I get why people complain about FINAL CRISIS...

[Sean Walsh]

I read #1-7 of Secret Invasion yesterday.

(Yup. That's why people are complaining about Final Crisis.)

It took me about 25 minutes to read SI. Basic, barebones, easy to read which explains why it sells so well, and apparently a lot of details are explained in NEW AVENGERS, MIGHTY AVENGERS and other titles.

But if you read just SI itself, you'll get it. A lot of questions will arise, but you'll get it.

You have to READ Final Crisis to get it. And unlike SI, Final Crisis seems to be explaining it all in the miniseries. 7 issues of dense reading....

So I guess the reason why people complain about FC is easy: because people want flat-out superheroics, and don't want all that dense reading.

They want fight scenes and snappy dialogue. They don't want to think about everything; just put thinking off to the side and bask in the colors and punches and action. You can think later, if you want, but the main event is the action.

And I don't really know if that's a damnation of Marvel's SI tactics. SI is certainly entertaining. It was fun to read. I'm certainly interested to see how it ends up and what it leads to in 2009. But as I read I knew that if I didn't want to go into all the details (I do, and have a bunch of those other comics to help flesh things out)....I didn't have to in order to get or enjoy the main story.

Sure, FC has tie-ins and relevant miniseries, but they don't exist to explain the details and nuances of Morrison's miniseries; his story does that itself, and in abundance. And yes, in place of lots of loud action and fight scenes.

So if you're reading FINAL CRISIS hoping to see a DC version of SECRET INVASION, just......no. You're not going to get that, it's probably best if you just go away now and avoid further disappointment.

[IvCNuB4]

They want fight scenes and snappy dialogue. .

Are you referring to the snappy dialogue of Maria Hill and Skrull-vis for 4 issues on the helicarrier deck, or the Avengers standing around clueless in the Savage Land for another 3 or 4 issues ? :biggrin:

[berk]

I read #1-7 of Secret Invasion yesterday.

(Yup. That's why people are complaining about Final Crisis.)

It took me about 25 minutes to read SI. Basic, barebones, easy to read which explains why it sells so well, and apparently a lot of details are explained in NEW AVENGERS, MIGHTY AVENGERS and other titles.

But if you read just SI itself, you'll get it. A lot of questions will arise, but you'll get it.

You have to READ Final Crisis to get it. And unlike SI, Final Crisis seems to be explaining it all in the miniseries. 7 issues of dense reading....

So I guess the reason why people complain about FC is easy: because people want flat-out superheroics, and don't want all that dense reading.

They want fight scenes and snappy dialogue. They don't want to think about everything; just put thinking off to the side and bask in the colors and punches and action. You can think later, if you want, but the main event is the action.

And I don't really know if that's a damnation of Marvel's SI tactics. SI is certainly entertaining. It was fun to read. I'm certainly interested to see how it ends up and what it leads to in 2009. But as I read I knew that if I didn't want to go into all the details (I do, and have a bunch of those other comics to help flesh things out)....I didn't have to in order to get or enjoy the main story.

Sure, FC has tie-ins and relevant miniseries, but they don't exist to explain the details and nuances of Morrison's miniseries; his story does that itself, and in abundance. And yes, in place of lots of loud action and fight scenes.

So if you're reading FINAL CRISIS hoping to see a DC version of SECRET INVASION, just......no. You're not going to get that, it's probably best if you just go away now and avoid further disappointment.Absolutley. The two stories are aimed at entirely different audiences as far as I can see.

No, maybe that's not quite right, because I think Morrison does credit the average reader with the willingness to experiment with something a little outside the norm for superhero epics, so he might have been aiming at that audience after all.

But certainly, as you say, anyone coming to FC demanding the same kind of storytelling they're given in Secret Invasion is going to be disappointed. If they think DC marketing misled them into that expectation, I can understand their annoyance.

[TuPeT]

Two tottaly different series, even being the Blockbusters of the year. Marvel went for the hack and slash story, all issues had big panels with lots of skrulls fighting heroes. DC went for the heavier story with the dense pace and darker proposal.

Honestly, I'll go for DC on this one. SI is fun to see, five minutes and we're done. Great art from Yu, big bombs, big bad guys and plot is really easy. But when you get Final Crisis and start to put up the points of the story, looking at the big picture you see the diference. In four issues FC had more things going on than 7 of Secret Invasion. And with 3 issues to go, thing are tottaly screwed up. The heroes lost, the trinity is out of action, GLC is troubled and nothing looks good.

Don't get me wrong, I like a story full of action and combats, and explosions, but when you see 3 or 4 issues of meaningless battle in a jungle, that get interrupted by a dinossaur, then people go back as they were to battle the real fight, maybe there's not so much story.

[Flamebird]

You have to READ Final Crisis to get it. And unlike SI, Final Crisis seems to be explaining it all in the miniseries. 7 issues of dense reading....

So I guess the reason why people complain about FC is easy: because people want flat-out superheroics, and don't want all that dense reading.



You've read all 7 issues? wow, how does it end?

And some of us just want a story that makes sense in and of itself, whether it be knock-down slugfests or seven issues of navel gazing.

So far, for me, it doesn't.

[ruppan]

Most threads devolve into FC fans insulting the intelligence of critics. This one actually starts off with a pretty blatant insult! Kudos to you Sean Walsh!!!

The argument that FC critics prefer SI is a textbook strawman argument. In countless threads, critics have stated legitimate and detailed reasons for disliking FC. Despite these legitimate criticisms, FC diehards invariably revert to the argument that the critics prefer slugfests or something equally mindless. This doesn't happen as often in other threads talking about other writers' works. In most other threads, people disagree and actually argue about the work, rather than going straight for the personal attacks.

I think the reason why certain FC fans need to lash out in this manner is because they feel personally hurt by the criticisms of FC and Morrison's work in general. A portion of their ego/identity is derived from the fact that they're fans of Morrison's and to insult his work is to insult them.

So for these particular fans, you guys need to chill. Nobody's insulting you and your insults portray you in a bad light. And just because we dislike FC doesn't mean we like mindless garbage.

For the record, I have extremely disliked SI.

[carabas]

You've read all 7 issues? wow, how does it end?I don't know, but going by all the previous recent Marvel events, I'm thinking it doesn't actually end, and has a nice "to be continued in our next 50+ issue event in a few months" on the final page.

[Chemical King]

I can only second Ruppan: The basic thesis of the original poster here is very provocative, and yes, it is possible to like intelligent entertainment and NOT to like Final Crisis.

I for my part did neither like Final Crisis nor Secret Invasion so far. On the contrary, I liked Sinestro Corps War and Alex Robinsons "Too cool to be forgotten". Now where do I fit into the plan?

For me, Final Crisis is a difficult read, and it's not only because I'm not an English native speaker. It's because I just can't stand Morrissons way of writing, showing nothing but hinting everything, jumping from uninteresting third-stringer to uninteresting fourth-stringer character never stating which of it was important and which of it was just nostalgic customer service. So much is happening off-panel, and I'm sick and tired to do the detective work in the Internet to find out what's going on. Final Crisis just does not make me care about what's going on and what's happening to those myriads of obscure characters. It does not challenge me to find out. It's just annoying me.

And that has nothing to do with Secret Invasion, which is a rather lame event, but does not manage to make me angry at the author for his writing. That's it.

[G. Wayne]

SI is a straightforward Bendis event. I have no intentions of buying or reading it.

Final Crisis is typical Morrison, especially with how his style is splitting fans. That's what bugs me. FC on the whole has been hit and miss so far.

Other than the facts that they're both mega-events, the plots boil down to the invasions of earth in the name of religion, and the “bad guys” are supposed to "win" in both stories, they're completely different.

[G. Wayne]

... It's because I just can't stand Morrissons way of writing, showing nothing but hinting everything, jumping from uninteresting third-stringer to uninteresting fourth-stringer character never stating which of it was important and which of it was just nostalgic customer service. So much is happening off-panel, and I'm sick and tired to do the detective work in the Internet to find out what's going on. Final Crisis just does not make me care about what's going on and what's happening to those myriads of obscure characters. It does not challenge me to find out. It's just annoying me...

FC: Submit was far worse than FC, but it's Morrison's dialogue style that bothers me where a lot of the time his character's don't talk -to- each other, they spout bits of exposition that don't flow together as dialogue.

[Shellhead]

FC: Submit was far worse than FC, but it's Morrison's dialogue style that bothers me where a lot of the time his character's don't talk -to- each other, they spout bits of exposition that don't flow together as dialogue.

That's weird, in my copy of Submit, more than half of the issue was an ongoing dialogue between Black Lightning and the Tattooed Man. Maybe they didn't start out each sentence with each other's names or codenames, but they were definitely talking to each other about their respective viewpoints.

[Shypsi-Prime]

I prefer SI but I understand it's partly because I have a firm understanding of all characters and storylines involved. FC is more complicated but more complicated doesn't necessarily mean better or worse.

SI is the easier to enjoy but FC may end up being the better story. I am eclectic enough to enjoy both (once I firmly wrap my head around FC). I probably will still prefer SI b/c I prefer Marvel over DC. However, I can appreciate the efforts of both as both have their flaws.

I do agree than you can't approach both series with the same mindset. You will be disappointed.

[Sean Walsh]

I do agree than you can't approach both series with the same mindset. You will be disappointed.

And that was my original point - which I guess was lost even in my own writing and I apologize for that.

I wasn't trying to categorize all Final Crisis critics in that mold of "if they don't get FC then they clearly don't think a lot and would enjoy a mindless story like Secret Invasion more." SI certainly isn't mindless, and FC critics have lots of varied reasons to not like it. I just happen to get a lot of what other don't get about FC (New Gods fan since '96 - that explains me, I guess :tongue: )

It's just that a lot of the critics who "annoy me most" are the folks who are expecting FC to be more straightforward superheroics like SI seems to be (on a level) and yet keep reading FC. By #4, those who expect a certain story are not going to get it. It's dense. Some people like that, some don't. That's cool.

...and if you're one of these folks who has opinions about the story or certain problems about Morrison's writing or details about the obscure characters, you certainly do not annoy me at all - you make me think more about the series, and I personally like that.

Look, I'm enjoying both series. And I've been out of the Marvel fold for a couple years now (recent and possibly future developments intrigue me more). But I like DC's story more; largely because I flat out love the New Gods. And as a fan of theirs, I've known for years that a vast majority of comic readers don't get them and don't like them. So I totally get why people might not like FC.

But for those who are expecting SI - which again, I understand isn't everyone - it ain't happening. That was the crux of the thread.

[Splatt]

My problem with FC is that Morrison puts out all these obscure characters and crazy ideas but never stops to explain them. He just moves from one to another at mach 5 and assumes that the reader has read or is willing to read past books about those characters in order to make sense of things. I'm not willing.

[J. Robb]

I don't think it's about Final Crisis versus Secret Invasion, it's about Final Crisis versus Crisis on Infinite Earths and Infinite Crisis. Those were the type of "Crisis" stories I think most went into Final Crisis expecting, but apart from the Monitor subplot, it's completely different.

And like I said in the other thread- the Fourth World characters just aren't that popular.

[Chemical King]

My problem with FC is that Morrison puts out all these obscure characters and crazy ideas but never stops to explain them. He just moves from one to another at mach 5 and assumes that the reader has read or is willing to read past books about those characters in order to make sense of things. I'm not willing.

Yeah, exactly. Neither am I. Because Morrisson does not motivate me to do so. There's no faszination in this story. Gazillions of characters, many of whom I never heard of, constantly changing protagonists. Why should I care - and for whom??? Final Crisis does not make me curious about all those people running around. A good story should manage to get me interested into all this stuff, should make me motivated to track down all this Seven Soldiers series and the New Gods and Sunny Sumo who is the pinnacle of obscurity to me :rolleyes:

But Final Crisis doesn't. It makes me even less interested in Seven Soldiers and all the other stuff.

[Shot]

Yeah, exactly. Neither am I. Because Morrisson does not motivate me to do so. There's no faszination in this story. Gazillions of characters, many of whom I never heard of, constantly changing protagonists. Why should I care - and for whom??? Final Crisis does not make me curious about all those people running around. A good story should manage to get me interested into all this stuff, should make me motivated to track down all this Seven Soldiers series and the New Gods and Sunny Sumo who is the pinnacle of obscurity to me :rolleyes:

But Final Crisis doesn't. It makes me even less interested in Seven Soldiers and all the other stuff.

I have the opposite reaction. I love the story and I am completely engaged. It has inspired me to do the research on the characters I'm not familiar with. I like the fact that the first time I read each issue I'm not going to get everything. It makes more fun for me. But i understand where you are coming from as well.

I agree with Sean Walsh's point as well. There are a lot of people that are expecting a straight up Superhero slugfest (not all of you) and it gets annoying when they complain they aren't getting that with FC.

[XPac]

I don't think it's about Final Crisis versus Secret Invasion, it's about Final Crisis versus Crisis on Infinite Earths and Infinite Crisis. Those were the type of "Crisis" stories I think most went into Final Crisis expecting, but apart from the Monitor subplot, it's completely different.

And like I said in the other thread- the Fourth World characters just aren't that popular.

Though I do enjoy Final Crisis, I agree about it not really vibing well with with the previous Crisis events. I'm not sure why it should really be considered a third part of the trilogy.

Expectations for a variety of different reasons really did work against this event. Still, I think it's pretty good regardless.

[Tobias March]

I think the complaint that this isn't a straight up fight on panel with the universe hanging in the balance....is a fair one. After all, traditionally that is what these crossovers amount to. Our World At War/Secret Wars/Crisis on Infinite Earths/the Infinity Gauntlet - splash pages of all our favourite heroes rushing towards some towering threat. It's fun.

In my opinion Morrison credits the crossover storyline with the ability to tell a different kind of story. In his JLA run he managed a very similar kind of all-out fight for freedom with the Mageddon threat - but even that was handled differently. It wasn't just the superheroes, but all of humanity, empowered to defend the earth. That way everyone had a stake in the climax, not just the caped elite with their clubhouse on the Moon.

His run on the JLA book also featured Rock of Ages, which Final serves as an unofficial sequel to. This is not Wolfman or Perez' Crisis. This is Kirby to its core and therefore something as yet untapped.

I'm waiting to see it play out.

[Alex L]

Riffing off what X-Pac, J. Robb, and Tobias said, part of the complaint comes not from how it stacks up to SI, but how it compares to CoIE and Infinite Crisis.

The others to bear the name of Crisis (not counting Identity Crisis) were huge slugfests with characters punching each other and the Multiverse at stake. Final Crisis... not so much.

I wouldn't be surprised if most people expected FC to be another event where the universe is in danger and only the heroes can beat the threat down. Even the teaser poster (http://www.foot2mouth.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/count-down-teaser-2.jpg) showed a statue reduced to rubble and a city burning in the background.

I guess in a way, it's like expecting ice cream and getting pie instead. Pie is good and all, but don't be surprised when people are disappointed they didn't get the ice cream.

[PastePotPete]

Riffing off what X-Pac, J. Robb, and Tobias said, part of the complaint comes not from how it stacks up to SI, but how it compares to CoIE and Infinite Crisis.

The others to bear the name of Crisis (not counting Identity Crisis) were huge slugfests with characters punching each other and the Multiverse at stake. Final Crisis... not so much.

I wouldn't be surprised if most people expected FC to be another event where the universe is in danger and only the heroes can beat the threat down. Even the teaser poster (http://www.foot2mouth.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/count-down-teaser-2.jpg) showed a statue reduced to rubble and a city burning in the background.

I guess in a way, it's like expecting ice cream and getting pie instead. Pie is good and all, but don't be surprised when people are disappointed they didn't get the ice cream.

Fans are always complaining that a new series or miniseries isn't like some previous series. To borrow your metaphor, they want ice cream, more ice cream and only ice cream all the time and when they don't get it they say "This sucks. I wanted ice cream."

If the new writer's version of Batman isn't like the previous version, the writer got the character wrong. If the new crisis isn't like the old crisis it must stink.

I don't like COIE. I love the art, but it's a horrible read. Horrible. And as much as I love Geoff Johns I thought Infinite Crisis was a poor attempt at aping the original COIE.

I was so happy to get a couple issues into Morrison's Final Crisis and realize "okay, this is a whole different thing." I'm really enjoying it so far.

[Mat001]

Riffing off what X-Pac, J. Robb, and Tobias said, part of the complaint comes not from how it stacks up to SI, but how it compares to CoIE and Infinite Crisis.

The others to bear the name of Crisis (not counting Identity Crisis) were huge slugfests with characters punching each other and the Multiverse at stake. Final Crisis... not so much.

I wouldn't be surprised if most people expected FC to be another event where the universe is in danger and only the heroes can beat the threat down. Even the teaser poster (http://www.foot2mouth.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/count-down-teaser-2.jpg) showed a statue reduced to rubble and a city burning in the background.

I guess in a way, it's like expecting ice cream and getting pie instead. Pie is good and all, but don't be surprised when people are disappointed they didn't get the ice cream.

To be fair, those two teaser posters weren't about "Final Crisis" per say, but about what was going to happen leading into it. They were talking about "Countdown", "Death Of New Gods", "Brainiac", "Amazons Attack", "The Resurrection Of Ra's al Ghul", "Sinestro Corps War", "Thy Kingdom Come" and the "Crime Bible" mini-series.

[Babylon23]

My only real problem with Final Crisis is that I find it lacking in strong character moments. It's a fascinating intellectual exercise full of big, wild ideas but lacks enough character moments that help draw me into a story. I'm the kind of reader who likes strong characterisation to accompany the big ideas.

As for the comparison with SI, I can honestly say that despite it's flaws, Final Crisis is certainly holding my attention, something that SI failed to do. I've found this with most of Marvel's events in recent times. They read more like a highlight reel to a much bigger story that I'm not getting because I'm not buying all of the tie-in books.

[Raker616]

Most threads devolve into FC fans insulting the intelligence of critics. This one actually starts off with a pretty blatant insult! Kudos to you Sean Walsh!!!

The argument that FC critics prefer SI is a textbook strawman argument. In countless threads, critics have stated legitimate and detailed reasons for disliking FC. Despite these legitimate criticisms, FC diehards invariably revert to the argument that the critics prefer slugfests or something equally mindless. This doesn't happen as often in other threads talking about other writers' works. In most other threads, people disagree and actually argue about the work, rather than going straight for the personal attacks.

I think the reason why certain FC fans need to lash out in this manner is because they feel personally hurt by the criticisms of FC and Morrison's work in general. A portion of their ego/identity is derived from the fact that they're fans of Morrison's and to insult his work is to insult them.

So for these particular fans, you guys need to chill. Nobody's insulting you and your insults portray you in a bad light. And just because we dislike FC doesn't mean we like mindless garbage.

For the record, I have extremely disliked SI.

Thank you I couldn't have said it better myself, the lenghts that Morrison and his fanatics will go to justify the mess that is FC is amazing to me. They really must believe that this guys is the second coming because of the way they spew out their talking points it's like they all come from the man himself.

[Tobias March]

Thank you I couldn't have said it better myself, the lenghts that Morrison and his fanatics will go to justify the mess that is FC is amazing to me. They really must believe that this guys is the second coming because of the way they spew out their talking points it's like they all come from the man himself.

Wait....what? Are you serious?

[Pól Rua]

Most threads devolve into FC fans insulting the intelligence of critics. This one actually starts off with a pretty blatant insult! Kudos to you Sean Walsh!!!

The argument that FC critics prefer SI is a textbook strawman argument. In countless threads, critics have stated legitimate and detailed reasons for disliking FC. Despite these legitimate criticisms, FC diehards invariably revert to the argument that the critics prefer slugfests or something equally mindless. This doesn't happen as often in other threads talking about other writers' works. In most other threads, people disagree and actually argue about the work, rather than going straight for the personal attacks.

I think the reason why certain FC fans need to lash out in this manner is because they feel personally hurt by the criticisms of FC and Morrison's work in general. A portion of their ego/identity is derived from the fact that they're fans of Morrison's and to insult his work is to insult them.

So for these particular fans, you guys need to chill. Nobody's insulting you and your insults portray you in a bad light. And just because we dislike FC doesn't mean we like mindless garbage.

For the record, I have extremely disliked SI.

Ahem.
Not an insult.

Some people like superhero slugfests. There's nothing insulting about that. I love 'Big Dumb Superhero Fites' (tm). Honestly, as a kid, all I needed to see was a bunch of people in costumes fighting another bunch of people in costumes and I was away.
It's not an insult.
And honestly, 'Big Dumb Superhero Fites' (tm) can be done extremely well.

You can have a good action-packed slugfest, and you can also have a bad, self-important philosophical wankfest.
(Of course, you can also have a very good film that challenges the viewer on a number of levels and delivers a nuanced examination of the narrative, and a really awful knuckle-dragging testosterone fest, too.)

To say that someone prefers a more direct narrative (especially in the genre of costumed superhero stories) isn't an insult.

If I can use a film analogy, I'd certainly much rather watch 'Shoot 'Em Up' or 'Hot Fuzz' over 'My Dinner With Andre' or 'The English Patient'. Sometimes, you just want to watch well-executed mayhem.

