy's identity issues.

All superheroes are maladjusted and mentally ill if you apply real world standards. That's why real-world standards are stupid in an ongoing comic because they suck all the whimsy and fun out and leave a depressing, dour comic in their wake. That's why Batman shouldn't be psychotic because he shouldn't be judged by real-world standards, and wasn't for decades.

[TROUBLEZ]

I like the writing. Sometimes the narration is funny like what Roy said about Black Canary being the toughest or Tornados wife saying "after sue, we got armed." POW! But overall, I like it because it's not the same ol' same ol' and it references the past alot, it makes the characters seem more real, that they all have a past, and history with each other. The art is good too.

[Paperghost]

Yes, Superman is insane if you apply real-world standards to him. Pre-Crisis when Superman was the real guy and Clark was the disguise, you had a guy who wore a disguise and pretended to not have powers, and for what? He pretends to be clumsy, oafish and get a job why exactly? To play pranks on humans? Even if he's going to disguise himself, why not just be a relatively cool, socially normal guy, why go so far into the geek route? Then he keeps trying to get the girl of his dreams while in his geek disguise, setting himself up for dating failure after dating failure, which makes no sense. He can't be doing it to see if she likes the "real" him, since the real him is Superman and she's already heads over heels in love with Superman. It just seems like more of Superman's toying with humans.

Post-Crisis Superman, Clark Kent is the real guy and Superman is the disguise, which is even weirder because that means the man wears a physical disguise when being his real self, the guy he grew up as, then shows his real face when it's time to assume his disguise. He can only be himself when covering up his face, he reveals his face when playing a role and putting on a false identity. A psychiatrist could have a field day with the guy's identity issues.

All superheroes are maladjusted and mentally ill if you apply real world standards. That's why real-world standards are stupid in an ongoing comic because they suck all the whimsy and fun out and leave a depressing, dour comic in their wake. That's why Batman shouldn't be psychotic because he shouldn't be judged by real-world standards, and wasn't for decades.

Note that I said a superman, not the superman. Forget the comics version, and forget the disaster-fest that is pretending to be clark or superman (depending on which version we're talking about at the time). I'm assuming a guy falls to earth tomorrow and DOESN'T feel the need to pretend to be a bumbling oaf or indeed fly around in bright blue spandex, but DID have powers way beyond you or I because, well, thats just the way he works and decides to use those powers for the greater good.

How is he insane?

[Matt Algren]

Note that I said a superman, not the superman. Forget the comics version, and forget the disaster-fest that is pretending to be clark or superman (depending on which version we're talking about at the time). I'm assuming a guy falls to earth tomorrow and DOESN'T feel the need to pretend to be a bumbling oaf or indeed fly around in bright blue spandex, but DID have powers way beyond you or I because, well, thats just the way he works and decides to use those powers for the greater good.

How is he insane?
The goalposts are over there. → → →

[Karl O'Neill]

I achually like Meltzers JLA narrations,

i hated joe kelly's throw them into battle so quick all the time,

Lets explore other storys

[Paperghost]

The goalposts are over there. → → →

regardless of goalposts, how is he insane?

[JeffreyWKramer]

regardless of goalposts, how is he insane?

You might as well be asking for details of the physiology of elves.

Real people don't behave much as superheroes behave. Those that do so are generally a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Superheroes are an innately unrealistic genre. That's not to say they can't be done seriously, but only a certain amount of realism is possible, given that you're talking about something so fundamentally unreal. Further, the classic superhero characters and their setting are so divorced from reality as to make comparisons with reality sort of pointless - and really, that's the point. At heart, superheroes are very much a fantasy concept, and one that stands up against reality about as well as sugar cubes hold together in rainstorms.

[Matt Algren]

You might as well be asking for details of the physiology of elves.

Real people don't behave much as superheroes behave. Those that do so are generally a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Superheroes are an innately unrealistic genre. That's not to say they can't be done seriously, but only a certain amount of realism is possible, given that you're talking about something so fundamentally unreal. Further, the classic superhero characters and their setting are so divorced from reality as to make comparisons with reality sort of pointless - and really, that's the point. At heart, superheroes are very much a fantasy concept, and one that stands up against reality about as well as sugar cubes hold together in rainstorms.
An example.

A few years ago, someone wrote a novel based on the concept that Jesus came now, to a world exactly like ours, but without ever having had any influence from Christianity*.

At the beginning of the book, the author acknowledged that removing Christianity from history would render a completely different world, one unrecognizable to the world around us. Remove Christianity and you remove the Crusades, some major actions of the British Monarchy, the Pilgrims floating across the pond, etc, etc, etc. He suggested to the reader that to explore the idea, we would just have to accept that for the purposes of his book, removing Christianity created no ripples in time, and that we would have to suspend our disbelief that far at least to get into the book.

Same thing here.





*(Can we just accept JWK's objection as read? It's not really the point.)