Seriously, you need to take your own advice. Don't take everything to heart. Sometimes, a criticism is just a criticism and sometimes, an observation is just an observation.

[Pól Rua]

Thank you I couldn't have said it better myself, the lenghts that Morrison and his fanatics will go to justify the mess that is FC is amazing to me. They really must believe that this guys is the second coming because of the way they spew out their talking points it's like they all come from the man himself.

People like different things. Nobody is insulting anyone.
The fact that people on BOTH SIDES are willing to see anything in the worst possible way is annoying. Honestly, it's like a hornet's nest.
Why are we in such a hurry to start throwing out insults at the slightest provocation?

[TeamED209]

People like different things. Nobody is insulting anyone.
The fact that people on BOTH SIDES are willing to see anything in the worst possible way is annoying. Honestly, it's like a hornet's nest.
Why are we in such a hurry to start throwing out insults at the slightest provocation?

nicely said...to be honest i find that it started out with a lot of morrisonites really throwing out anything anyone said about FC but now it's the same ppl hammering the same complaints every time FC is mentioned which is getting tiring...

I will say im enjoying final crisis alot and the thing that really makes this event well done imo is the format they've done it in the fact that i get the whole story in FC and can continue reading my monthlies without worrying is great and the tie in's they have included are top quality in their own right....unlike SI which i found boring and was trying to force me to buy ten titles to get the full story, and what really annoyed me was the fact that every monthly i buy was tainted by the series...

[Death by Mime]

So I guess the reason why people complain about FC is easy: because people want flat-out superheroics, and don't want all that dense reading.

They want fight scenes and snappy dialogue. They don't want to think about everything; just put thinking off to the side and bask in the colors and punches and action. You can think later, if you want, but the main event is the action.


You know, I'm one of the people enjoying FC, and this still comes off as elitist as heck, I'm sorry. You may have not meant it that way, but wow. Way to fan the flames.

[the4thpip]

I think the title of this thread is full of epic fail.

[Shellhead]

My only real problem with Final Crisis is that I find it lacking in strong character moments. It's a fascinating intellectual exercise full of big, wild ideas but lacks enough character moments that help draw me into a story. I'm the kind of reader who likes strong characterisation to accompany the big ideas.

Did you give up after the first issue? There have been a number of excellent "character moments" in Final Crisis. Just in the latest issue, we have:

*Dan Turpin trying to stammer "kiss my ass" as the last vestiges of his personality and sanity slip away and Darkseid takes over his body.

*Barry Allen is finally re-united with his wife after all these years, apologizing for being late (a definite nod to his Silver Age adventures), and kissing her with such passion that she overcomes the Anti-Life Equation.

*The Tattooed Man is inspired by Black Lightning's sacrifice and strives to help the Justice League.

*Green Arrow, the ultimate superhero rebel, falls before the ultimate authoritarian dictatorship, spouting heroic bluster and amusing insults.

[Shellhead]

I'm surprised that so many people think of Crisis on Infinite Earths as a giant superhuman slugfest. In the 12 issues of the main series, there were some brief skirmishes with those shadow creatures in the first few issues. There was a big battle with the Anti-Monitor, and then a massive battle with the super-villains of five worlds. And then there was one more battle with the Anti-Monitor.

But there were also about six Crisis issues worth of people standing around talking about the red skies and the other strange stuff going on. Talking, and talking, and talking.

And while I didn't pick up even half of the insane quantity of Crisis tie-in issues, the ones that I read mostly featured usual levels of superhuman violence, mixed in with time-lost threats like dinosaurs and confederate soldiers and obscure villains.

[Nelvana]

There have been a few fights already, but they have been quick and violent as opposed to drawn-out slugfests. This, along with us seeing only the aftermath of some of the bigger battles (issue #4) all fits in with the despair and "evil has won" theme of the books so far. The battles in this story are not opportunities for displays of heroism and glory, they are acts of pure desperation.

Just look at the preparation the heroes are making for the soon-to-come grand battle in Bludhaven. Why are they even assembling there? They know that the bad guys have some kind of HQ there and so they are gathering to go and brute-force beat the crap out of the badguys and save the day. I'm guessing that they are going to lose that fight, big time. It really is just another blind act of desperation on their part. Alan Scott and the others are being noble, but they just haven't accepted yet that they have lost the war already.

A resistance can't win by assembling everyone in one place and attacking the enemy head-on at his place of greatest strength. Part of the story here seems to be a new-kind of Crisis, with a new kind of heroism needed. Re-defining and breaking boundaries in comics seems to me like something Kirby would have enjoyed seeing, especially for his own New Gods characters.

[ruppan]

Not an insult.

Look, the issue isn't whether slugfests are good or bad. Everybody enjoys action. It's the OP's assertion that THE reason people criticize FC is because it is not a slugfest. It's an obnoxious assumption. There can be an infinity of reasons not to like FC, and chief amongst those reasons for me is the quality of the writing.

Let me give you this analogy:

We go to see an Opera. I complain that I don't like the singers. You respond by saying, "well, what you really don't like is the fact that there isn't nudity or hardcore sex. You should just stick to watching porn."

That is exactly how the OP comes off.

I'm surprised that so many people think of Crisis on Infinite Earths as a giant superhuman slugfest.

Agreed. CoIE was not 12 issues of fighting. There were little battles here and there, but it was never as blatant as Infinity Gauntlet, which was just one big battle royale.

[Chemical King]

People like different things. Nobody is insulting anyone.
The fact that people on BOTH SIDES are willing to see anything in the worst possible way is annoying. Honestly, it's like a hornet's nest.
Why are we in such a hurry to start throwing out insults at the slightest provocation?

I guess part of the problem is that some of the Morrissonites - love that word - defend their hero with a lot of intellectual anger, elevating Final Crisis into the new Brothers Karamasow of comics and implying that those who don't like it "simply don't get it". This implication is an insult to the intelligence (Al Pacino, "The Godfather") of those people who for whatever reason don't like Final Crisis. Thus, they are reacting quite fiercely cause nobody likes his or her intelligence insulted...

[DarKye]

I guess part of the problem is that some of the Morrissonites - love that word - defend their hero with a lot of intellectual anger,

I think this is another problem. On both sides.

Why does it matter so much that Morrison is the one writing it?

You're really going to tell me some people like the book only because Morrison is writing it? Because to me it looks like the exact opposite - most people are prepared to hate the book only because Morrison is writing it.

Furthermore, a lot of people complain the book is "confusing", which is the reason why others assume they are "not getting it". This shouldn't be a generalization though.

[XPac]

Fans are always complaining that a new series or miniseries isn't like some previous series. To borrow your metaphor, they want ice cream, more ice cream and only ice cream all the time and when they don't get it they say "This sucks. I wanted ice cream."

If the new writer's version of Batman isn't like the previous version, the writer got the character wrong. If the new crisis isn't like the old crisis it must stink.

I don't like COIE. I love the art, but it's a horrible read. Horrible. And as much as I love Geoff Johns I thought Infinite Crisis was a poor attempt at aping the original COIE.

I was so happy to get a couple issues into Morrison's Final Crisis and realize "okay, this is a whole different thing." I'm really enjoying it so far.

Yeah, but if they don't want it compared to the past Crisis and they want it to be different, then they probably shouldn't call it a Crisis and say it's a part of a trilogy with the other 2.

Say it's something completely different, give it a different name, and they're good to go. But if instead they call it a sequal to the previous Crisis, then I think some comparrisons and the expectation that it's actually linked to the previous 2 is fair on the part of the readers.

This was a case where DC set itself up with those expectations (similar to how they said Countdown to Final Crisis was suppossedly a countdown to FC when in fact it basically had nothing to do with it).

[theNighteye]

Who cares. I'm liking FC. Lots of people are. I found a poll and it said 20% of people prefer Secret Invasion 75% prefer Final Crisis and 5% are neither. People like complicated cuz it makes you think. No one wants a flat and predictable story.

[Maestro]

I just want something I can understand!! All-Star Superman - awesome. Final Crisis - opposite of awesome

[BeastieRunner]

I just want something I can understand!! All-Star Superman - awesome. Final Crisis - opposite of awesome

I totally 100% agree with you on that one.

[4thHorseman]

I just want something I can understand!! All-Star Superman - awesome. Final Crisis - opposite of awesome

I still fail to see what is so confusing about the book. Every question I've heard about it can be answered by:

1. Very little thinking by piecing things together
2. Reading the book again since it's explained damn near word for word in the story
3. it hasn't been explained yet

Yeah, but if they don't want it compared to the past Crisis and they want it to be different, then they probably shouldn't call it a Crisis and say it's a part of a trilogy with the other 2.

Say it's something completely different, give it a different name, and they're good to go. But if instead they call it a sequal to the previous Crisis, then I think some comparrisons and the expectation that it's actually linked to the previous 2 is fair on the part of the readers.

What do you need exactly for it to be linked? They have the monitors involved and their dealing with a multiversal crisis. Do you expect the same story to be rehashed time and time again or can he do a new twist on it (which is what he's doing)?

[Pixie_Solanas]

I just want something I can understand!! All-Star Superman - awesome. Final Crisis - opposite of awesome

So sayeth the x-23 fan (maybe the absolute worst, most derivative, most hackneyed character introduced in the last 20 years).

Morrison's crafting a masterwork, rich in comic history, steeped in the classic vein of Kirby's greatest creations.

[XPac]

What do you need exactly for it to be linked? They have the monitors involved and their dealing with a multiversal crisis. Do you expect the same story to be rehashed time and time again or can he do a new twist on it (which is what he's doing)?

It's not just that it's linked... it's billed as a sequal in a trilogy. That means that it's a continuation to the previous stories. And I at least don't feel that that's the case. Maybe you do, and that's fine...

Again, I'm not saying that the story has to be a rehash of the previous story. Just saying that they shouldn't say it's part of a trilogy if it's not really a sequal to the previous stories, that's all. Had they not done that, there wouldn't be these expectations and Morrison could have had more of a clean slate.

[Rio_de_Janeiro]

I see Final Crisis as a sequel of both other crises, not a continuation, for you have some elements re-appearing, yet with a different story altogether. The elements that make this FC are strands left (or used) in previous ones:

- the monitors
- the multiverse
- villains crossing over to heroism while others gather around world domination
- moments of talk, moments of action

What makes it a sequel, and not a continuation, imho, is that the elements are all grouped around a totally different story and not just "continuing" the same narratives as was the case with IC (which continued the story of SM2, LL2, AL3, and SBP).

I love FC so far. I love the way it is sick, dark and unclear. I like the fact that I HAVE to look for more info on these amazing z-listers. I like the fact I don't have to see fighting all the time, and can go directly into the consequences of the fighting. I like the way it is REALLY threatening, yet it is not through the sheer power of fists, exclusively.

I do not see it as a continuation of Rock of Ages, which actually had two different storylines going on at the same time.

All in all, it is very close to what i imagined it to be, because unlike many, i knew that the name Final Crisis would have other meanings (morrison's typical deconstruction of concepts) other than "yet another crisis". I, for one, see no reason to complain about this as well because the story being told the way it is pleases me.

I am quite enjoying FC. Pity that Baby Boom (from Earth 2's Helix) is nowhere to be seen.

cheers,
Rio.

[G. Wayne]

I guess part of the problem is that some of the Morrissonites - love that word - defend their hero with a lot of intellectual anger, elevating Final Crisis into the new Brothers Karamasow of comics and implying that those who don't like it "simply don't get it". This implication is an insult to the intelligence (Al Pacino, "The Godfather") of those people who for whatever reason don't like Final Crisis. Thus, they are reacting quite fiercely ...

Hmmm...

So sayeth the x-23 fan (maybe the absolute worst, most derivative, most hackneyed character introduced in the last 20 years).

Morrison's crafting a masterwork, rich in comic history, steeped in the classic vein of Kirby's greatest creations.

Sure called that one, didn'tcha?

[malephoenix]

Hmmm...



Sure called that one, didn'tcha?

Good catch.

It really keeps happening. If someone (like me) doesn't like FC, then the most common excuse given by its fans is "You just don't get it" or "You just want fighty-fight fights."

Eh. I just want something that makes sense. I mean, I remember being a lot younger and watching the first Mission: Impossible movie... FC feels a lot like that.

(Morrisonites, take no offense. I'm not saying FC = Tom's M:I. I'm just saying that both made me feel the same sense of "Yeahbuwha?")

[DeadXMan]

So sayeth the x-23 fan (maybe the absolute worst, most derivative, most hackneyed character introduced in the last 20 years).

Morrison's crafting a masterwork, rich in comic history, steeped in the classic vein of Kirby's greatest creations.


he is?

Dose it come out after this cluster @$&^ of a comic, and it's countdown that has pissed on Kirby's grave for the last year and a half?

[Rio_de_Janeiro]

...and it's countdown that has pissed on Kirby's grave for the last year and a half?


you ARE aware that morrison had actually asked the kirby stuff to be "forgotten" for a year or so, and that DC editorially mandated countdown and death of the new gods thus causing this weird sense of uneven transition?

i think the latter part of your comment is not really valid in terms of accusing morrison of anything.

cheers,
rio

[Babylon23]

Did you give up after the first issue? There have been a number of excellent "character moments" in Final Crisis.

I've read every issue to date as well as some of the related miniseries and one-shots. I don't deny that FC has some character moments. My point was that I don't think there's enough there to draw me into the story on an emotional level. I find the ideas fascinating on an intellectual and creative level but I'm detached from events because characters flit in and out of the series.

For me, FC lacks the strong characterisation of the past Crises. There's no Earth-2 Superman to help guide the story along. We see glimpses of character here and there without any real focal points. Characters who seem important at first are suddenly gone, or aren't given enough page time. The story seems to be happening around the characters more than anything else.

I understand that this is just a difference in storytelling techniques, but I prefer character-driven stories. I'm still enjoying FC on a number of levels and intend to read the story to it's conclusion. I think the potential is still there for the emotional connection to occur, especially with the Barry/Wally connection.

[Babylon23]

It really keeps happening. If someone (like me) doesn't like FC, then the most common excuse given by its fans is "You just don't get it" or "You just want fighty-fight fights."

Unfortunately, this is a fairly common occurrence across the board, not just for FC or Morrison comics. The "You just don't get it" argument is as common as "this book is crap" or "the writer/artist is a hack".

[DeadXMan]

you ARE aware that morrison had actually asked the kirby stuff to be "forgotten" for a year or so, and that DC editorially mandated countdown and death of the new gods thus causing this weird sense of uneven transition?

i think the latter part of your comment is not really valid in terms of accusing morrison of anything.

cheers,
rio

Countdown killed any interest I had in FC ( i even put a poll on here too see if I'm the only one
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=219209

so my complants are legitimate in my twisted veiws of this world
as are yourds

[Shellhead]

he is?

Dose it come out after this cluster @$&^ of a comic, and it's countdown that has pissed on Kirby's grave for the last year and a half?

It's the same reason that Infinite Crisis was such a mess and One Year Later was such a missed opportunity: a bad editor-in-chief named Dan Didio. It's kind of like how a great country like America could turn into such a mess in just eight years: Dubya.

[Shellhead]

Unfortunately, this is a fairly common occurrence across the board, not just for FC or Morrison comics. The "You just don't get it" argument is as common as "this book is crap" or "the writer/artist is a hack".

Different people have different tastes. I get why people complain about Final Crisis. What I don't understand is why some people are lying about Final Crisis.

[Babylon23]

Different people have different tastes. I get why people complain about Final Crisis. What I don't understand is why some people are lying about Final Crisis.

Lying? In what way? I haven't really paid much attention to the FC boards.

[Maestro]

So sayeth the x-23 fan (maybe the absolute worst, most derivative, most hackneyed character introduced in the last 20 years).

you can say what you want about me, but leave X-23 alone!

[Tobias March]

Lying? In what way? I haven't really paid much attention to the FC boards.

Well I liked the line in one of the threads that all FC fans are Morrisonite cultists. That made me laugh.

Problems I have with Morrison:

Tin ear for dialogue on occasion (characters occasionally expectorate exposition)

Ideas alone do not a story make - although they can be interesting

Drugs, drugs, drugs.

His competitiveness with Moore (although if you're going to pick a rival, might as well be the best there is in your field)

The prose issue of Batman hurt me

The bastard's cleverer than me

I guess that sums it up.

[Pól Rua]

Look, the issue isn't whether slugfests are good or bad. Everybody enjoys action. It's the OP's assertion that THE reason people criticize FC is because it is not a slugfest. It's an obnoxious assumption. There can be an infinity of reasons not to like FC, and chief amongst those reasons for me is the quality of the writing.
Let me give you this analogy:
We go to see an Opera. I complain that I don't like the singers. You respond by saying, "well, what you really don't like is the fact that there isn't nudity or hardcore sex. You should just stick to watching porn."
That is exactly how the OP comes off.

No. That is exactly how the OP comes off TO YOU.
Like I say, you can have a good action film and a terrible opera.
To use your analogy, you and Sean go to the opera and say, "I don't like the singers."
He's said, "Well, maybe you want something more direct and accessible."

He's not saying you'd prefer hardcore porn, he may simply be suggesting you'd rather be watching an AC/DC concert. Hell, me too. Some people don't want to sit around for hours listening to people singing in foreign languages. They want music that's immediately accessible.

There's no implicit value judgment in there except for the one you're reading into it.

I guess part of the problem is that some of the Morrissonites - love that word - defend their hero with a lot of intellectual anger, elevating Final Crisis into the new Brothers Karamasow of comics and implying that those who don't like it "simply don't get it". This implication is an insult to the intelligence (Al Pacino, "The Godfather") of those people who for whatever reason don't like Final Crisis. Thus, they are reacting quite fiercely cause nobody likes his or her intelligence insulted...

Thing is. It's not just any one side.
The Anti-GM side are JUST as guilty of "deriding Morrison's work with a lot of indignant anger, of dismissing it as a lot of half-baked metaphysical claptrap and implying that those who like it are a herd of sheep-like wannabe hipsters who blindly follow 'their leader' like a kind of latte-sipping Manson family. This implication is an insult to the intelligence (Al Pacino, "The Godfather") of those people who for whatever reason like Final Crisis. Thus, they are reacting quite fiercely cause nobody likes his or her intelligence insulted..."

For whatever reason, whatever side of the argument people fall on, there are people who will take personal offense at it.
It's irritating and counterproductive.

I've heard a lot of people who don't like FC or Batman: RIP say that they don't like the convoluted storytelling techniques that Morrison uses and they prefer something more direct.
However, the second someone who likes FC says exactly the same thing, people leap out of the shadows wanting to take the whole thing as some kind of insult.

[Pól Rua]

Lying? In what way? I haven't really paid much attention to the FC boards.

"Grant Morrison has contempt for Kirby's creation."

As the basis for that statement was Countdown and Death of the New Gods, both series that Morrison had ZERO control over, and indeed, made a public statement to their invalidity, it doesn't really stand.

[ruppan]

No. That is exactly how the OP comes off TO YOU.
Like I say, you can have a good action film and a terrible opera.
To use your analogy, you and Sean go to the opera and say, "I don't like the singers."
He's said, "Well, maybe you want something more direct and accessible."

He's not saying you'd prefer hardcore porn, he may simply be suggesting you'd rather be watching an AC/DC concert. Hell, me too. Some people don't want to sit around for hours listening to people singing in foreign languages. They want music that's immediately accessible.

Your analogy proves my point as well. Let me explain it because it seems to have eluded you. The singing in the analogy is GM's writing. When I complain about the singing (GM's writing), I'm complaining about the means through which the story content is delivered. The response (in my analogy porn in your analogy AC/DC) is a response that addresses the content when no complaint was made about content. The response implies that the responder (you) have a belief about the person making the statement (me), and that belief is that I prefer something more simplistic when I've made no statement to justify that assumption.

You should also try to learn a little empathy. I'm not the only person in this thread to remark on the OP's derogatory nature, and the number of people that agree with me should at least make you pause and consider that the other side may have a point.

[Herr Mike]

Elitism is the last resort of someone defending a bad comic.

And the first, also.

I want to know why many Morrison fans can't admit the guy is capable of writing a bad comic. I had to admit it after the whammy of suck that was the bulk of Seven Soldiers.

No one is perfect!

[4thHorseman]

It really keeps happening. If someone (like me) doesn't like FC, then the most common excuse given by its fans is "You just don't get it" or "You just want fighty-fight fights."

Eh. I just want something that makes sense.

:confused: Doesn't that kinda prove their point?

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Elitism is the last resort of someone defending a bad comic.

And the first, also.

I want to know why many Morrison fans can't admit the guy is capable of writing a bad comic. I had to admit it after the whammy of suck that was the bulk of Seven Soldiers.

No one is perfect!


...


Pot. Kettle. Black.

[carabas]

Elitism is the last resort of someone defending a bad comic.

And the first, also.Funny. Over on the Ultimates and Hulk boards, anti-elitism is the first and last resort of those defending some truely dire comics.

[Herr Mike]

...

Pot. Kettle. Black.

For once, can't the freaking kettle call the pot black? Just once? Pot is always stuck with the accusatory role. Pot is sick of it.

Pot would also like to point out that by being black himself, it doesn't make kettle any less black, and that being black is no longer seen as a bad thing.

[thehod]

Elitism is the last resort of someone defending a bad comic.

And the first, also.

I want to know why many Morrison fans can't admit the guy is capable of writing a bad comic. I had to admit it after the whammy of suck that was the bulk of Seven Soldiers.

No one is perfect!

Oh Grant is perfectly capable of writing rubbish. The Mystery Play was bloody shocking.

The thing is, Final Crisis isn't a bad comic. Far from it.

I sat and read all four issues last night, culminating with my first read of issue 4, and I cannot for one second understand how anyone can possibly find the story confusing, especially when read as a whole (well, as much of a whole as we have).

Sure, there are some outstanding questions, but in a half complete series I'd expect there to be.

Sure, it asks the reader to put 2 and 2 together on a few occassions, but, again, what comic shouldn't?

And it requires you to really read the comic. Not just the dialogue, but the full combination of words and pictures. But then, isn't that the medium its in.

And the real surprising thing? That as individual issues, I'd been rather uninspired by the whole thing, but as a complete read (again, as much as it can be) much, much more becomes apparent.


I'm not for one second suggesting that people aren't getting it, but maybe we've all become so used to our superhero comics leading us by the nose through a bunch of set pieces and splash pages like the worst sort of on-the-rails FPS that we've forgotten that those very same superhero comics can be good when they require us to think a little about what we're reading.

[ruppan]

For once, can't the freaking kettle call the pot black? Just once? Pot is always stuck with the accusatory role. Pot is sick of it.

Pot would also like to point out that by being black himself, it doesn't make kettle any less black, and that being black is no longer seen as a bad thing.

That's f******* hilarious and true!

[Herr Mike]

Funny. Over on the Ultimates and Hulk boards, anti-elitism is the first and last resort of those defending some truely dire comics.

Nonsense, I've seen people say they like the art.

Though I admit I've seen the same for Final Crisis, so perhaps elitism is not the only resort of the FC fan after all!

[Herr Mike]

Oh Grant is perfectly capable of writing rubbish. The Mystery Play was bloody shocking.

The thing is, Final Crisis isn't a bad comic. Far from it.

I sat and read all four issues last night, culminating with my first read of issue 4, and I cannot for one second understand how anyone can possibly find the story confusing, especially when read as a whole (well, as much of a whole as we have).

I have neither been confused nor entertained by it thus far. But I agree judgement should be withheld until the whole thing is read.


I'm not for one second suggesting that people aren't getting it, but maybe we've all become so used to our superhero comics leading us by the nose through a bunch of set pieces and splash pages like the worst sort of on-the-rails FPS that we've forgotten that those very same superhero comics can be good when they require us to think a little about what we're reading.

I don't necessarily disagree. But, the best comics are easy to follow. That is where the creators' skill at the craft comes through. I'm not saying JG Jones should be Eisner all of a sudden, but you shouldn't have to think about whether or not you got all the information you needed to out of a certain panel.

I think the subject matter should be what makes you think, not the storytelling devices. That's gimmickry.

[pariah-1972]

I gave up on both of them cause both writers are severely overrated and life is too short trying to figure them out and trying to debate them with people online.


Tho i'll admit that i like Batman r.i.p but even then some of it i didn't quite get and people were able to explain it to me.

[thehod]

But, the best comics are easy to follow.

I wouldn't always agree with that.

From Hell took a fair amount of work to get all the nuances out of it, and From Hell is a fantastic piece of work.

[Herr Mike]

I wouldn't always agree with that.

From Hell took a fair amount of work to get all the nuances out of it, and From Hell is a fantastic piece of work.

Well yeah, there are always things you won't notice until you re-read it a couple times. But From Hell flows awesomely, if you ask me.

[thehod]

I gave up on both of them cause both writers are severely overrated.

That's the sort of thing that irritates people.

You didn't give up the titles because the writer was overrated. You gave up the title because you didn't like it. An individuals like or dislike of a title doesn't not automatically confer under or overrated status on the writer or artist.

I really haven't enjoyed James Robinsons Superman. But that doesn't mean he's overated, as a quick read through of any of his Starman work will show. Or his Firearm. Or his Golden Age.

[Abrojo]

I think the main problem is people not willing to properly criticize what Morrison does well and what he doesnt. At this point he could throw garbage that people will eat it up and claim it's just intellectual stuff and we readers that dont like or enjoy it are just retards or just lack taste.

Really, with SI you see people liking some bits (issues 1, 6 and 7 mostly), not liking others (pace dropped middle ways, some of the tieins have been crappy like MA), etc. With FC its either the fans of Morrison saying its perfection incarnate and the rest of us scratching our heads (and therefore being told we are lazy and/or retards).

[pariah-1972]

That's the sort of thing that irritates people.

You didn't give up the titles because the writer was overrated. You gave up the title because you didn't like it. An individuals like or dislike of a title doesn't not automatically confer under or overrated status on the writer or artist.

I really haven't enjoyed James Robinsons Superman. But that doesn't mean he's overated, as a quick read through of any of his Starman work will show. Or his Firearm. Or his Golden Age.The reason i dropped it was because i didn't like it and the reason why steer clear of both there works.

[Tobias March]

I think the main problem is people not willing to properly criticize what Morrison does well and what he doesnt. At this point he could throw garbage that people will eat it up and claim it's just intellectual stuff and we readers that dont like or enjoy it are just retards or just lack taste.

Really, with SI you see people liking some bits (issues 1, 6 and 7 mostly), not liking others (pace dropped middle ways, some of the tieins have been crappy like MA), etc. With FC its either the fans of Morrison saying its perfection incarnate and the rest of us scratching our heads (and therefore being told we are lazy and/or retards).

See this is what confuses me. Why is there perception that a disagreement on FC means one person is stupid and the other smart? You don't like it - fine, don't like it. Read something you do like.

[Karl O'Neill]

I love final crisis. Its very layered and complex, Doesn't mean i don't like straight up action and snappy dialogue in the comic i read, but sometimes it is good to be mentally put throught the motions with a comic like this that makes you think and re-read every panel picking up bits and bits as you go along, like one big puzzle.

[Chemical King]

Well yeah, there are always things you won't notice until you re-read it a couple times. But From Hell flows awesomely, if you ask me.

Yeah, From Hell is a very good example. Full of information to swallow, dozens of characters, additional material giving historical information at the end of the book. And if you read it, you can just dive into it, you can see the puzzle unravel and sympathize with the tragic characters.

In FC, I constantly am getting this feeling that I cannot solve the puzzle cause I'm lacking over 50% of the pieces, I don't care one tiny bit for any of the featured characters and get annoyed instead of drawn in. But in my case, I probably should have stayed away from the series in the beginning cause i never liked anything Morrison wrote - Invisibles, Animal Man, X-Men, you name it.

But: I felt that I could not miss the annual DC event because it would make me miss some major turning point in DC history (especially, as a Legion fan, the probable return of the original Legion). Thus far, I was wrong: I could have skipped the first four issues and neither my interest in the Legion, nor the Titans and Green Lanterns would have been compromised in any way. But I could not have known this in advance. Maybe I should have - considering the writer - but I was willing to give it a chance.

My bad.

[Pól Rua]

Your analogy proves my point as well. Let me explain it because it seems to have eluded you. The singing in the analogy is GM's writing. When I complain about the singing (GM's writing), I'm complaining about the means through which the story content is delivered. The response (in my analogy porn in your analogy AC/DC) is a response that addresses the content when no complaint was made about content. The response implies that the responder (you) have a belief about the person making the statement (me), and that belief is that I prefer something more simplistic when I've made no statement to justify that assumption.
I wasn't discussing content at all. I was, in fact, discussing delivery.
To get back to the musical comparison, AC/DC could be performing Wagner's Ring Cycle, and the Opera could be an operatic adaption of the Back In Black album.
However, if AC/DC is singing 'The Ride of the Valkyries', you'd be expecting something more visceral, immediately accessible. Something you could dance to.
No comment was made on content and all on style.

You've also chosen to use the word 'simplistic'. In doing that, you've CHOSEN to take offense. Let's look at that word, shall we?
Darwyn Cooke uses clean, direct linework.
Bill Sienkiewicz uses a lot of expressionistic techniques.

I prefer Darwyn Cooke's work. It's easier to access, and more direct.

There is no value judgement inherent in saying that someone prefers a style which is more readily accessible no matter how much you'd like it to be so.

You should also try to learn a little empathy. I'm not the only person in this thread to remark on the OP's derogatory nature, and the number of people that agree with me should at least make you pause and consider that the other side may have a point.
Have you read any of the posts in my thread?
Seriously, my complaint is that BOTH sides are too eager to take offense at comments that would otherwise be innocuous.
BOTH sides are too ready to interpret any comment in terms of a direct personal attack on them. Pro and Anti.

I can understand how people could interpret the OP's post in a negative way. I'm just saying that it's counterproductive to do so and that it'll just result in another meaningless and futile round of snobs vs troglodytes.

[ruppan]

Pól Rua, you do realize that even the opening poster backtracked and apologized for the OP, right? Even he realized the desultory nature of his post.

And that was my original point - which I guess was lost even in my own writing and I apologize for that.


I wasn't discussing content at all. I was, in fact, discussing delivery.

Well, that's where your entire argument fails. I wasn't trying to disprove your analogy. You were trying to disprove my analogy. If your analogy doesn't run parallel with my analogy, then it doesn't serve as a counterargument. It's just you off-topic discussion. (That's the problem when you argue from a shifting position.)

However, if AC/DC is singing 'The Ride of the Valkyries', you'd be expecting something more visceral, immediately accessible. Something you could dance to.

This is a value judgment. You just don't realize it.

There is no value judgement inherent in saying that someone prefers a style which is more readily accessible no matter how much you'd like it to be so.

If the person is speaking for himself or herself.

It's a totally different situation if someone is telling another person that they prefer something "more readily accessible" when no indication of such has been given.

Look, guy, I just don't think you get it. Nobody likes being spoken for, especially when it's by someone holding the other opinion.

[Rio_de_Janeiro]

we don't only read stories. don't lie. you know you do. you discuss the writers. you like the writers. you like the art. you like the characters. you can't be bothered by the non-characters. and we...we all fit these stories in their little continuity positions and we slober over our favourite character´s moment. and we complain our favourites are nowhere to be seen (where's me baby boom?) ...


there is no such thing as reading a story just for itself. we are so full of pots and chambers and compartments and boxes and names and tags and little words. so final crisis is not just final crisis. it's morrison. it's morrison. it's morrison.

i prove to you the story sucks because we don't see the fights, only snippets.
i prove to you the story rulezz because we don't see the fights, only snippets.

it's non linear and fragmented. i hate it.
it's non linear and fragmented. i love it.

this is drivel being sold as intellectualism. i hate it.
what's so difficult to understand? i love it.

i want something simple that i can understand and follow.
i want something complex so i can try to understand as i follow.

i love the way the argumentation starts fractalizing into self-reproducing subsets. again and again and again.

cheers,
rio.

[DeadXMan]

Elitism is the last resort of someone defending a bad comic.

And the first, also.

I want to know why many Morrison fans can't admit the guy is capable of writing a bad comic. I had to admit it after the whammy of suck that was the bulk of Seven Soldiers.

No one is perfect!


true that

I'll admit Stan Lee have striked out on more then one time

[Tobias March]

we don't only read stories. don't lie. you know you do. you discuss the writers. you like the writers. you like the art. you like the characters. you can't be bothered by the non-characters. and we...we all fit these stories in their little continuity positions and we slober over our favourite character´s moment. and we complain our favourites are nowhere to be seen (where's me baby boom?) ...


there is no such thing as reading a story just for itself. we are so full of pots and chambers and compartments and boxes and names and tags and little words. so final crisis is not just final crisis. it's morrison. it's morrison. it's morrison.

i prove to you the story sucks because we don't see the fights, only snippets.
i prove to you the story rulezz because we don't see the fights, only snippets.

it's non linear and fragmented. i hate it.
it's non linear and fragmented. i love it.

this is drivel being sold as intellectualism. i hate it.
what's so difficult to understand? i love it.

i want something simple that i can understand and follow.
i want something complex so i can try to understand as i follow.

i love the way the argumentation starts fractalizing into self-reproducing subsets. again and again and again.

cheers,
rio.

Darkseid Is :wink:

[R3DJaySantos]

Shhh...anti-life equation taking over this forum....:eek: :biggrin:

Otherwise, I liked FC so far than SI. But my major beef about FC is this: I need to read ye olde Kirby New Gods issues (including the ones penned by Morrison et al.) to appreciate the significance of this storyline (Countdown to FC, maybe...):confused:

SI had the Avengers storyline beginning with Disassembled, HoM, CW, Illuminati to the present. That's probably why SI ended up more on balls to the wall action stuff and less snappy dialogue. :wink:

[Scott Taylor]

Anti-life Justifies Their Hate.

DARKSEID!

[XPac]

SI had the Avengers storyline beginning with Disassembled, HoM, CW, Illuminati to the present. That's probably why SI ended up more on balls to the wall action stuff and less snappy dialogue. :wink:

Plus, Bendis wrote and put out NA and MA alongside SI (man, is that guy a machine or what) to supplement the main book. So it was really easy to steamline the action in the main book while the background and exposition was covered more extensively in his companion Avengers books for those that wanted to see it.

I did like how SI basically started off with a bang, while FC was sort of a slow burn that didn't quite pick up steam until the third or fourth issue. Not that there isn't an kind of appeal to a sort of slow build up as well (almost like a horror movie or something), but I think the early momentum of the book was really killed with the whole Countdown/death of the New Gods fiasco.

FC is running on all cylinders now... but it's just a shame it couldn't have came out of the gate that way.

[lawman]

Just look at the preparation the heroes are making for the soon-to-come grand battle in Bludhaven. Why are they even assembling there?...

A resistance can't win by assembling everyone in one place and attacking the enemy head-on at his place of greatest strength.
I understand your point, and it's a good one. I suspect (and hope) this is where Morrison is going... and if he were playing up the political allegory of this aspect a little more, I'd probably find the book more interesting than I do.

OTOH, you can't just expect the readers, or the characters, to twig to this concept right away, no matter how much real-world sense it makes. Because in story terms, you can do that. Star Wars springs to mind, but there are any number of smaller examples as well. The audience has seen or read them; the characters have lived them. It makes perfect sense that this is what they'd do.

[Super Buddies Forever]

There are two reasons why I don't like it, none of them being that I'm some sort of bottom-feeder who can't appreciate a story that some feel was carved on stone tablets by the great Grant Morrison Himself.

The story obviously reveres Kirby's New God characters, but it lacks any sort of hook for the reader to feel the same way. It just assumes that we naturally will. For those of us who have never particularly dug the New Gods (even Darkseid), we're left slogging through a story where, if we don't share Morrison's adulation, we find ourselves bored or frustrated.

Secondly, it's just not a very good story. Oh, sure, it's chock full of neat ideas, and if it were better executed I'd probably be sitting here praising the damn thing left and right. But the narrative is atrocious. It's a scattered collection of scenes that doesn't allow for an emotional attachment to the characters that briefly weave in and out of it. We see snippets of major events, but we're constantly deprived of seeing the fallout and aftermath (save for Barry and Wally's reunion over the last two issues).

I want to like it. On a certain level, I do like it. But whenever I sit down and read it, I don't enjoy it.

[Calybos]

Good analysis. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but you're right. It's like we're seeing PART of the story, but most of it's going on elsewhere, between and behind the scenes.

[Dark Master]

I complain about it because I dislike the story and writing as a whole.

[Paul McEnery]

I complain about it because I dislike the story and writing as a whole.

So basically, Final Crisis is a bad comic because it's the kind of comic Dark Master doesn't like.

It's not a very illuminating position, but you have to admire the circularity.

[Dark Master]

So basically, Final Crisis is a bad comic because it's the kind of comic Dark Master doesn't like..
In my opinion, yes. DC is obviously unhappy with it as well.

[zenbullet]

So-
I've not really read this one yet.

And yet, somehow, I'm going to make a comment on it.



But I'm a grantie, so I'm pretty sure I'll like it.
{i don't really like morrissonite, would say morissey, but apparently it's taken}

But, for those who are complaining that it doesn't feel like a CRISIS story.

Totally valid complaint, it originally wasn't a CRISIS story, it was something else entirely.

Editorial mandate changed it to a CRISIS story.


See, now both sides can just hate Didio!

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I must admit, my enthusiasm for Final Crisis has waned substantially after the last couple Final Crisis specials. The one with Checkmate was manic and dull all at the same time. The one with Tattooed Man & Black Lightning was utterly forgettable and I can't even remember what happened in Final Crisis #4 aside from the cliffhanger, which had something to do with Dan Turpin becoming Darkseid, which was uber-creepy.

Delays in a story like this are killer.

When does the next issue of Superman Beyond come out? That story is great so far.

[AugustEngine]

So I guess the reason why people complain about FC is easy: because people want flat-out superheroics, and don't want all that dense reading.




What if I did all that 'dense reading' and comprehended the story just fine, but just didn't care for it? Or is understanding Morrison always equal to loving Morrison? Or are you just sort of pompous?

[Bamf25]

FC has just been so so for me. I could care less about how dense it is, or the vagueness of some of the writing, and honestly do not care about who is writing it. I understand basically what is going on, and do not have major problems with the basic plot. What has bothered me is the following.

1. The writing seems choppy. It seems to jump sceen to sceen with little connection or explaination. Multiple plot threads are great, and I hope they are coming together, but as of now the way it is done lacks flow.

2. DC has shown so little trust in the writing of the main book that they are having almost required side books to explain the main book. This is the oppiset of what should be, side books should expand on the main story, not be a required crutch.

3. The required reading list for true enjoment is hugh. I get the antilife equation, and I can figure out who all the d-listers are, but not only are we beeing asked to buy the normal event books, we are being asked to buy every trade paperpack DC has ever published for a minor character to get all the nuances. I have a good understanding of the DCU, but my history only goes back about 10 years, I do not have the time, energy, or money to go back further. It is great to reward faithful readers with nods or tidbits, but too much here hinges on those tidbits.

4. The event seems disjointed and islolated in the DCU. It is all well and good to not require picking up lots of extra stuff to enjoy an event, but it feels odd that a universe changing event is not reflected anywhere else in the DCU titles. How is FC going to impact a regular title or are we going to get a cover banner reading FC is over the new DCU starts here on every book with no explaination within those books how we got there. The last crisis did that with the one year later stuff, which they claimed would be filled in, and really never was. It makes it hard for me to stay invested in a regular title when I know somebody is on the reset button and the story I am reading right now will be whiped clean.

5. Countdown to FInal Crisis and the instant retcons, and hugh inconsistancies has me doubting if anyone is keeping track of all this.

6. Doubt that any of this will really stick. The company that cried restart is syndrome.

I know some of these drift from just the main title, but are the main things that bother me so far about FC. I am sticking things out and hoping for the best, but have concerns as well as frustration.

[Spiffy]

I read #1-7 of Secret Invasion yesterday.

(Yup. That's why people are complaining about Final Crisis.)

It took me about 25 minutes to read SI. Basic, barebones, easy to read which explains why it sells so well, and apparently a lot of details are explained in NEW AVENGERS, MIGHTY AVENGERS and other titles.

But if you read just SI itself, you'll get it. A lot of questions will arise, but you'll get it.

You have to READ Final Crisis to get it. And unlike SI, Final Crisis seems to be explaining it all in the miniseries. 7 issues of dense reading....

So I guess the reason why people complain about FC is easy: because people want flat-out superheroics, and don't want all that dense reading.

They want fight scenes and snappy dialogue. They don't want to think about everything; just put thinking off to the side and bask in the colors and punches and action. You can think later, if you want, but the main event is the action.

And I don't really know if that's a damnation of Marvel's SI tactics. SI is certainly entertaining. It was fun to read. I'm certainly interested to see how it ends up and what it leads to in 2009. But as I read I knew that if I didn't want to go into all the details (I do, and have a bunch of those other comics to help flesh things out)....I didn't have to in order to get or enjoy the main story.

Sure, FC has tie-ins and relevant miniseries, but they don't exist to explain the details and nuances of Morrison's miniseries; his story does that itself, and in abundance. And yes, in place of lots of loud action and fight scenes.

So if you're reading FINAL CRISIS hoping to see a DC version of SECRET INVASION, just......no. You're not going to get that, it's probably best if you just go away now and avoid further disappointment.

Can't they just BOTH suck, for their own individual reasons? It's not a contest (well, it might be for sales, but there's no absolute winner and loser when it comes to analyzing the comparative quality).

The absence of SI's problems in FC does not mean there aren't a whole other set of problems in FC. A reasonable person can loathe BOTH of these events... its only the unreasonable ones in my opinion, who insist you have to pick a side and defend it to the hilt.

[Bamf25]

Can't they just BOTH suck, for their own individual reasons? It's not a contest (well, it might be for sales, but there's no absolute winner and loser when it comes to analyzing the comparative quality).

The absence of SI's problems in FC does not mean there aren't a whole other set of problems in FC. A reasonable person can loathe BOTH of these events... its only the unreasonable ones in my opinion, who insist you have to pick a side and defend it to the hilt.

I would add that you can like or dislike both for various reasons. Both series have there problems. Whether there problems do or do not bother you is youdecisions, just as whether you like or dislike the story is. I do not pick side based on a company or even an event. Just pick whatever story you like better and go with it. No reason to start a flame war.

[Pól Rua]

What if I did all that 'dense reading' and comprehended the story just fine, but just didn't care for it? Or is understanding Morrison always equal to loving Morrison? Or are you just sort of pompous?

Didn't you get the memo? If you love anything Grant Morrison's ever written, you're a brainwashed cultie, worshipping at his altar and bidding on his feces on eBay and if you don't then you're a dumbass who can't deal with anything more complex than 'Hee Haw'?

I LOVE polarising arguments.

[Tobias March]

Didn't you get the memo? If you love anything Grant Morrison's ever written, you're a brainwashed cultie, worshipping at his altar and bidding on his feces on eBay and if you don't then you're a dumbass who can't deal with anything more complex than 'Hee Haw'?

I LOVE polarising arguments.

Jesus didn't die on the cross. Grant travelled back in time and replaced him, because he's just that cool.

Yes I know that is the plot of the Michael Moorcock novel. He's Grant's unofficial biographer :biggrin:

[coconutphone]

My own personal problem with FC is its inaccesibility. I don't know the DCverse that weell. I know the main backstory and side characters for the most part of some of teh big characters like Supes, Batman and WW. I know a bit about some of the other B listers thorugh reading up on them and scattered issues over the years. I only collect 1 monthly DC book (Green Arrow/Black Canary). I think that if I were to read FC I wouldn't have a clue what was going on. I don't know the Z listers at all and with no real attempt at explaining much I'd be so ridiuclously lost. It's one thing ot reward long time readers and people who dig thoruhg tons of stories to find the references it's another to completely alienate those who don't fit those types. Say what you will about SI but I know that I could jump into that with little to know foreknowledge of the main characters/backstory.

I think that it was a mistake making this the tent-pole event for DC. Had it been just a side/minor event and not pushed as the event of 2008 there'd be different expectations of it and I'd imagine a LOT less criticism. From what I can tell it looks like it's a decent story but I don't think it should have been an EVENT.

[Mat001]

I find that to be a bunk arguement, no offense. When I came into DC and Marvel years ago, I didn't know everyone else who wasn't on "Super Friends" or had a film or television series. But that didn't stop me from reading those books. I read "Armageddon 2001", "Armageddon: Inferno", "Infinity Gauntlet" and "Zero Hour" without knowing who everyone was. If you really want to read the story, even if you don't know who everyone is, then there shouldn't be anything to stop you from reading those stories.

[coconutphone]

Well my point was more that it's harder to get into this series than it is for something like the Secret Invasion. Side by side SI is a LOT more accesible to newbies. This is not at all. And to make something this inaccessible your major tentpole event is a mistake IMO.

[Paul Newell]

Well my point was more that it's harder to get into this series than it is for something like the Secret Invasion. Side by side SI is a LOT more accesible to newbies. This is not at all. And to make something this inaccessible your major tentpole event is a mistake IMO.
It is? I glanced at an issue and, not having read any Marvel in years, had no clue who 90% of the characters were or what the Skrulls reasons were for invading. Now I'm not a Marvel basher...I just lost interest in the direction they were going about 6 or 7 years ago so gradually stopped getting titles, but I can't help finding this point a little strange when, even though I'm not exactly a newbie to Marvel, all I knew was "The Skrulls invade Earth". There was no Why or Who included, just a lot of what.

[coconutphone]

even just reading the recap on the 1st page gives you a lot of what you needed to understand.

[carabas]

My own personal problem with FC is its inaccesibility. I don't know the DCverse that weell. I know the main backstory and side characters for the most part of some of teh big characters like Supes, Batman and WW. I know a bit about some of the other B listers thorugh reading up on them and scattered issues over the years. I only collect 1 monthly DC book (Green Arrow/Black Canary). I think that if I were to read FC I wouldn't have a clue what was going on. I don't know the Z listers at all and with no real attempt at explaining much I'd be so ridiuclously lost..
Eh, what now?
You are complaining because you think a story you have not actually read is too inaccessible to you?

For what it's worth, it's perfectly accessible for DC newbies. Far more so than Secret Invasion, which requires a working knowldge of Civil War and a lot of Bendis's Avengers books. It does not matter if you don't know the exact power set and personal history of, say, the Mirror Master. And what is required and relevant to the story gets explained.

[carabas]

even just reading the recap on the 1st page gives you a lot of what you needed to understand.If a story needs a recap to be comprehensible, the writer failed to make the actual story accessible.

Also, in Secret Invasion #1, where a recap of past continuity would do the most good, there isn't one.

[Paul Newell]

even just reading the recap on the 1st page gives you a lot of what you needed to understand.
I did. Still didn't explain who half the characters were, some are name-checked on the front page, but that's all I have...a name... or what exactly the reason for invading was. Why have the Skrulls suddenly invaded Earth after years of having the crap beaten out of them every other time they tried? What's all this "He Loves You" stuff?

All it does is give you the plot.

[pariah-1972]

I did. Still didn't explain who half the characters were, some are name-checked on the front page, but that's all I have...a name... or what exactly the reason for invading was. Why have the Skrulls suddenly invaded Earth after years of having the crap beaten out of them every other time they tried? What's all this "He Loves You" stuff?

All it does is give you the plot.The Skrulls aren't exactly all that smart.



Besides we invaded a country that held back russia during the cold war and we thought we could go in and it be easy as pie.

[lawman]

I think that it was a mistake making this the tent-pole event for DC. Had it been just a side/minor event and not pushed as the event of 2008 there'd be different expectations of it and I'd imagine a LOT less criticism. From what I can tell it looks like it's a decent story but I don't think it should have been an EVENT.
Quoted for truth. I think there would still be room for serious criticism of its storytelling flaws, but it definitely wouldn't be held up to such sky-high expectations.

[lawman]

...what is required and relevant to the story gets explained.
FWIW, I think (A) you have a different idea from a lot of other people about what's "required and relevant" for effective storytelling, and (B) you also have a different idea of what constitutes a satisfactory explanation.

Nobody's saying you shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the story yourself—have a blast!—but your protestations about why others should just ring a bit hollow.

[Paul McEnery]

FWIW, I think (A) you have a different idea from a lot of other people about what's "required and relevant" for effective storytelling, and (B) you also have a different idea of what constitutes a satisfactory explanation.

Nobody's saying you shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the story yourself—have a blast!—but your protestations about why others should just ring a bit hollow.

It isn't about what "others should". It's about the simple fact that everything necessary actually is there on the page, and that anyone saying otherwise is not speaking from a place of truth.

Whether or not people feel an obligation to speak from a place of truth is an entirely different matter.

[carabas]

Nobody's saying you shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the story yourself—have a blast!—but your protestations about why others should just ring a bit hollow.Oh please. The guy hasn't read Final Crisis, but he's still complaining about it being too inaccessible and not knowing who all the characters are.

[dotdotdot]

Quoted for truth. I think there would still be room for serious criticism of its storytelling flaws, but it definitely wouldn't be held up to such sky-high expectations.

i assure you that the expectations have more to do with the creative team than they do the word crisis. at least, to anyone who's been paying attention for the last two years.

[lawman]

It isn't about what "others should". It's about the simple fact that everything necessary actually is there on the page, and that anyone saying otherwise is not speaking from a place of truth.

Whether or not people feel an obligation to speak from a place of truth is an entirely different matter.
Hey, thanks for questioning my integrity here. :rolleyes: That's ever so much more gracious than just acknowledging that we have different understandings of what "necessary" means in this context.

[Paul McEnery]

Hey, thanks for questioning my integrity here. :rolleyes: That's ever so much more gracious than just acknowledging that we have different understandings of what "necessary" means in this context.

More what "necessary" means in any context, I think.

You're the one insisting that a story should be written according to your limiting criteria in order to be considered good; and stepping outside of those criteria is considered a "flaw".

A barbershop quartet is not a failed artichoke.

[Black Atom]

Eh, what now?
You are complaining because you think a story you have not actually read is too inaccessible to you?

For what it's worth, it's perfectly accessible for DC newbies. Far more so than Secret Invasion, which requires a working knowldge of Civil War and a lot of Bendis's Avengers books. It does not matter if you don't know the exact power set and personal history of, say, the Mirror Master. And what is required and relevant to the story gets explained.

I just don't agree. I'm a long-time DC reader. The problem is not recognizing the characters or their histories--it's the needlessly cryptic approach to telling the story Morrison has employed here. We're introduced to a ton of elements and subplots that seem to have no explicit connection to eachother and we're left guessing which ones are important and which are completely meaningless. Asking three different people for a synopsis of FC will yield three different answers.

By comparison, SI is basically Invasion of the Body Snatchers with super-heroes. Not difficult at all.

[Rio_de_Janeiro]

If a story needs a recap to be comprehensible, the writer failed to make the actual story accessible.

.

In a medium like comics which are published periodically, it makes good sense to have recaps. Not every reader is coming aboard in the same place, so a recap might help her understand the context and make it easier to like the story and go on reading the next monthly or whatever periodicity installment.

cheers,
rio.

[Paul McEnery]

In a medium like comics which are published periodically, it makes good sense to have recaps. Not every reader is coming aboard in the same place, so a recap might help her understand the context and make it easier to like the story and go on reading the next monthly or whatever periodicity installment.

cheers,
rio.

In a medium like comics, where novels are serialized before publishing them properly as a book, recaps destroy the writers art.

[Rio_de_Janeiro]

In a medium like comics, where novels are serialized before publishing them properly as a book, recaps destroy the writers art.

Sorry, Paul, but I don't quite get what you are trying to convey.

Do you have the view that the arcs are built as a whole story and then just chopped into bits (individual issues)?

Why would a recap destroy the writer's art if TPB's are a secondary element to the primary object (serialized comics came before TPB collections of said comics)?
And even if that were the case, TPB's are not just piecing the individual comics together. Things get changed and edited and re-paged, etc. Surely a recap page can easily be eliminated.

Now, I understand that the trend in comic-dom is to have TPB's be the main object, but until then, it is the serialized periodical format that holds the priority.

Unless I have totally misunderstood your comment, but I am an ESL being.

Cheers,
rio.

[Paul McEnery]

Sorry, Paul, but I don't quite get what you are trying to convey.

Do you have the view that the arcs are built as a whole story and then just chopped into bits (individual issues)?

Exactly. Everyone writes for the trade now. Especially with a book like FC, which certainly was fully conceived and is basically being published one chapter at a time. In the same way that Dickens wrote his novels, basically.

Why would a recap destroy the writer's art if TPB's are a secondary element to the primary object (serialized comics came before TPB collections of said comics)?

The trades are now the primary object, in the same way that Dickens's novels are the primary object.


And even if that were the case, TPB's are not just piecing the individual comics together. Things get changed and edited and re-paged, etc. Surely a recap page can easily be eliminated.

Oh, I see; you just mean a recap page. Fair enough, then. I thought you meant the old school practice of taking up two or three pages recapping the previous issue.

[GRANT!]

I'm a little disappointed how Secret Invasion turned out but I did find it interesting that "Evil does win" in that story.

I'm hoping Final Crisis comes out better.

[carabas]

I just don't agree. I'm a long-time DC reader. The problem is not recognizing the characters or their histories--it's the needlessly cryptic approach to telling the story Morrison has employed here. We're introduced to a ton of elements and subplots that seem to have no explicit connection to eachother and we're left guessing which ones are important and which are completely meaningless. Asking three different people for a synopsis of FC will yield three different answers.It's Grant Morrison story: all dangling subplots are important.

Anyway, what you say may be true, but it has nothing to do with accessibility in the mraning generally used when discussing comics (and the way the asker of the question meant), which has to do with having to know and understand long-running plotlines, character's histories and all that. And in this way at least, final Crisis is one of the more accessible modern superhero books out there. Certainly more so than Secret Invasion.

[Black Atom]

It's Grant Morrison story: all dangling subplots are important.

Anyway, what you say may be true, but it has nothing to do with accessibility in the mraning generally used when discussing comics (and the way the asker of the question meant), which has to do with having to know and understand long-running plotlines, character's histories and all that. And in this way at least, final Crisis is one of the more accessible modern superhero books out there. Certainly more so than Secret Invasion.

Even going by that definition, I still don't really agree. Following FC requires familiarity with (and probably an affinity for) Morrison's...unique story-telling tropes and an appreciation of all the obscure little elements of the DCU he's toying with.

With SI, by contrast, you may not know what was going on during Civil War, but hey--there's Wolverine. I recognize that guy. cool. Oh, look, Reed Richards just got exploded--I care about that because I know who that dude is.

You have to look a bit harder for stuff to grasp onto in FC. Look there's...a Japanese superhero, dude. Not sure who he is, but okay, he looks cool I guess. Wait, how does this fit into the story?

[Paul McEnery]

Morrison's...unique story-telling tropes

Yeah, about that.

What are those unique story-telling tropes again? Cause I don't see any.

[Mat001]

Even going by that definition, I still don't really agree. Following FC requires familiarity with (and probably an affinity for) Morrison's...unique story-telling tropes and an appreciation of all the obscure little elements of the DCU he's toying with.

With SI, by contrast, you may not know what was going on during Civil War, but hey--there's Wolverine. I recognize that guy. cool. Oh, look, Reed Richards just got exploded--I care about that because I know who that dude is.

You have to look a bit harder for stuff to grasp onto in FC. Look there's...a Japanese superhero, dude. Not sure who he is, but okay, he looks cool I guess. Wait, how does this fit into the story?

You see how Sonny Sumo fits in when Norman Shilo asks for his help in issue two to help keep him alive. Which he does in issue three and then in issue four, he's with Shilo as they enter the Watchtower and try to convince everyone that Shilo can stop what's happening, before being shot.

[Black Atom]

Yeah, about that.

What are those unique story-telling tropes again? Cause I don't see any.

I'm mainly talking about his penchant for this sort of "carrot-dangling" approach to story-telling. Only sometimes the carrot turns into an apple. And then an anvil, for no reason at all.

For instance, he'll throw out an idea or an exchange that seems interesting, mostly because you don't understand what it's supposed to mean. You spend a few minutes wondering if you don't understand because you're dumb, because it wasn't explained properly, or because you missed an issue. The truth, of course, is that you're not supposed to understand until issues later, so that Morrison can have his Shyamalan moment. There's other times when I flat out don't know WTF is supposed to be happening on a given page.

Granted, lots of his work is much more straightforward than that (his All-Star Supes, notably) and still requires a lot more critical reading than average superhero stuff.

[Black Atom]

You see how Sonny Sumo fits in when Norman Shilo asks for his help in issue two to help keep him alive. Which he does in issue three and then in issue four, he's with Shilo as they enter the Watchtower and try to convince everyone that Shilo can stop what's happening, before being shot.

Nah, I get that. I'm just trying to give an impression of how accessible it might be to a new reader.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm mainly talking about his penchant for this sort of "carrot-dangling" approach to story-telling. Only sometimes the carrot turns into an apple. And then an anvil, for no reason at all.

For instance, he'll throw out an idea or an exchange that seems interesting, mostly because you don't understand what it's supposed to mean.

And? Between Michael Moorcock and Steve Gerber (to name but two), the groundwork is well laid for that sort of thing in comics for decades.

You spend a few minutes wondering if you don't understand because you're dumb, because it wasn't explained properly, or because you missed an issue.

I dunno. Maybe it's just that I've seen an awful lot of challenging movies and read a lot of challenging books, but I have no problem just reading along with things and trusting that they'll make sense eventually.

Or maybe it's reading poetry, where I'm used to reading once to get the sense (which might take a bit of cracking, depending on the poet); and then reading a second time to get the symbolism; and then a third time to appreciate the skill of the construction; and then a fourth time for the interaction of the form and content, to see how all the elements combine to create the overall effect.

I always approach comics like this, and any comic that doesn't need the second read stays on the rack.

The truth, of course, is that you're not supposed to understand until issues later, so that Morrison can have his Shyamalan moment.

That's a bit dismissive. Shyalmalan goes for cheap twists. G-Mo goes for a unified work of art where all the parts speak to all the other parts (and then back out into the world itself). But even so, what's so unusual about that -- except that many writers simply don't have art enough to do it?


Granted, lots of his work is much more straightforward than that (his All-Star Supes, notably) and still requires a lot more critical reading than average superhero stuff.
Again, that's not a bad thing. I'd rather have a Life on Mars that you have to watch a second time to see what's really going on that some tedious cop drama where you weren't much rewarded for watching it the first time.

[Paul McEnery]

Nah, I get that. I'm just trying to give an impression of how accessible it might be to a new reader.

I think it's much more accessible to a new reader, because the new reader isn't going to react with wide-eyed astonishment at being presented with an unfamiliar character. They'll size up the information being given to them, recognize that they can figure out what kind of character it is and where it fits into what kind of world, and go on with the business of reading.

Except for reading the serialized and repetitive form of a comic that's gone on for 40 years about the same character, that's how we consume all narrative forms.

[Mat001]

Nah, I get that. I'm just trying to give an impression of how accessible it might be to a new reader.

No more than when I read "Armageddon 2001" #2 and had no idea who Hawk and Dove were. All people need to do is read. Not that hard.

[Wile_E_Quixote]

1) Where does this fit into continuity after The Death of the New Gods and Countdown? Also why is anyone afraid of Darkseid any more? I mean c'mon, Superman's Pal Jimmy Olson was kicking his ass up one side and down the other at the end of Countdown.

I can imagine everyone saying "Darkseid, Darkseid, where do I know that name from? Oh wait, I know. He's that loser who got his ass handed to him by Jimmy Olson. Bwah hah hah hah hah. What a loser. What a punk-ass bitch of a loser! 'Darkseid' Hah, more like 'Dorkside". I mean really, Jimmy Olson used to get his ass kicked twice a week by all of the retards and cripples he was riding on the short bus with. Man, Dorkside is lucky he didn't run into Lois Lane or Lana Lang, they would have sent him to a whole world of hurt, and no, I'm not talking about Apokolips."

2) Why can't DC meet schedules any more? Come on DC, you announced this months in advance. You need to work with the creative team to set realistic ship dates and once those dates are agreed upon be willing to set an example by cutting off their toes with a bolt cutter. When you miss ship dates you're not just dashing the hopes of overweight, 43 year old, one-legged gun nuts like me, you're tearing the social contract to shreds and throwing the whole cosmos out of balance.

3) I have the feeling that it's not going to be as "final" as The Neverending Story was "neverending". If they're going to call it "Final Crisis" then this has to be the final crisis. No more stories with "crisis" in the title. Oh, and while we're at it no more incredibly stupid tie-ins. 99 percent of all mini-series tie-ins suck.

[carabas]

1) Where does this fit into continuity after The Death of the New Gods and Countdown? Also why is anyone afraid of Darkseid any more? I mean c'mon, Superman's Pal Jimmy Olson was kicking his ass up one side and down the other at the end of Countdown.It does not. Countdown and DOTNG are edoitoral FUBARs of catastrophical proportions.
Both of these series were conceived off AFTER most of Final Crisis was already set in stone, yet they both completely contradict and/or undermine Final Crisis. You can pretty much dismiss them as being mostly out of continuity.

Now why are the books late? Because DC editorial is forcing some rewrites to have Final Crisis fit in better with Countdown and DOTNG. And are apparently having second thoughts about the ending as well.


3) I have the feeling that it's not going to be as "final" as The Neverending Story was "neverending". If they're going to call it "Final Crisis" then this has to be the final crisis. No more stories with "crisis" in the title.Well, can't really judge the series on that one for now.
Oh, and while we're at it no more incredibly stupid tie-ins. 99 percent of all mini-series tie-ins suck.Final Crisis's tie-ins are better than most, and are (mostly) very relevant to the main story. And they are pretty much contained to mni series and one-shots, without spreading to regular ongoing series.

[lawman]

I dunno. Maybe it's just that I've seen an awful lot of challenging movies and read a lot of challenging books, but I have no problem just reading along with things and trusting that they'll make sense eventually.
Maybe it's just that I've seen an awful lot of movies and read and awful lot of books that mistake "convoluted" for "challenging," but I have a huge problem (certain authors excepted) of just trusting that things will "make sense eventually." I'll believe they do when they actually do.

G-Mo goes for a unified work of art where all the parts speak to all the other parts (and then back out into the world itself). But even so, what's so unusual about that -- except that many writers simply don't have art enough to do it?
G-Mo? :confused:

Here's the thing — connecting up various elements of a story in unexpected ways isn't actually that hard. Drawing connections that mean something that's worth the trouble of deciphering them, though, is another matter. Grant's not always so great on that count.

[Readers will] size up the information being given to them, recognize that they can figure out what kind of character it is and where it fits into what kind of world, and go on with the business of reading.

Except for reading the serialized and repetitive form of a comic that's gone on for 40 years about the same character, that's how we consume all narrative forms.
Perhaps (I think other forms of serial fiction stand out as well), but regardless, the context here isn't one of those other forms. It's the one you're marking as being consumed differently. You're then criticizing its readers for wanting to consume it in the way they've been led to expect.

Seriously, Paul, why do you, personally, read super-hero comic books?

[berk]

Maybe it's just that I've seen an awful lot of movies and read and awful lot of books that mistake "convoluted" for "challenging," but I have a huge problem (certain authors excepted) of just trusting that things will "make sense eventually." I'll believe they do when they actually do.


G-Mo? :confused:

Here's the thing — connecting up various elements of a story in unexpected ways isn't actually that hard. Drawing connections that mean something that's worth the trouble of deciphering them, though, is another matter. Grant's not always so great on that count.


Perhaps (I think other forms of serial fiction stand out as well), but regardless, the context here isn't one of those other forms. It's the one you're marking as being consumed differently. You're then criticizing its readers for wanting to consume it in the way they've been led to expect.

Seriously, Paul, why do you, personally, read super-hero comic books?I'd say the context here though is Morrison's body of work, not the superhero genre as a whole. In the context of other Morrison stories like Seven Soldiers, I find good reason to expect both that there's more to FC than meets the eye upon a cursory read and that it will be worth taking the time to decipher and interpret. Can't make a final assessment yet, but that's enough to keep me reading. Besides, I'm enjoying the story at the simple level of story anyway, even if others aren't for whatever reason.

And you know, it isn't just Morrison, as I think has been pointed out recently here or in some other thread. For Heaven's sake, when I was a kid reading Steve Gerber's Defenders back in the 70s, it was pretty obvious you were dealing with something a little different from Jim Shooter's Avengers or what have you. If thirty years later readers still haven't accepted the idea that there's more than one way to tell even a superhero story, then that's a sad reflection on the industry, I'd say.

But if they don't like it, why not just stay away and read their Jim Shooter/Brian Bendis/Geoff Johns series? Instead we get this demand that absolutely everything meet their expectations of what superhero comics should be. What arrogance, what selfishness, when 99% of everything out there is already designed to meet those expectations.

I know, DC misled them into thinking this was another Infinite Crisis or whatever. I can sympathise, I really can. Every time a new issue of the Eternals comes out, I still have to restrain myself from going into excruciating detail about exactly how it's a complete travesty of the original concept. But you know, readers who dislike FC have Superman, they have Batman, they have the JLA, they have multiple series to which they can turn for stories of the kind they like about these characters. So I really don't see the point in continuing to complain about this one particular limited series 5 issues into it.

[dotdotdot]

Maybe it's just that I've seen an awful lot of movies and read and awful lot of books that mistake "convoluted" for "challenging," but I have a huge problem (certain authors excepted) of just trusting that things will "make sense eventually." I'll believe they do when they actually do.


name em.
....

[lawman]

I'd say the context here though is Morrison's body of work, not the superhero genre as a whole. In the context of other Morrison stories like Seven Soldiers, I find good reason to expect both that there's more to FC than meets the eye upon a cursory read and that it will be worth taking the time to decipher and interpret. Can't make a final assessment yet, but that's enough to keep me reading. Besides, I'm enjoying the story at the simple level of story anyway, even if others aren't for whatever reason.
Fair point about the context, and that's probably part of what I brought to the book as well. Thing is, I really enjoyed Seven Soldiers, on multiple levels. I don't think FC measures up on that scale, although I'm still reading too... and meanwhile, I'm not really enjoying the story at the surface level either. So that's why I think it merits criticism, whatever expectations one approaches it with.

Instead we get this demand that absolutely everything meet their expectations of what superhero comics should be. What arrogance, what selfishness, when 99% of everything out there is already designed to meet those expectations.
I haven't really seen many critics making that "demand." Certainly haven't done so myself.

But you know, readers who dislike FC have Superman, they have Batman...
C'mon, surely you've checked out the "R.I.P." threads?... :wink:

[berk]

Fair point about the context, and that's probably part of what I brought to the book as well. Thing is, I really enjoyed Seven Soldiers, on multiple levels. I don't think FC measures up on that scale, although I'm still reading too... and meanwhile, I'm not really enjoying the story at the surface level either. So that's why I think it merits criticism, whatever expectations one approaches it with.


I haven't really seen many critics making that "demand." Certainly haven't done so myself.


C'mon, surely you've checked out the "R.I.P." threads?... :wink:I haven't, since I haven't been reading that series myself, but it seems like there are a kazillion Batman books out there on the stands, so I don't think they have far to go if they're disappointed in RIP. [edit: this wasn't meant to sound as serious as it probably comes across - I realise you were being a little tongue in cheek there.]

[Paul McEnery]

Maybe it's just that I've seen an awful lot of movies and read and awful lot of books that mistake "convoluted" for "challenging," but I have a huge problem (certain authors excepted) of just trusting that things will "make sense eventually." I'll believe they do when they actually do.

I used to have a girlfriend who was like that with movies. Drove me up the wall.

Me, I find it easy to turn my critical brain off and just absorb the work for what it is, and then turn the critic back on afterwards.

Can't do it with crappy bands or theater, though, funnily enough.


G-Mo? :confused:

Well, there you go. That's one of the ways our brains work differently. The moment that nickname came up, I leapt to the J-Lo reference and giggled. I can turn off the critic, but I can't turn off the hypertext.

Here's the thing — connecting up various elements of a story in unexpected ways isn't actually that hard. Drawing connections that mean something that's worth the trouble of deciphering them, though, is another matter. Grant's not always so great on that count.

Perhaps (I think other forms of serial fiction stand out as well), but regardless, the context here isn't one of those other forms. It's the one you're marking as being consumed differently. You're then criticizing its readers for wanting to consume it in the way they've been led to expect.

Seriously, Paul, why do you, personally, read super-hero comic books?

These days? Because somebody interesting is writing them.

And comics is exactly one of those forms. Steranko and Gulacy. Chaykin and Starlin. I mean, really, comics is ABSOLUTELY about juxtaposing two images and forcing the reader to combine them in his/her head to create an illusion of depth and continuity.

And precisely what I'm complaining about is the recent lowering of expectations.within the Big Two's comics. I mean, comics were doing mashups long before it became popular music, but now, if someone slightly steps outside the conventions of realism -- and does anyone do realism at all in popular media any more? -- and it's all let loose the hounds of hell.

[Wile_E_Quixote]

It does not. Countdown and DOTNG are edoitoral FUBARs of catastrophical proportions.
Both of these series were conceived off AFTER most of Final Crisis was already set in stone, yet they both completely contradict and/or undermine Final Crisis. You can pretty much dismiss them as being mostly out of continuity.

Now why are the books late? Because DC editorial is forcing some rewrites to have Final Crisis fit in better with Countdown and DOTNG. And are apparently having second thoughts about the ending as well.
Well, can't really judge the series on that one for now.

So does this mean that they're rewriting the series so that Jimmy Olson comes in at the last minute and kicks Darkseid's ass like he did at the end of Countdown? I've been following this thread on the boards and it seems to me that this is a testament to Dan DiDio's incompetence. You don't have to be a continuity obsessed fanboy to ask what's going on here. You take one of the best comic book writers around, Grant Morrison, and turn him loose on the DC Universe and then you crank out some formulaic crap like DOTNG and Countdown which totally undercut the premise that Morrison's story is based upon. Who does this other than an idiot?



Final Crisis's tie-ins are better than most, and are (mostly) very relevant to the main story. And they are pretty much contained to mni series and one-shots, without spreading to regular ongoing series.

So far FCs tie-ins have been restrained compared to other DC series (I think that Armageddon 2001 was the worst. Thank goodness for that. The FC tie-ins have also been pretty good, Rogue's Revenge was weak and I haven't gotten Rage of the Red Lanterns yet (but might have to get it solely because of these two panels, which have been suitably improved with the addition of lolcat text).

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/6320/ragecat01mt6.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/156/ragecat02fv0.jpg

Although it is kind of weird how Rage Cat has articulated human chest and abdominal musculature.

[TROUBLEZ]

Here's my reasons for not buying Final Crisis:

1) Infinite Crisis just happened not too long ago
2) On top of Final Crisis #1-7, there is 9 sub-series' like SUBMIT, REVELATIONS, etc.
3) The covers were dull
4) The interior art looked dull
5) and I'm really tired of these long, mega events like CIVIL WAR, INFINITE CRISIS, COUNTDOWN, WORLD WAR HULK, BATMAN RIP, part 12 of 26.

[Mat001]

Here's my reasons for not buying Final Crisis:

2) On top of Final Crisis #1-7, there is 9 sub-series' like SUBMIT, REVELATIONS, etc.


Except that you only need to read "Superman Beyond" and "Submit". Maybe "Revelations". When you get down to it, it's three or nine issues that are important. The others just take place before the main events or before things get going.


So far FCs tie-ins have been restrained compared to other DC series (I think that Armageddon 2001 was the worst. Thank goodness for that

Not really. It only crossed over into like 12 to 14 annuals. It had two aftermath issues in the Superman books and two mini-series spinoffs that you didn't have to read.

[stealthwise]

Except that you only need to read "Superman Beyond" and "Submit". Maybe "Revelations". When you get down to it, it's three or nine issues that are important. The others just take place before the main events or before things get going.

Not really. It only crossed over into like 12 to 14 annuals. It had two aftermath issues in the Superman books and two mini-series spinoffs that you didn't have to read.

How is anyone supposed to know that most of those are unnecessary until after the fact though?

[Paul McEnery]

How is anyone supposed to know that most of those are unnecessary until after the fact though?

Because Grant said it was a self-contained story except for Superman Beyond. Submit was added after the fact.

[carabas]

Yeah, but we know that becausewe read andmemorise every single interview the man gives. Regular comics readers do not really have anything to clue them in that half of the tie-ins are tie-ins to The Sinestro-Corps War and that Legion story Johns did.

I really can't think of a reason DC didn't put Rage Of The Red Lantern in the Green Lantern books, or Legion Of Three worlds in the Superman books.

[berk]

Yeah, but we know that becausewe read andmemorise every single interview the man gives. Regular comics readers do not really have anything to clue them in that half of the tie-ins are tie-ins to The Sinestro-Corps War and that Legion story Johns did.

I really can't think of a reason DC didn't put Rage Of The Red Lantern in the Green Lantern books, or Legion Of Three worlds in the Superman books.Right from the beginning, I never had any intention of reading any FC related book that wasn't written by Morrison. Seemed like common sense to me: you know you can't trust some other writer, even assuming the best intentions, to be in tune with the author's vision. So my plan all along was to read FC alone, and if I had found some other tie-in was necessary to understand it, I'd have regarded that as a failure on the part of the writer.

As it turns out, I'm a little ambivalent about even the two Morrison written tie-ins, in different ways. FC Submit was pretty much dispensable, I thought. The main thing it gave the reader - some insight into that particular character, was welcome, but could just as well have been incorporated into the main FC storyline. Superman Beyond OTOH, does look to be bringing a lot of very significant thematic material to the work as a whole. I don't think it'll be absolutely necessary to have read it in order to appreciate FC, certainly not for those readers interested mainly in the story simply as story, but for those interested in analysing it in more depth, there's no doubt that the entire reading experience is probably going to missing something if you don't read Superman Beyond. So if they'd asked me, once again, I'd have advised making this a sub-plot within the main FC series itself, which obviously would have meant expanding it to 10 issues or so.

[Mat001]

How is anyone supposed to know that most of those are unnecessary until after the fact though?

We have this nice website where interviews are conducted with the writers and editors. They tell us what the stories are about. It's really helpful. Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but it's a valid point. When you have two tie-ins written by the author of the series, it's kinda obvious that they're going to be important. And if that doesn't tip you off, the solicits that DC puts out there should give one a big clue. They're only tie-ins because of when they take place, but not all are direct. Legion is about finalizing the Legion history. Revelations is about the Spectre and the Question. Rage is about the next big GL arc. Revenge is about the Flash's rogues more than anything. They occur because the diversity of the DCU results in these things happening and because the Crisis effect from before impacts the future.

I really can't think of a reason DC didn't put Rage Of The Red Lantern in the Green Lantern books, or Legion Of Three worlds in the Superman books.

"Rage Of The Red Lanterns" was given a one-shot because it takes place at the outset of "Final Crisis" as well as being an extra sized issue. "Legion Of Three Worlds" has it's own mini-series because it is not a Superman event. It is a Legion event that features Superman who is a member of the Legion and rather than interrupt "Brainiac", "The Coming Of Atlas" and "New Krypton", we are given a mini-series. It's a Crisis event because the first Crisis resulted in the fractured Legion and the second resulted in having three Legions at once. And as it's been said on two different occassions, there was a third Crisis.


Yeah, but we know that becausewe read andmemorise every single interview the man gives. Regular comics readers do not really have anything to clue them in that half of the tie-ins are tie-ins to The Sinestro-Corps War and that Legion story Johns did.

I'm sorry, but if you're a regular comic reader, it should be obvious where these things are going. Especially when these things are hyped all over the place. So unless you've got your head buried in the sand, it's beyond obvious that these are about the GL and Legion books.

[the4thpip]

Two old ladies sit on the porch of a hotel. "The food here really is inedible," one of them complains. "Yes," the other one agrees, "and the servings are way too small."

That joke best describes why I complain about Final Crisis.

[lawman]

We have this nice website where interviews are conducted with the writers and editors. They tell us what the stories are about. It's really helpful. Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but it's a valid point.
No, it's really not. When the guy who posts right above you is arguing that nothing except the main title should be necessary to appreciate the book, it's all the more ironic that you argue people should have to look up promotional interviews online to make sense of it.

Honestly, logically, if your argument is that not all of the official, published, labeled tie-ins are even necessary, then it's absurd to insist that supplementary online reading is necessary.

And I think it's safe to say, as a simple factual matter, that the vast majority of people buying and reading this story aren't discussing it online or looking up interviews.

I'm sorry, but if you're a regular comic reader, it should be obvious where these things are going. Especially when these things are hyped all over the place. So unless you've got your head buried in the sand, it's beyond obvious that these are about the GL and Legion books.
I think you overestimate how many "regular comics readers" read the monthly solicitations in detail and follow the majority of DC's titles, as opposed to just picking up a handful of favorite books each month and otherwise playing it by ear. Not everyone is a dedicated collector, nor should one have to be to follow the story. (I personally am, but I don't proceed on the assumption that everyone else devotes as much attention, time, or money to these things as I do.)

[Paul McEnery]

No, it's really not. When the guy who posts right above you is arguing that nothing except the main title should be necessary to appreciate the book, it's all the more ironic that you argue people should have to look up promotional interviews online to make sense of it.

See, before I buy most things -- computers, books, yoga mats, whatever -- I tend to check around online to find the best buy. If a comic book company is trying to sell me a bunch of extras on top of what I'm intending to buy, I'll look it up to find out if it's something I want.

Also: I buy books because they're written by someone whose work I'm interested in. The explicit reason I'm buying the single issues (aside from impatience) is because I expect DC to make a bollix of the trade packaging.


And I think it's safe to say, as a simple factual matter, that the vast majority of people buying and reading this story aren't discussing it online or looking up interviews.

And you base this on what, exactly? I imagine this to be exactly the case for people who are interested in Grant's work, and exactly the case for continuity nuts and DC fans.

For everyone else, well, they're not buying superhero comics all that much, are they.

[Paul McEnery]

Right from the beginning, I never had any intention of reading any FC related book that wasn't written by Morrison. Seemed like common sense to me: you know you can't trust some other writer, even assuming the best intentions, to be in tune with the author's vision. So my plan all along was to read FC alone, and if I had found some other tie-in was necessary to understand it, I'd have regarded that as a failure on the part of the writer.

As it turns out, I'm a little ambivalent about even the two Morrison written tie-ins, in different ways. FC Submit was pretty much dispensable, I thought. The main thing it gave the reader - some insight into that particular character, was welcome, but could just as well have been incorporated into the main FC storyline. Superman Beyond OTOH, does look to be bringing a lot of very significant thematic material to the work as a whole. I don't think it'll be absolutely necessary to have read it in order to appreciate FC, certainly not for those readers interested mainly in the story simply as story, but for those interested in analysing it in more depth, there's no doubt that the entire reading experience is probably going to missing something if you don't read Superman Beyond. So if they'd asked me, once again, I'd have advised making this a sub-plot within the main FC series itself, which obviously would have meant expanding it to 10 issues or so.

That would alter the fundamental tone and structure of the book, which has a very tight architecture -- so far -- based around the spiral dynamics theme. Superman Beyond is off piste beyond what FC's narrative point of view can accomodate. And this, I think, is deliberate.

As far as I can see, the central architecture tells us exactly what we need to know to make the ritual dynamics effective. Anyone who wants to set a side story during the Crisis, there's plenty of room for them to do so; but there's also plenty of room for me to ignore them.

I bothered with Submit only because Grant wrote it; it still wasn't necessary; but it was proof of concept that there's a lot of stories out there within the universe of this story which are available to the creative (or indeed fan fic) writer.

[berk]

That would alter the fundamental tone and structure of the book, which has a very tight architecture -- so far -- based around the spiral dynamics theme. Superman Beyond is off piste beyond what FC's narrative point of view can accomodate. And this, I think, is deliberate.

As far as I can see, the central architecture tells us exactly what we need to know to make the ritual dynamics effective. Anyone who wants to set a side story during the Crisis, there's plenty of room for them to do so; but there's also plenty of room for me to ignore them.

I bothered with Submit only because Grant wrote it; it still wasn't necessary; but it was proof of concept that there's a lot of stories out there within the universe of this story which are available to the creative (or indeed fan fic) writer.You're right, it would give the whole work a more sprawling, varied structure, which would make it a different animal altogether. Right now, reading FC and SB in installments, that's the way it feels anyway, so such an alteration doesn't feel as if it would be all that important to me, but it would probably make a big difference to how it'll read as a finished work, when I can read FC from beginning to end on its own, knowing what happens in SB, but not having the two entwined around each other in the sense of actually reading both together.

Another good reason not to do as I suggested is that it would effectively make the whole of FC a Superman story, which might suit Morrison and most readers just fine, but would be a big problem for me. So better Superman Beyond remain its own separate series, closely related to FC as it is.

[berk]

I haven't really seen many critics making that "demand." Certainly haven't done so myself.Forgot to answer this bit. When you said... the context here isn't one of those other forms. It's the one you're marking as being consumed differently. You're then criticizing its readers for wanting to consume it in the way they've been led to expect. that's where it sounds to me as if you're demanding that this particular series keep within the stylistic bounds of standard superhero storytelling. And a lot of the complaints about the series do seem to come down to the same feeling.

[Paul McEnery]

You're right, it would give the whole work a more sprawling, varied structure, which would make it a different animal altogether. Right now, reading FC and SB in installments, that's the way it feels anyway, so such an alteration doesn't feel as if it would be all that important to me, but it would probably make a big difference to how it'll read as a finished work, when I can read FC from beginning to end on its own, knowing what happens in SB, but not having the two entwined around each other in the sense of actually reading both together.

Another good reason not to do as I suggested is that it would effectively make the whole of FC a Superman story, which might suit Morrison and most readers just fine, but would be a big problem for me. So better Superman Beyond remain its own separate series, closely related to FC as it is.

One of the hidden thoughts in the title Seven Soldiers is the William Burroughs routine/album Seven Souls. The characters correspond to the seven angels/gods/archangels/loa/chakras etc., yeah?; only in a neat twist, each is actually on a journey between two modes, bumping in turn the next one up the ladder. For those of us with an expectation that any seven is going to be the Classic 7, that's a neat bit of messing with our expectations to give us a bit of spiritual edumacation.

In this one, though, I'm thinking it's more like our Classic 7 are all present and correct, and since this is the last of the three death themed books, we're looking at each of the seven modes shutting down, one at a time. That's one of the key thematic points that reveals the underlying structure.

[berk]

One of the hidden thoughts in the title Seven Soldiers is the William Burroughs routine/album Seven Souls. The characters correspond to the seven angels/gods/archangels/loa/chakras etc., yeah?; only in a neat twist, each is actually on a journey between two modes, bumping in turn the next one up the ladder. For those of us with an expectation that any seven is going to be the Classic 7, that's a neat bit of messing with our expectations to give us a bit of spiritual edumacation.

In this one, though, I'm thinking it's more like our Classic 7 are all present and correct, and since this is the last of the three death themed books, we're looking at each of the seven modes shutting down, one at a time. That's one of the key thematic points that reveals the underlying structure.So he wouldn't to start fiddling with the 7-issue structure, then. I'll have to keep all this in mind when I re-read the series so far, once the new issue comes out this week.

[Tobias March]

So he wouldn't to start fiddling with the 7-issue structure, then. I'll have to keep all this in mind when I re-read the series so far, once the new issue comes out this week.

Oh this shall be a good week so. FC on the stands :biggrin:

[Paul McEnery]

So he wouldn't to start fiddling with the 7-issue structure, then. I'll have to keep all this in mind when I re-read the series so far, once the new issue comes out this week.

And rather than "falls", it might be better to say "falls into a necrotic state". So far we've been working up from the 3/belly chakra:

Belly = aggression; Martian Manhunter and Orion
Heart = compassion; Superman and Wonder Woman.
Throat = communication; The Internets!
Third eye = judgment/ego; Turpin loses to Darkseid.

Of course, this is a loose scheme, and people have their own ideas about the correspondences anyway; but one way or another, this all points to things going from bad to worse by Wednesday, with the crown chakra going down, and the complete suppression of imagination.

But by episode six, we start over from the bottom. At least, that's how I read it. Putting us in the throne room of desire for the big finish.

Then again, we've also got people still operating on all the levels: Mister Miracle for the heart, The Ray for the throat, Superman for compassion (off the board), Batman for the ego (I think).

[Mat001]

No, it's really not. When the guy who posts right above you is arguing that nothing except the main title should be necessary to appreciate the book, it's all the more ironic that you argue people should have to look up promotional interviews online to make sense of it.

See, before I buy most things -- computers, books, yoga mats, whatever -- I tend to check around online to find the best buy. If a comic book company is trying to sell me a bunch of extras on top of what I'm intending to buy, I'll look it up to find out if it's something I want.

He has a point. You go to buy a computer or a car, you don't want to get gipped. So you do some research. If you want to buy a comic which has tie-ins, it might be prudent to see if you really need said tie-ins, to save your money. If there are bells and whistles, then by all means, purchase it.

Honestly, logically, if your argument is that not all of the official, published, labeled tie-ins are even necessary, then it's absurd to insist that supplementary online reading is necessary.

No, I'm basing it on the idea that if you don't want to spend about $200 bucks for comics that have little involvement, it's best to research your purchase before blowing your money haphazzardly. Same way with the above mentioned materials. Case in point, I'm buying the main series. It has things that appeal to me. I'm buying "Legion Of 3 Worlds" because it ties into what I've been reading in the Superman books, lately. I've bought "Beyond", "Requiem", "Submit" and "Resist" because all four stories had something that I wanted to read. "Beyond" is a Superman venture, so that was a driving factor in getting issue one. "Requiem" because J'onn is one of my favorite characters and I wanted to see the full story of his death. "Submit" and "Resist" because both tie into the main series and so I wanted to see the deal. I didn't get "Rage Of The Red Lanterns" because while I love GL, I'm not collecting his book at the moment. So I could forego it and just wait for the trade. "Revelations" I couldn't get because I cannot afford it on top of my other purchases. "Rogue's Revenge" I didn't get because while I love Flash, I'm not collecting that book either. I didn't get "Last Will & Testament" because it didn't offer me anything that I really needed. Maybe later, but it's not that important. I might get the two Batman tie-ins because of their placement. Either now or later.

I looked these things up so I knew what was needed and what wasn't. I did research. I went to here and Newsarama. I read reviews across the board. That is how I've made my purchases with this series.

And I think it's safe to say, as a simple factual matter, that the vast majority of people buying and reading this story aren't discussing it online or looking up interviews.

Assuming that is true, that's their problem for not researching things more clearly.

I think you overestimate how many "regular comics readers" read the monthly solicitations in detail and follow the majority of DC's titles, as opposed to just picking up a handful of favorite books each month and otherwise playing it by ear. Not everyone is a dedicated collector, nor should one have to be to follow the story. (I personally am, but I don't proceed on the assumption that everyone else devotes as much attention, time, or money to these things as I do.)

Well, then they shouldn't bitch about buying something that they felt that they didn't need, if they didn't do the proper research. They have only themselves to blame for blowing $2.99 or 3.99 without thinking it through first. The companies aren't publishing these solicits and interviews for their health. They're doing it to inform us of what's coming up. To garner interest and to help us make a purchase.


Another good reason not to do as I suggested is that it would effectively make the whole of FC a Superman story, which might suit Morrison and most readers just fine, but would be a big problem for me. So better Superman Beyond remain its own separate series, closely related to FC as it is.

See. That's why we have these tie-ins. The story allowed for a tangent and we have that.

[lawman]

Well, then [readers] shouldn't bitch about buying something that they felt that they didn't need, if they didn't do the proper research. They have only themselves to blame for blowing $2.99 or 3.99 without thinking it through first. The companies aren't publishing these solicits and interviews for their health. They're doing it to inform us of what's coming up. To garner interest and to help us make a purchase.
:confused: Publishers put out promotional materials, interviews and so forth precisely "for their health." Their health depends on sales. They couldn't give two hoots in hell about whether potential readers are properly "informed" of what's in any upcoming story; they're perfectly happy to misinform them, so long as it's likely to lead to an exchange of money for printed pages.

In fact, just exactly that sort of misleading promotion is, as we've already discussed at length, a significant part of why so many readers who did pay attention in advance expected (and not unreasonably!) Final Crisis to be a very different sort of story from what it actually is.

[TROUBLEZ]

Yeah, but we know that becausewe read andmemorise every single interview the man gives. Regular comics readers do not really have anything to clue them in that half of the tie-ins are tie-ins to The Sinestro-Corps War and that Legion story Johns did.



Yup. I haven't been following the Final Crisis threads but when I go to the comic shop I see three FINAL CRISIS comics next to each other with the signature red bars so I assumed that they were #s 3, 4 and 5. Closer inspection revealed that they were "Submit" or "Rogues Revenge" or something.

If Grant says I only need those other 2 side issues of FC, then the other FC titles are just a very dirty way of getting me to spend my money on something they promote as part of the story, but not really part of the story.

[TROUBLEZ]

See, before I buy most things -- computers, books, yoga mats, whatever -- I tend to check around online to find the best buy. If a comic book company is trying to sell me a bunch of extras on top of what I'm intending to buy, I'll look it up to find out if it's something I want.



When it comes to buying comics, I pick up the comic that catches my eye, and flip through it. If I like what I see I buy it.



He has a point. You go to buy a computer or a car, you don't want to get gipped. So you do some research. If you want to buy a comic which has tie-ins, it might be prudent to see if you really need said tie-ins, to save your money. If there are bells and whistles, then by all means, purchase it.


Who knew buying a 4 dollar comic book could be as complicated as buying a car?

[carabas]

If Grant says I only need those other 2 side issues of FC, then the other FC titles are just a very dirty way of getting me to spend my money on something they promote as part of the story, but not really part of the story.On th plus side, the non-tie-ins are actually very relevant to some other books, as far as I can see, and if Final Crisis didn't exist, Rage Of The Red Lantern and Legion Of Three Worlds would still exist.

In contrast, books like Secret Invasion: X-Men and SI: Thor are completely irrelevant to Secret invasion, and don't even impact the X-Men or Thor even slightly, and have no reason to exist apart from pure, undiluted greed.

[Mat001]

:confused: Publishers put out promotional materials, interviews and so forth precisely "for their health." Their health depends on sales. They couldn't give two hoots in hell about whether potential readers are properly "informed" of what's in any upcoming story; they're perfectly happy to misinform them, so long as it's likely to lead to an exchange of money for printed pages.

In fact, just exactly that sort of misleading promotion is, as we've already discussed at length, a significant part of why so many readers who did pay attention in advance expected (and not unreasonably!) Final Crisis to be a very different sort of story from what it actually is.

Wow, you are something. You're so jaded that you assume things that are not true. You so want to believe that they're money grubbers who care about nothing except money, that you cannot see the forrest through the trees. No, they couldn't possibly be interested in putting out material that not only do they believe in, but that they want to put out something that they're proud of. That they're trying to make sure that the fans who choose to make a purchase, gets the best bang for their buck. When I say "for their health" I'm not talking about making money. I'm talking about the fact that they aren't doing these things for ***** and giggles. They're going out of their way to interact with us and make sure that we know what is what. As I pointed out, their end of the bargin with the interviews and solicits has helped me to decide what to buy, rather than just buy everything.

And obviously, not everyone paid attention. Otherwise they wouldn't be complaining.

Who knew buying a 4 dollar comic book could be as complicated as buying a car?

Only when one wants to get involved in a crossover without having to sell a kidney to afford it. But it's not that complicated like buying a car. A car is something that has to last a while and you need to make sure that you aren't getting ripped off. A comic is frivolous. But if you want to get something that has a lot of work put into it, you'd want to be sure that you get what you paid for.

[NeoStar9X]

On th plus side, the non-tie-ins are actually very relevant to some other books, as far as I can see, and if Final Crisis didn't exist, Rage Of The Red Lantern and Legion Of Three Worlds would still exist.

In contrast, books like Secret Invasion: X-Men and SI: Thor are completely irrelevant to Secret invasion, and don't even impact the X-Men or Thor even slightly, and have no reason to exist apart from pure, undiluted greed.

I can at least appreciate that about DC. Requiem, Submit, Resist, and Superman Beyond seem to be titles that are tied to Final Crisis. However they pretty much expand on events that take place in FC itself. That is what a tie-in should be I think. Something that expands on an event in the main series since there isn't time to get into the details of it. The others seemed more like sequels to other titles that if released by themselves might not get much attention when they really should. So at least on that front I can understand putting the Final Crisis logo on it. Though its still wrong to let people think it's something when it's really something else. Though a little research (perhaps just asking in a forum or two and waiting till after the issue is out) does help one realize that. Not like the stories came out of nowhere and had no connection to anything.

That said I can deal with that compared to tie-ins that are done just for pure money that really don't matter in the end. Or done just so they can say "See these characters were in the event". From the sounds of it that is what some of the Secret Invasion tie-ins were like. I'm going to guess that some of those tie-ins were heavily decompressed in storytelling as well and could have been done in half the issues they took up.

[darkhanamaru]

One of the hidden thoughts in the title Seven Soldiers is the William Burroughs routine/album Seven Souls.

I forgot they used this in Sopranos. Hit me last night

for those interested, here is the excerpt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzNB_Y9cXi4

[TROUBLEZ]

Only when one wants to get involved in a crossover without having to sell a kidney to afford it. But it's not that complicated like buying a car.


But as expensive as a human kidney. Got it.

[carabas]

I'm going to guess that some of those tie-ins were heavily decompressed in storytelling as well and could have been done in half the issues they took up.You'd be wrong there, at least for SI: X-Men, SI:Thor and the opening arc of Captain Brittain and MI:13 (didn't bother with any of the rest, or the main series for that matter). But then Mike Carey, Matt Fraction and Paul Cornell aren't really partial to decompression. Especially not Fraction.

[NeoStar9X]

You'd be wrong there, at least for SI: X-Men, SI:Thor and the opening arc of Captain Brittain and MI:13 (didn't bother with any of the rest, or the main series for that matter). But then Mike Carey, Matt Fraction and Paul Cornell aren't really partial to decompression. Especially not Fraction.

That's really good to hear. In regard to those books as well as the authors aas well. Chance I'll be more likely to pick up some of their work in the future if decompression really isn't their style of choice. I had to stop reading Bendis and had to start trading JSoA when it came to Geoff Johns work due to their extreme (more so in Bendis case (I was enjoying Ultimate Spider-man and New Avengers) use of that writing style. Thanks.

[Paul McEnery]

When it comes to buying comics, I pick up the comic that catches my eye, and flip through it. If I like what I see I buy it.

Also a solid method. :biggrin:


Who knew buying a 4 dollar comic book could be as complicated as buying a car?

I know, it's crazy!

[carabas]

That's really good to hear. In regard to those books as well as the authors aas well. Chance I'll be more likely to pick up some of their work in the future if decompression really isn't their style of choice. I had to stop reading Bendis and had to start trading JSoA when it came to Geoff Johns work due to their extreme (more so in Bendis case (I was enjoying Ultimate Spider-man and New Avengers) use of that writing style. Thanks.
You should give Fraction's Casanova, from Image a try: hyper-compressed sixteen-page single issues that somehow manage to coem together as a story arc at the end of the chapter.

[Paul McEnery]

You should give Fraction's Casanova, from Image a try: hyper-compressed sixteen-page single issues that somehow manage to coem together as a story arc at the end of the chapter.

And go back to the source it pilfers from, Moorcock's Cornelius books (particularly, The Cornelius Quartet, also liberally pilfered from for The Invisibles).

[Anthony Z]

And go back to the source it pilfers from, Moorcock's Cornelius books (particularly, The Cornelius Quartet, also liberally pilfered from for The Invisibles).

I don't have too much of a problem with that. I mean, Moorcock created Cornelius to be somewhat of a public domain character.

[Paul McEnery]

I don't have too much of a problem with that. I mean, Moorcock created Cornelius to be somewhat of a public domain character.

Heh. Moorcock gets a little irritated by it, actually; especially Grant's habit of lifting stuff verbatim. I tried to explain it to him as being like sampling, but he wasn't having it; then again, when I was talking to him, it was before the mashup fad, so maybe it would make sense now.

Assuming the mashup fad has made it all the way to the back roads of Texas.

I mean, it's not like Grant doesn't source his swipes; if anything, it's all a marketing plan for Grant's inner fanboy's reading list.

[Black Atom]

And? Between Michael Moorcock and Steve Gerber (to name but two), the groundwork is well laid for that sort of thing in comics for decades.

I dunno. Maybe it's just that I've seen an awful lot of challenging movies and read a lot of challenging books, but I have no problem just reading along with things and trusting that they'll make sense eventually.

Or maybe it's reading poetry, where I'm used to reading once to get the sense (which might take a bit of cracking, depending on the poet); and then reading a second time to get the symbolism; and then a third time to appreciate the skill of the construction; and then a fourth time for the interaction of the form and content, to see how all the elements combine to create the overall effect.

I always approach comics like this, and any comic that doesn't need the second read stays on the rack.

But you're exceptional, Paul. Look at all the crap that does fly off the racks, if you don't believe me. The average reader (and I actually give comic readers credit, since they are actually reading to begin with) doesn't approach their material that critically.

That's a bit dismissive. Shyalmalan goes for cheap twists. G-Mo goes for a unified work of art where all the parts speak to all the other parts (and then back out into the world itself). But even so, what's so unusual about that -- except that many writers simply don't have art enough to do it?

That's my point. It's a rarity. I don't believe the "average" comic fan has been trained by his superhero comics to approach them this way. A new reader--unless they're coming off other Morrison stuff or another genre where those elements are commonly employed--certainly isn't.

Again, that's not a bad thing. I'd rather have a Life on Mars that you have to watch a second time to see what's really going on that some tedious cop drama where you weren't much rewarded for watching it the first time.

I don't think it's a bad thing, if it seems I inferred that. But I certainly think FC is less accessible to a potential new reader, who's picking up the next WORLD-CHANGING EVENT STORY to see what the hubbub's about.

[Black Atom]

I think it's much more accessible to a new reader, because the new reader isn't going to react with wide-eyed astonishment at being presented with an unfamiliar character. They'll size up the information being given to them, recognize that they can figure out what kind of character it is and where it fits into what kind of world, and go on with the business of reading.

Except for reading the serialized and repetitive form of a comic that's gone on for 40 years about the same character, that's how we consume all narrative forms.

I think the largest contingent of people who read superhero comics do so because of A) the big name on the cover and B) the littler names on the cover. It's why X-Men can continue to be a top seller for many years despite being terrible for the most part. Particularly with big events, the lull is a bunch of little names you recognize writing and drawing pictures about a bunch of big names you recognize doing all sorts of fun, crazy stuff. One of these crossover events has that--the other wants to make you think and remember details and stuff.

I think SI is shite, mind you. I'm just sayin'.

[Paul McEnery]

But you're exceptional, Paul. Look at all the crap that does fly off the racks, if you don't believe me. The average reader (and I actually give comic readers credit, since they are actually reading to begin with) doesn't approach their material that critically.

Yeah, but it doesn't fly off the racks, does it. It sells worse than Dazzler on a bad day.


That's my point. It's a rarity. I don't believe the "average" comic fan has been trained by his superhero comics to approach them this way. A new reader--unless they're coming off other Morrison stuff or another genre where those elements are commonly employed--certainly isn't.

Of course it's a rarity. Sturgeon's Law leaps to mind. And he was talking about crap SF. And his survives, because he bothered to be an artist.


I don't think it's a bad thing, if it seems I inferred that. But I certainly think FC is less accessible to a potential new reader, who's picking up the next WORLD-CHANGING EVENT STORY to see what the hubbub's about.
In a weird parallel universe, instead of this happening in comics, it happens in rock music. And people pick up the next Yes album because it's going to change everything!

[Anthony Z]

Heh. Moorcock gets a little irritated by it, actually; especially Grant's habit of lifting stuff verbatim. I tried to explain it to him as being like sampling, but he wasn't having it; then again, when I was talking to him, it was before the mashup fad, so maybe it would make sense now.

Assuming the mashup fad has made it all the way to the back roads of Texas.

I mean, it's not like Grant doesn't source his swipes; if anything, it's all a marketing plan for Grant's inner fanboy's reading list.

I always found it a little odd to be honest, how angry Moorcock seems to get over the Cornelius thing. I remember reading his criticism of Morrison where he basically calls him a shite writer without talent to pull off a story. But you know, it's his work and he probably has more of a right to criticise than most of us kicking around internet forums. Even if I think he is wrong in this instance (and seriously, Warhound and the World's Pain is one of my favourite books so it's not like I have anything against Moorcock)

Anyhow, back to the question at hand which I notice I didn't actually comment on. A friend of mine who is and always has been a DC reader read SI 1-7 and his complaint was that it involved revelations concerning characters he had no idea about and so the story had no emotional resonance with him. I go one further which is that the story is just very superficial beyond the obvious metaphor. I enjoyed reading it but only in the same way I enjoy watching a big, stupid action blockbuster but with great dialogue.

[Paul McEnery]

I think the largest contingent of people who read superhero comics do so because of A) the big name on the cover and B) the littler names on the cover. It's why X-Men can continue to be a top seller for many years despite being terrible for the most part. Particularly with big events, the lull is a bunch of little names you recognize writing and drawing pictures about a bunch of big names you recognize doing all sorts of fun, crazy stuff. One of these crossover events has that--the other wants to make you think and remember details and stuff.

I think SI is shite, mind you. I'm just sayin'.

Be interesting to find out which one is the reliable marquee name in the long run. Ultimately, what stays in print is the good story. And for the most part, the creators' names are the more reliable proof of concept.

Which Stormwatch books are in print? All of them? Or just the Ellis ones?

[Mat001]

Anyhow, back to the question at hand which I notice I didn't actually comment on. A friend of mine who is and always has been a DC reader read SI 1-7 and his complaint was that it involved revelations concerning characters he had no idea about and so the story had no emotional resonance with him. I go one further which is that the story is just very superficial beyond the obvious metaphor. I enjoyed reading it but only in the same way I enjoy watching a big, stupid action blockbuster but with great dialogue.

Well, that's going to happen in any company wide crossover. However, in your friend's case, because he's a regular DC reader and not a Marvel reader, he doesn't have at least one character that he is invested in. Your friend probably has several DC characters, which then creates that right resonance with either "Infinite Crisis" or "The Sinestro Corps War". With "Final Crisis", I care about Dan Turpin because I've read him through the Superman books. I care about Norman Shilo, because even though I didn't read "Seven Soldiers", I know where his character is coming from. I cared that J'onn died and the Daily Planet blew up.

Now, maybe they get lucky and a crossover makes you care about another character that you haven't read. I started to care about Green Lantern through "Regin Of The Supermen", "Emerald Twilight" and "Zero Hour", the latter of which really cemented it. That's where it comes down to.

[Anthony Z]

Well, that's going to happen in any company wide crossover. However, in your friend's case, because he's a regular DC reader and not a Marvel reader, he doesn't have at least one character that he is invested in. Your friend probably has several DC characters, which then creates that right resonance with either "Infinite Crisis" or "The Sinestro Corps War". With "Final Crisis", I care about Dan Turpin because I've read him through the Superman books. I care about Norman Shilo, because even though I didn't read "Seven Soldiers", I know where his character is coming from. I cared that J'onn died and the Daily Planet blew up.

Now, maybe they get lucky and a crossover makes you care about another character that you haven't read. I started to care about Green Lantern through "Regin Of The Supermen", "Emerald Twilight" and "Zero Hour", the latter of which really cemented it. That's where it comes down to.

Well, yeah, that all goes without saying really. But there should still be a hook in the story to pull in even the most outside reader. I go into a new book with no emotional attachment to the characters I will get introduced to in it but usually have some by the end of it. A big event comic should be no different.

[joint venture]

Well, yeah, that all goes without saying really. But there should still be a hook in the story to pull in even the most outside reader. I go into a new book with no emotional attachment to the characters I will get introduced to in it but usually have some by the end of it. A big event comic should be no different.

why? just curious. please explain.

again, just curious.

but why in that specific order or "workflow" in your case?

thanks,

[Mat001]

My point is that one shouldn't just dive in headfirst into a crossover with a company that they're not even remotely familiar with. I dived into DC and Marvel because of Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the Hulk. When I did "Armageddon 2001", I didn't go for the first issue since I didn't know anyone outside of the heroes who appear during the opening segment talking about Monarch's rise. I started with the first Superman and Batman crossover stories, since I knew them well. I finished with the final part of the story since Superman was a significant player and I had come to enjoy Waverider as a character. So I had the resonance to feel for what was going on. By the time I reached "Zero Hour" where I collected the main series, rather than just the spin-offs, I knew enough characters that the story worked for me and it carried over to subsequent readings. Marvel, I came in with the final issue of "Infinity Gauntlet" which was a bit of a mistake, but since it had the Hulk, I decided what the hell. I only stuck with the crossovers when it affected Spider-Man. Later, by the time "Onslaught" hit, I knew more of the Marvel characters and had an investment with the X-Men, which made it easier to read that arc and feel their betrayal at who Onslaught was. Since the 90's series talked about the traitor, even if they played it out differently.

Just diving into a company wide crossover without some sort of link will not work as well.

[Pól Rua]

And go back to the source it pilfers from, Moorcock's Cornelius books (particularly, The Cornelius Quartet, also liberally pilfered from for The Invisibles).

Luther Arkwright! Luther Arkwright! Luther Arkwright!

Thenk yew.

[Tobias March]

I don't have too much of a problem with that. I mean, Moorcock created Cornelius to be somewhat of a public domain character.

Although he was miffed about all the Gideon Stargrove stuff.

Now Fraction did a Cornelius pastiche as well.....but it was fun!

Greatly enjoyed that book.

[Anthony Z]

My point is that one shouldn't just dive in headfirst into a crossover with a company that they're not even remotely familiar with. I dived into DC and Marvel because of Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the Hulk. When I did "Armageddon 2001", I didn't go for the first issue since I didn't know anyone outside of the heroes who appear during the opening segment talking about Monarch's rise. I started with the first Superman and Batman crossover stories, since I knew them well. I finished with the final part of the story since Superman was a significant player and I had come to enjoy Waverider as a character. So I had the resonance to feel for what was going on. By the time I reached "Zero Hour" where I collected the main series, rather than just the spin-offs, I knew enough characters that the story worked for me and it carried over to subsequent readings. Marvel, I came in with the final issue of "Infinity Gauntlet" which was a bit of a mistake, but since it had the Hulk, I decided what the hell. I only stuck with the crossovers when it affected Spider-Man. Later, by the time "Onslaught" hit, I knew more of the Marvel characters and had an investment with the X-Men, which made it easier to read that arc and feel their betrayal at who Onslaught was. Since the 90's series talked about the traitor, even if they played it out differently.

Just diving into a company wide crossover without some sort of link will not work as well.

I think that a company wide crossover should stand on its own merits It's just lazy storytelling to write a big, hyped event and assume all people going into it are familiar with your universe. These should be the stories to pull more readers into your line rather than just leave the casual reader cold. I got more emotional resonance from the latest issue of New Avengers then I did from the last issue of Secret Invasion. Say what you want about Infinite Crisis, for example, but a casual reader could go into that book and by the end feel an attachment to Earth-2 Superman and especially Power Girl. These sorts of touchstones were missing from Secret Invasion. An avid reader should get a lot more from an event book, for sure, but not at the expense of a casual reader getting nothing from it.

[Anthony Z]

Although he was miffed about all the Gideon Stargrove stuff.

Now Fraction did a Cornelius pastiche as well.....but it was fun!

Greatly enjoyed that book.

Which I really don't get. But then, I guess most geniuses are cranks so more power to Moorcock :)

I think I am developing a fan-crush on Fraction.

[Frank]

I don't think the Secret Invasion comparisons hold water because here we had stupid fight fests in the typical Bendis decompressed manner(hey it didn't work for House of M, it won't work here); No the more apt comparison, the model fans had in mind for Final Crisis may have been Marvel's Civil War. Especialy the way Morrison and JH Williams were announced as the creative team. For the first time since Infinite Crisis started you had one top writer with one top artist working on one contained story. It was to be the biggest bang for your buck and the culumination of everything that happened before. What fans were expecting was something at least of the level of Civil War as far as entertainment, shock, quality, an awesome sauce of interesting situations and the usual super-hero fights(whatever you liked or didn't like how some of the decisions that were made). But so far it hasn't gone near that. It's been like opposite of Secret Invasion but not in a good way. While SI you had too many fight scenes and nothing else happening plot-wise, on Final Crisis you've had nothing happening ever, and Morrison showing us his love for the New Gods. In a talking heads sort of way. Morrison can do better than that.

[carabas]

I don't know about that. I think that Morrison fans at least have gotten more or less waht they were expecting.

And I think that Millar fans (well, myself anyway) were sorely disppointed by Civil War, its empty fight scenes, and its non-ending.

I very much prefer 'nothing' happening (although I can't think of a lot of books that have more happening in them than Final Crisis) than it being filled with empty filler pages of people beating each other up.

[Tobias March]

I don't know about that. I think that Morrison fans at least have gotten more or less waht they were expecting.

And I think that Millar fans (well, myself anyway) were sorely disppointed by Civil War, its empty fight scenes, and its non-ending.

I very much prefer 'nothing' happening (although I can't think of a lot of books that have more happening in them than Final Crisis) than it being filled with empty filler pages of people beating each other up.

Yeah I don't quite follow the comparison. As I recall Civil War had fanboys spitting blood over its ending and of course during its run there were countless sub-political debates on the meaning of pro-registration/anti-registration on these boards alone (all part of Millar's devious plan: I iz saterist - dis social commontoree).

Whereas in Final Crisis....the world just got screwed! Gravity well, sinking through time - humanity's soul being extinguished by Darkseid....um I'd call that something happening, y'know?

[DeadXMan]

I don't know about that. I think that Morrison fans at least have gotten more or less waht they were expecting.

And I think that Millar fans (well, myself anyway) were sorely disppointed by Civil War, its empty fight scenes, and its non-ending.

I very much prefer 'nothing' happening (although I can't think of a lot of books that have more happening in them than Final Crisis) than it being filled with empty filler pages of people beating each other up.

yeah Bru and Bendis ended CW with cap 25 and the confession

[carabas]

I don't know what this Confession of Bendis's is, but Cap dying did not at all end Civil War (since it just continued in the pages of The Initiative, Thunderbolts, New/Mighty Avengers... after it was supposed to be over) and he was supposed to die anyway, Civil War or not.

[mdg1]

Here's what I don't get...

Why do people keep treating FC like a line-wide EventTM? With the exception of a prologue in JLA (which isn't necessary for the plot) and a possible connection in this week's BATMAN (written by Morrison anyway), not _one_ ongoing series has even mentioned the plotline.

It's not even a crossover, like Sinestro War. In theory, everything you need is in the actual mini (and maybe Superman Beyond, I'm still not sure). The other tie-ins either expand on points in the main story (Resist, Submit) or really have nothing to do with it at all (Legion of 3 Worlds, I'm looking at you)

It's a story of epic scope, certainly... but it's (mostly) self-contained.

[carabas]

The effects of Final Crisis should be evident in all DC books once its over though.

But Final Crisis and Secret Invasion are the two big summer events of the Big Two. DC does this sort of thing different than Marvel (and better IMO), but they are essentially the same sort of thing.

Had Marvel done Final Crisis, there would bea gazillion minis and crossovers in every book; had DC done Secret Invasion, it would have been a bit more contained, with far fewer tie-ins.

[Rio_de_Janeiro]

I even kept the quote for checking.

What you are showing us all is that the problem with FC has very little to do with the story itself. You are clearly showing us that it's the Hype-machine from DC that gave readers the WRONG impression about the story. The solicitations almost made it seem like an eternal reiteration of the traditional Crisis and that mislead the readers.

I disagree with your statement that a crossover should be by nature an easy encompassing embracing read for newcomers. I actually think this point of view (we have to eternally pull new readers in) that doesn't allow for REAL change in super hero comic books. Granted, it is important to get new readers in, for the economic reality can't be forgotten, but making every issue a new-reader-friendly issue when we are very obviously going into the era of the collected editions seems like a Sysyphian task because the sheer unchange of the universes will also repel the same number of readers. I believe most readers "give up" because after a while they get the same stories over and over again. How many "origins" of superman, batman and wonder woman can we expect to see? How many "new justice leagues" reforming can we go through.

At least DC has a healthy habit of adding new players to the traditional "houses", so we get a new green lantern every few years, a new batman family member, new kryptonians, etc.

cheers,
rio



I don't think the Secret Invasion comparisons hold water because here we had stupid fight fests in the typical Bendis decompressed manner(hey it didn't work for House of M, it won't work here); No the more apt comparison, the model fans had in mind for Final Crisis may have been Marvel's Civil War. Especialy the way Morrison and JH Williams were announced as the creative team. For the first time since Infinite Crisis started you had one top writer with one top artist working on one contained story. It was to be the biggest bang for your buck and the culumination of everything that happened before. What fans were expecting was something at least of the level of Civil War as far as entertainment, shock, quality, an awesome sauce of interesting situations and the usual super-hero fights(whatever you liked or didn't like how some of the decisions that were made). But so far it hasn't gone near that. It's been like opposite of Secret Invasion but not in a good way. While SI you had too many fight scenes and nothing else happening plot-wise, on Final Crisis you've had nothing happening ever, and Morrison showing us his love for the New Gods. In a talking heads sort of way. Morrison can do better than that.

[lawman]

...I actually think this point of view (we have to eternally pull new readers in) that doesn't allow for REAL change in super hero comic books. Granted, it is important to get new readers in, for the economic reality can't be forgotten, but making every issue a new-reader-friendly issue when we are very obviously going into the era of the collected editions seems like a Sysyphian task because the sheer unchange of the universes will also repel the same number of readers. I believe most readers "give up" because after a while they get the same stories over and over again. How many "origins" of superman, batman and wonder woman can we expect to see? How many "new justice leagues" reforming can we go through.
Hear, hear! I'm all for real change and progression over time.

A perpetual status quo gets boring. A perpetual status quo with arbitrary and illusory "changes" thrown in out of left field courtesy of "event" stories is worse. And when the "event" stories periodically hit the reset button so that we have to read through new iterations of what are literally the same stories over and over again -- origins, "first appearances," etc. -- that's even worse. Just let things move forward!

That said, given that DC did frame FC as an "event" story of a certain type, complaints that it doesn't meet expectations are IMHO completely fair. (After all, such stories can be entertaining in their own right, notwithstanding how they're used for editorial manipulation as just described.) If FC "works" as a story (and IMHO the jury's still out on that), it does so on terms very different from the ones we were led to expect.

[Mat001]

The effects of Final Crisis should be evident in all DC books once its over though.

That's why Didio has been adamant about getting FC done by the end of January, so that "Faces Of Evil" can be on schedule as that's the first post "Final Crisis" stories take place.

But Final Crisis and Secret Invasion are the two big summer events of the Big Two. DC does this sort of thing different than Marvel (and better IMO), but they are essentially the same sort of thing.

Well, DC has done it yearly right up through "The Last Laugh". Then they stopped for a couple of years before returning with "Identity Crisis" and "Infinite Crisis", with the latter more like what they used to do. Marvel hasn't done it on a wide scale as often. Usually they've confined it to certain titles. Since "House Of M", this is the most that Marvel has been wide scale with their crossovers.

Had Marvel done Final Crisis, there would bea gazillion minis and crossovers in every book; had DC done Secret Invasion, it would have been a bit more contained, with far fewer tie-ins.

Well, this only happened because people have complained about how much "Infinite Crisis" and "Civil War" cost, as well as the quality of "Countdown To Final Crisis". "Sinestro Corps War" showed that a smaller crossover with fewer tie-ins would sell more issues and be better recieved. That's why Didio opted to borrow that format for "Final Crisis". The problem is that people still complain. Though not so much about the story, but about the fact that it doesn't have a bazillion tie-ins.

[the4thpip]

Heh. Moorcock gets a little irritated by it, actually; especially Grant's habit of lifting stuff verbatim. I tried to explain it to him as being like sampling, but he wasn't having it; then again, when I was talking to him, it was before the mashup fad, so maybe it would make sense now.

Assuming the mashup fad has made it all the way to the back roads of Texas.

I mean, it's not like Grant doesn't source his swipes; if anything, it's all a marketing plan for Grant's inner fanboy's reading list.

You also don't really know how sampling works, as your past statements in threads about Greg Land show. The vast majority of commercially working sampling artists pay the originator of their samples money.

[Paul McEnery]

You also don't really know how sampling works, as your past statements in threads about Greg Land show. The vast majority of commercially working sampling artists pay the originator of their samples money.

Pfft. Not if it's not long enough, and not if they don't get caught.

And while you may be the kind of person who thinks copyright is a valuable thing, I'm not. I think it should be violated early and often.

BTW; so does Moorcock, whose Cornelius stories featured massive lifts from numerous sources.

[revolver86]

I don't get why these FC threads turn into huge flame wars. Hell, just about anything related to Grant Morrision on a message board leads to some type of flaming. Can't we just admit it, Morrison isn't for everyone, and no one is better or worse for liking or disliking his work. Personally, I love comic books that have to be re-read, re-thought, and analyzed to fully appreciate the work.

I think I love Morrison's work so much because its like we're playing this trippy game. Grant presents us with a handful of pieces to a strange, oddly shaped puzzle. We start trying to piece it together as he slowly gives us more pieces. Eventually, we get to the end and Grant gives us the last pieces, and some pieces don't initially look like they fit at all. But you find all these different ways to make the remaining pieces fit, or maybe you even have to reorder old pieces to make the image become clearer. In the end, you are never told whether you're configuartion is correct or not, the prize is not knowing and being left to ponder and rexamine and rearrange until you find a configuration that shows the picture clearly to you. The trick is us. We make the art complete, and it can be fairly different from person to person.

Secret Invasion was pretty good. I actually preferred a lot of the side books, though. Both Avengers books were excellent companion pieces, but were almost required to fully appreciate the story. Thunderbolts showed just how Norman Osborn became top dog in the Marvel U. Deadpool was just a fun as hell story that, in wrapping up, proved to be fairly relvent to the main story. SI: X-men was an awesome story, that felt the most like a "war" story. The end of the story ended up being relevent to the status of the X-men, who are being viewed as "war heros". SI:Inhumans was probably the least relevent, but was still a well told story. I've read a decent chunk of the entire SI event and have read all of the Final Crisis stuff so far. I prefer FC, but SI is still a heck of a lot of fun. Is it really so bad that someone could like both? Or Batman R.I.P for that matter?

[Arksy]

I hated SI when compared to FC back a few months ago, now that i've read SI to its end and have seen the really dissapointing finale and wrap up, only to lead into another major event, i've started to think less of it.

However final crisis, even though i hate most of DC except for Batman (yay for an omnipotent alien super-being whose only weakness is a material that's in such huge abundance). I've really started to enjoy FC :/ it makes me a hypocrite i know but...

I also have had to had a lot of FC explained to me, and i've had to read the annotated versions and wiki entries for each of the issues because i have really no freaking clue who a lot of the characters are and how they fit in and i really had no bloody clue what anything meant. I didn't realise the significance of everything until i realised EVERYTHING has significance. FC is just a beautifully crafted plot, i mean i hated 1&2 on their own but now that i've read #5 i can go back and reread number 1&2 and understand them a lot better.

I mean, at the moment we're seeing Metron merged with Nix Uotan as he's reborn a monitor after remembering who he was. We've got Darksied who's now the self-declared ruler of Earth, we've got the heroes of earth utterly defeated, we've got the green lanters marching in like cavalry to save the day. AND THEN we're told that the ultimate antagonis of the series, the dark monitor hasn't even showed up yet! And next issue we get to see the final fate of Batman.

I'm literally on the edge of my seat man! :D :D :D :D

[Todog]

I don't get why these FC threads turn into huge flame wars. Hell, just about anything related to Grant Morrision on a message board leads to some type of flaming. Can't we just admit it, Morrison isn't for everyone, and no one is better or worse for liking or disliking his work. Personally, I love comic books that have to be re-read, re-thought, and analyzed to fully appreciate the work.


I think for a lot of people, what turns them off is not that they have to re-read Morrison's work to "get it". It's that once you actually do decipher all of his shallow symbolism and gimmicks, it's really not that interesting or skillfully executed at all.

[berk]

I hated SI when compared to FC back a few months ago, now that i've read SI to its end and have seen the really dissapointing finale and wrap up, only to lead into another major event, i've started to think less of it.

However final crisis, even though i hate most of DC except for Batman (yay for an omnipotent alien super-being whose only weakness is a material that's in such huge abundance). I've really started to enjoy FC :/ it makes me a hypocrite i know but...

I also have had to had a lot of FC explained to me, and i've had to read the annotated versions and wiki entries for each of the issues because i have really no freaking clue who a lot of the characters are and how they fit in and i really had no bloody clue what anything meant. I didn't realise the significance of everything until i realised EVERYTHING has significance. FC is just a beautifully crafted plot, i mean i hated 1&2 on their own but now that i've read #5 i can go back and reread number 1&2 and understand them a lot better.

I mean, at the moment we're seeing Metron merged with Nix Uotan as he's reborn a monitor after remembering who he was. We've got Darksied who's now the self-declared ruler of Earth, we've got the heroes of earth utterly defeated, we've got the green lanters marching in like cavalry to save the day. AND THEN we're told that the ultimate antagonis of the series, the dark monitor hasn't even showed up yet! And next issue we get to see the final fate of Batman.

I'm literally on the edge of my seat man! :D :D :D :DThe series has been very well written up to now, but I see some indications that the story is taking a direction that doesn't attract me, personally. From what I saw in Batman #683, we're now getting back to the conventional DCU version of the New Gods: i.e. the version that's basically there to be shocked and awed by the indomitibility of Batman. I'll be reading FC#6, but this development, along with Superman's impending return and a DCU/Monitor mythology I find unappealing have led to the plummeting of my interest in the series. I don't think they'll go to the lengths of supplanting one of Kirby's characters, e.g. Orion, with Bruce Wayne, as rumour had it a few months ago, but it looks to me as if we might end up with something closer to Rock of Ages than the revitalization of Kirby's ideas I'd been hoping for.

[Shellhead]

I don't get why these FC threads turn into huge flame wars. Hell, just about anything related to Grant Morrision on a message board leads to some type of flaming. Can't we just admit it, Morrison isn't for everyone, and no one is better or worse for liking or disliking his work. Personally, I love comic books that have to be re-read, re-thought, and analyzed to fully appreciate the work.


Discussing Morrison's writing, especially online, can be like playing Scrabble with competitive people. People let their egos get involved, or at least that part of self-esteem based on their intelligence. People who understand Morrison's concepts sometimes strut and preen like Scrabble winners with poor sportsmanship. Meanwhile, people who don't understand Morrison's concepts do the verbal equivalent of flipping the game board. Rather than trying to engage and improve their appreciation of the diversion at hand (playing Scrabble or reading Final Crisis) the anti-Morrison reader gets offended by a perceived insult, an implication that they are somehow stupid.

Personally, I usually like Morrison's work. And I think that it's more accessible than many fans realize. Whenever a reader encounters a particularly odd reference or turn of phrase, that's a good time to do a quick wiki or google search, to see what Morrison is talking about. But too many fans have been spoiled by modern comic writing styles that emphasize decompression and big moments that make everything very obvious to even the most careless skimmer. Morrison's writing doesn't reward skimming, and works better when the reader is willing to spend some thinking and reflecting upon what has happened.

[Paul McEnery]

The series has been very well written up to now, but I see some indications that the story is taking a direction that doesn't attract me, personally. From what I saw in Batman #683, we're now getting back to the conventional DCU version of the New Gods: i.e. the version that's basically there to be shocked and awed by the indomitibility of Batman. I'll be reading FC#6, but this development, along with Superman's impending return and a DCU/Monitor mythology I find unappealing have led to the plummeting of my interest in the series. I don't think they'll go to the lengths of supplanting one of Kirby's characters, e.g. Orion, with Bruce Wayne, as rumour had it a few months ago, but it looks to me as if we might end up with something closer to Rock of Ages than the revitalization of Kirby's ideas I'd been hoping for.

Why would you think that Hades would replace Orion?

I think that what we're looking at here is Grant's old tip of the hat to Vico and Joyce. The universe is Here Comes Everybody, prostrate on his deathbed but about to wake and be reborn. We start in an age of Gods, move to the age of Heroes, and wind up in the age of Democracy, before Apocalypse and the ricorso (Finnegan begin again!). One lot moves up the ladder (or topples off its perch, whichever you please), and everyone else budges up.

Which is what we saw in Grant's JLA; the gods die, the superheroes become as gods, and everyone gets to be a superhero. But now we get deeper into the game, as the noosphere descends to earth and is corrupted into the plebian urge to suppress all imagination, so too the supermen are ascending into the noosphere to beat the crap out of the egotistical fear of death itself.

Thus the interesting amibiguity of RIP, where on the one hand we fear that Bruce Wayne is trapped within his psychopathology, but on the other we cheer as he ascends into his archetype as Michael well-prepared to slay the dragon.

Given that Batman's big moment happens in the penultimate issue, I'm not thinking that's the end of the story.

[berk]

Why would you think that Hades would replace Orion?

I think that what we're looking at here is Grant's old tip of the hat to Vico and Joyce. The universe is Here Comes Everybody, prostrate on his deathbed but about to wake and be reborn. We start in an age of Gods, move to the age of Heroes, and wind up in the age of Democracy, before Apocalypse and the ricorso (Finnegan begin again!). One lot moves up the ladder (or topples off its perch, whichever you please), and everyone else budges up.

Which is what we saw in Grant's JLA; the gods die, the superheroes become as gods, and everyone gets to be a superhero. But now we get deeper into the game, as the noosphere descends to earth and is corrupted into the plebian urge to suppress all imagination, so too the supermen are ascending into the noosphere to beat the crap out of the egotistical fear of death itself.

Thus the interesting amibiguity of RIP, where on the one hand we fear that Bruce Wayne is trapped within his psychopathology, but on the other we cheer as he ascends into his archetype as Michael well-prepared to slay the dragon.

Given that Batman's big moment happens in the penultimate issue, I'm not thinking that's the end of the story.I think the problem with trying to present the Vico pattern of cultural change in the DCU or MU is that the superheroes are already treated as gods, so the idea of progression from one level to another is undermined. Thus in JLA you have both superheroes (Batman, Superman, etc) acting as god-symbols as well as actual (within the fictional world of the story) gods (Orion, Barda) all mingled at the same level as members of the JLA. If anything, in order to please fans, the superheroes are pretty consistently presented as superior to the gods, so there's no sense created of a higher level to which to advance, no matter how much lip service is paid to the idea.

One might argue that superhero superiority to the current gods demonstrates their worthiness to displace them from their positions. But I'd see that as a circular argument. What we really have is another repetition of the usual self-aggrandizing superhero story: "self-aggrandizing" because of reader-identification with popular superheroes, which function as fantasies of personal, national and cultural supremacy. And the Vico concept is reduced to just another device to support that need.

And also a way of telling us that Kirby's characters were never much good in comparison to popular DC icons like Superman and Batman who may now replace them even in their own story. Pretty much the ultimate insult, I'd say, although I'm sure Morrison doesn't consciously intend it that way. But his preference for the DCU over Kirby's ideas is manifesting itself here.

I picked Orion because of the 'everything is a potential weapon' comment, but it doesn't really matter. Could be anyone.

[titanfan]

Discussing Morrison's writing, especially online, can be like playing Scrabble with competitive people. People let their egos get involved, or at least that part of self-esteem based on their intelligence. People who understand Morrison's concepts sometimes strut and preen like Scrabble winners with poor sportsmanship. Meanwhile, people who don't understand Morrison's concepts do the verbal equivalent of flipping the game board. Rather than trying to engage and improve their appreciation of the diversion at hand (playing Scrabble or reading Final Crisis) the anti-Morrison reader gets offended by a perceived insult, an implication that they are somehow stupid.

I would use a different analogy--Morrison's writing can be describe like looking at abstract art. Some people see symbolism and messages within the piece of art, other people just see lines and dot randomly splattered on a canvas.

[Paul McEnery]

I think the problem with trying to present the Vico pattern of cultural change in the DCU or MU is that the superheroes are already treated as gods, so the idea of progression from one level to another is undermined. Thus in JLA you have both superheroes (Batman, Superman, etc) acting as god-symbols as well as actual (within the fictional world of the story) gods (Orion, Barda) all mingled at the same level as members of the JLA. If anything, in order to please fans, the superheroes are pretty consistently presented as superior to the gods, so there's no sense created of a higher level to which to advance, no matter how much lip service is paid to the idea.

Heh. Except that one's down to Grant deliberately recreating them as a pantheon. Which we were supposed to take at the time as a symbol of an evolutionary ontological paradigm shift with an eye towards the singularity.

One might argue that superhero superiority to the current gods demonstrates their worthiness to displace them from their positions. But I'd see that as a circular argument.

Well, it would be, wouldn't it. :biggrin:


What we really have is another repetition of the usual self-aggrandizing superhero story: "self-aggrandizing" because of reader-identification with popular superheroes, which function as fantasies of personal, national and cultural supremacy. And the Vico concept is reduced to just another device to support that need.

Ah, but Grant knows this, so he's messing with the archetypes as if they were exactly that -- planted memetic devices we can access in times of trouble. You know, like angels -- or gods.

Exactly, now that I think of it, like the backup personality of the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh.


And also a way of telling us that Kirby's characters were never much good in comparison to popular DC icons like Superman and Batman who may now replace them even in their own story. Pretty much the ultimate insult, I'd say, although I'm sure Morrison doesn't consciously intend it that way. But his preference for the DCU over Kirby's ideas is manifesting itself here.

I take your point, and that might well be collateral damage of the idea of immanentizing the eschaton, as the Fourth World gives way to the Fifth. Giving the New Gods the due respect is to treat them as transferable archetypes.

I picked Orion because of the 'everything is a potential weapon' comment, but it doesn't really matter. Could be anyone.
Ah, but it couldn't. The archetypes are quite specific, with an as above, so below dealie. We already got tipped to this with Orion and Martian Manhunter biting it in the first issue. Both are symbols, in the active and passive voice, of the Mars mode.

As the Plutonic figure, Batman is Darkseid's alternate in the heroic mode.

Which is kind of interesting, given the relationship between Darkseid and Orion.

[Paul McEnery]

I would use a different analogy--Morrison's writing can be describe like looking at abstract art. Some people see symbolism and messages within the piece of art, other people just see lines and dot randomly splattered on a canvas.

Not such a bad analogy, since there is actually symbolism buried in a lot of abstract art. Rothko in particular based a lot of his mid-period work on iconic paintings, abstracting the figures into bodies of colour on the canvas. When you realize that, you can spot the Madonna and Child (for instance).

That said, there's more of the pop artist in Morrison. The likes of Rauschenberg, Johns and Warhol were always (re)presenting images in a way that actually worked with meaning a lot more than they seem at first glance -- and harder to spot the further we get from the historical context. The interesting thing with Rauschenberg and Warhol is that their work became less interesting in their later life, because they became more isolated from the background culture; hell, almost all old men become less relevant as time goes on, and mostly because they get stuck into their own private iconography and leave the world behind. Johns remained more interesting because he was always working from a private iconography but eating signs from the world from which to do it; but his work doesn't reveal itself, on the whole, unless you see a whole series in one go, and have a clue about what the iconography is that he's nicking from.

[joint venture]

You know what let's me down on everything DC & FC during the past year?

Warner Brothers not being decent or able to buy-out or respectfully pay for the rights to the name Superboy. Which leads to the all-mighty Superboy Prime.

Superboy Prime has handed every single character within the DC Universe their asses, one by one, or collectively. You choose. Even Sodam Yat couldn't beat him being a daxamite, a green lantern and ION- the living host for the "greatest weapon in the universe".

They send him to the future, so we have to buy a new series (cool by me).

But to me the real excuse is DC not wanting to deal with him. Morrison would dismember him in a sec and they know it. Firestorm could turn him into a fart anytime, Shilo Norman could trap him forever; just to name two.

I wonder why all these characters like Firestorm, which can transmute matter into whatever they want, are overseen and mocked. i mean, this guy could turn Darkseid into ash just by wishing it! Metamorpho would fit there to some degree as well.

And now we have to wait for "Superman" and his own mini inside Final Crisis, to save us? And I don't mean kill Prime, Kent is too mediocre for making a good decision, one that matters. Breaking Prime (without killing him and raising THE geek's guild strike) would just be fine for once...and yet they tell me he can deal with the living embodiment of EVIL, to defeat a god plus entity?Nah...

I just hope there's a plot twist that leaves him out. Let the bat deal with it. Even Olsen or Captain Carrot could do it better.

[berk]

Heh. Except that one's down to Grant deliberately recreating them as a pantheon. Which we were supposed to take at the time as a symbol of an evolutionary ontological paradigm shift with an eye towards the singularity.I see what you mean, but again, this doesn't work too well for me because they're already a pantheon, already treated as gods, and more than gods. So the idea of there being a paradigm shift is weakened since the paradigm is already in place and this just reinforces it. No shift, just re-emphasis of a reader friendly status quo.


Well, it would be, wouldn't it. :biggrin:


Ah, but Grant knows this, so he's messing with the archetypes as if they were exactly that -- planted memetic devices we can access in times of trouble. You know, like angels -- or gods.

Exactly, now that I think of it, like the backup personality of the Batman of Zur-En-Arrh.Except I think these memetic devices as they're employed in DC comics aren't used as aids to personal development or to access submerged potentials in time of need, but rather as an escape, as a satisfying fantasy of physical and moral pre-eminence. Batman's the toughest guy, everyone's scared of him, Superman's the strongest and the nicest guy in the world, etc.
I take your point, and that might well be collateral damage of the idea of immanentizing the eschaton, as the Fourth World gives way to the Fifth. Giving the New Gods the due respect is to treat them as transferable archetypes.For me, this would have worked better if all the mortals newly ascending to the divine level had been new creations like the Japanese heroes or relative unknowns like Shilo Norman and Sonny Sumo. Using characters like Batman or even Martian Manhunter reinforces the worst aspects of superhero comics - the fan demand that their heroes reign supreme and that that superiority be demonstrated by having less popular characters downgraded. So the whole idea of transferable archetypes is overshadowed by this sort of cheap wish-fulfillment. That might have been avoided by using more characters like Shilo Norman et al.

Another objection I'd raise is that I don't think it was time for the Fourth World to pass anyway, because it never really was given a chance to live artistically. It was rejected by the majority of fans from the outset, and by the writers and editors who share their tastes. I see this as a failure of the mainstream comics community, readers, creators and management. We've proven unworthy of Kirby's ideas, by allowing those ideas to wither and die without ever having been given their own day in the sun.

Ah, but it couldn't. The archetypes are quite specific, with an as above, so below dealie. We already got tipped to this with Orion and Martian Manhunter biting it in the first issue. Both are symbols, in the active and passive voice, of the Mars mode.

As the Plutonic figure, Batman is Darkseid's alternate in the heroic mode.

Which is kind of interesting, given the relationship between Darkseid and Orion.Oh yeah, forgot about the Martian Manhunter in FC#1. Yes, you're right, Batman would correspond to Darkseid in Morrison's set-up. I find it hard to work up enough interest to think about these details, because for me in the end it all comes down to me having to read another Batman story instead of, just for once, getting to read a new New Gods story.

But I knew this was a strong possibility going into FC so i can't complain I've been misled. Disappointed, heavily disappointed, because I think Morrison's shown that he does have a good understanding of the concept and could have done something different had he wanted; but not surprised, because I already knew about Morrison's love for Batman and Superman, and that this was a story about the DCU, and that almost always means bad news for the New Gods.

[bfrank]

You know what let's me down on everything DC & FC during the past year?

Warner Brothers not being decent or able to buy-out or respectfully pay for the rights to the name Superboy. Which leads to the all-mighty Superboy Prime.

Superboy Prime has handed every single character within the DC Universe their asses, one by one, or collectively. You choose. Even Sodam Yat couldn't beat him being a daxamite, a green lantern and ION- the living host for the "greatest weapon in the universe".

They send him to the future, so we have to buy a new series (cool by me).

But to me the real excuse is DC not wanting to deal with him. Morrison would dismember him in a sec and they know it. Firestorm could turn him into a fart anytime, Shilo Norman could trap him forever; just to name two.

I wonder why all these characters like Firestorm, which can transmute matter into whatever they want, are overseen and mocked. i mean, this guy could turn Darkseid into ash just by wishing it! Metamorpho would fit there to some degree as well.

And now we have to wait for "Superman" and his own mini inside Final Crisis, to save us? And I don't mean kill Prime, Kent is too mediocre for making a good decision, one that matters. Breaking Prime (without killing him and raising THE geek's guild strike) would just be fine for once...and yet they tell me he can deal with the living embodiment of EVIL, to defeat a god plus entity?Nah...

I just hope there's a plot twist that leaves him out. Let the bat deal with it. Even Olsen or Captain Carrot could do it better.


IIRC Firestorm's powers don't work on "organic materials"....

[Mat001]

Discussing Morrison's writing, especially online, can be like playing Scrabble with competitive people. People let their egos get involved, or at least that part of self-esteem based on their intelligence. People who understand Morrison's concepts sometimes strut and preen like Scrabble winners with poor sportsmanship. Meanwhile, people who don't understand Morrison's concepts do the verbal equivalent of flipping the game board. Rather than trying to engage and improve their appreciation of the diversion at hand (playing Scrabble or reading Final Crisis) the anti-Morrison reader gets offended by a perceived insult, an implication that they are somehow stupid.

You can say that for all things. From George Lucas to politicans like George Bush. People will fight because of their hostile nature.

Morrison would dismember him in a sec and they know it.

Not really. Morrison doesn't go around killing like Johns.

[Paul McEnery]

this was a story about the DCU, and that almost always means bad news for the New Gods.

Except that it isn't. It's a story about 2012, and the emergence of the Mayan Fifth World. That there were Fourth World New Gods is a handy coincidence -- since I'm pretty sure Kirby was just riffing off "Third World", and I think he'd have totally gone with the Mayan Fifth World idea if The Eternals is anything to go by.

The dramatis personae are incidental, in the same way that the X-Men were incidental. The story is always about the transformation of our own world, using whatever fictional world is close to hand.

[berk]

Except that it isn't. It's a story about 2012, and the emergence of the Mayan Fifth World. That there were Fourth World New Gods is a handy coincidence -- since I'm pretty sure Kirby was just riffing off "Third World", and I think he'd have totally gone with the Mayan Fifth World idea if The Eternals is anything to go by.

The dramatis personae are incidental, in the same way that the X-Men were incidental. The story is always about the transformation of our own world, using whatever fictional world is close to hand.I'm sure that's what Morrison's going for, and it's true that he did say he'd have done this story elsewhere if DC hadn't wanted it. But we see that now that it is set in the DCU, it tends to fall into some of the patterns we're used to seeing in DCU stories: specifically, the reinforcement of reader fantasies about the supremacy of favourite characters like Batman. Morrison would no doubt say he's just using that to tell his story, but the end result doesn't look much different from the usual "Batman/Superman is the greatest ____" yarn, That aspect overshadows the paradigm-shift theme because the story takes place in the context of a fictional universe where that's the over-riding concern.

As I say, I think the way to avoid that would have been to go all the way with the Shilo/Sonny/Japanese heroes route, rather than telling yet another story about how Batman defeats all adversaries. Probably would have been hard to sell that to DC, of course.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm sure that's what Morrison's going for, and it's true that he did say he'd have done this story elsewhere if DC hadn't wanted it. But we see that now that it is set in the DCU, it tends to fall into some of the patterns we're used to seeing in DCU stories: specifically, the reinforcement of reader fantasies about the supremacy of favourite characters like Batman. Morrison would no doubt say he's just using that to tell his story, but the end result doesn't look much different from the usual "Batman/Superman is the greatest ____" yarn, That aspect overshadows the paradigm-shift theme because the story takes place in the context of a fictional universe where that's the over-riding concern.

As I say, I think the way to avoid that would have been to go all the way with the Shilo/Sonny/Japanese heroes route, rather than telling yet another story about how Batman defeats all adversaries. Probably would have been hard to sell that to DC, of course.

We'll see how it works out very soon, won't we. But I'm not so sure that's a plausible reading. I'm thinking all the standard heroism is going to fail; and the extent to which it doesn't will involve the apotheosis of some of these heroes as aspects of ourselves -- as appears to be going on in the Superman Beyond sidetrack.

[Arksy]

You know how marvel published those advertesments, embrace change and the like. The skrull kid eating ice-cream and the skrull housewife baking a cake, those were good.

But where are all the posters with Darksied giving the thumbs down saying SUBMIT :(

[berk]

We'll see how it works out very soon, won't we. But I'm not so sure that's a plausible reading. I'm thinking all the standard heroism is going to fail; and the extent to which it doesn't will involve the apotheosis of some of these heroes as aspects of ourselves -- as appears to be going on in the Superman Beyond sidetrack.Yes, I might well be getting ahead of myself with all this, over-reacting to what appears right now to be warning signals. We don't know what'll actually happen in the story until we see the last few issues, and I suspect that even what might seem minor details to most readers could make a big difference to how I'll end up perceiving the whole thing, just because of my personal interest in the New Gods aspect, that being what drew me to the story in the first place.

[40footwolf]

I read #1-7 of Secret Invasion yesterday.

(Yup. That's why people are complaining about Final Crisis.)

It took me about 25 minutes to read SI. Basic, barebones, easy to read which explains why it sells so well, and apparently a lot of details are explained in NEW AVENGERS, MIGHTY AVENGERS and other titles.

But if you read just SI itself, you'll get it. A lot of questions will arise, but you'll get it.

You have to READ Final Crisis to get it. And unlike SI, Final Crisis seems to be explaining it all in the miniseries. 7 issues of dense reading....

So I guess the reason why people complain about FC is easy: because people want flat-out superheroics, and don't want all that dense reading.

They want fight scenes and snappy dialogue. They don't want to think about everything; just put thinking off to the side and bask in the colors and punches and action. You can think later, if you want, but the main event is the action.

And I don't really know if that's a damnation of Marvel's SI tactics. SI is certainly entertaining. It was fun to read. I'm certainly interested to see how it ends up and what it leads to in 2009. But as I read I knew that if I didn't want to go into all the details (I do, and have a bunch of those other comics to help flesh things out)....I didn't have to in order to get or enjoy the main story.

Sure, FC has tie-ins and relevant miniseries, but they don't exist to explain the details and nuances of Morrison's miniseries; his story does that itself, and in abundance. And yes, in place of lots of loud action and fight scenes.

So if you're reading FINAL CRISIS hoping to see a DC version of SECRET INVASION, just......no. You're not going to get that, it's probably best if you just go away now and avoid further disappointment.
You're JUST NOW figuring out that that's what people want in their superhero comics?

Well...I honestly can't blame you for trying to surpress it for so long.

(I'm agreeing with you, in case this comes off too snarky and seems like an insult)

[Paul McEnery]

Yes, I might well be getting ahead of myself with all this, over-reacting to what appears right now to be warning signals. We don't know what'll actually happen in the story until we see the last few issues, and I suspect that even what might seem minor details to most readers could make a big difference to how I'll end up perceiving the whole thing, just because of my personal interest in the New Gods aspect, that being what drew me to the story in the first place.

And here's a further thought.

Okay, so Grant's going with "gods means gods". Now what that might mean is anybody's guess, but what Grant's going to mean by this is beings who are extra-dimensional relative to the domain in question: the Flatland interpretation. Also, as we see, beings capable of possessing people further down the dimensional ladder, like the Loa. But also (as in Zenith), the gods/higher dimensions are emergent properties of our own situation. As above, so below, as they say.

However, it's worth recognizing that superheroes, like all fictional characters, are themselves noospheric entities. In Animal Man, we see "Grant Morrison" lording it over Buddy as his temporary deity. But that's playing out the 3-dimensional over the 2-dimensional Flatland game. At the same time, we've got the bottom up paradigm where we're material entities, and fictional beings and gods both exist one level up in the noosphere. They are the gods who possess us.

So combining those two thoughts, we've got a two-way relationship with fictional characters which can either be sacralized and personal or commodified and impersonal; iow, the difference between the fan and the fanboy, the participant and the worshiper (which are, of course, modes we each of us slip uneasily into and between from time to time).

And this is the same two-way relationship that obtains between civilian identities and superhero identities: Bruce Wayne becomes "The Batman"; Superman becomes "Clark Kent". Superheroes are, in a real sense, their own gods. But then you've got the New Gods gods, who are a level higher yet. And quite how that relationship is going to play out remains to be seen.

But still, what we're in inside of Final Crisis is a passion play for an entire universe, acted out for us by noospheric entities who live in our heads and embody our various attributes. Which is another layer entirely.

[Will.S]

And here's a further thought.

Okay, so Grant's going with "gods means gods". Now what that might mean is anybody's guess, but what Grant's going to mean by this is beings who are extra-dimensional relative to the domain in question: the Flatland interpretation. Also, as we see, beings capable of possessing people further down the dimensional ladder, like the Loa. But also (as in Zenith), the gods/higher dimensions are emergent properties of our own situation. As above, so below, as they say.

However, it's worth recognizing that superheroes, like all fictional characters, are themselves noospheric entities. In Animal Man, we see "Grant Morrison" lording it over Buddy as his temporary deity. But that's playing out the 3-dimensional over the 2-dimensional Flatland game. At the same time, we've got the bottom up paradigm where we're material entities, and fictional beings and gods both exist one level up in the noosphere. They are the gods who possess us.

So combining those two thoughts, we've got a two-way relationship with fictional characters which can either be sacralized and personal or commodified and impersonal; iow, the difference between the fan and the fanboy, the participant and the worshiper (which are, of course, modes we each of us slip uneasily into and between from time to time).

And this is the same two-way relationship that obtains between civilian identities and superhero identities: Bruce Wayne becomes "The Batman"; Superman becomes "Clark Kent". Superheroes are, in a real sense, their own gods. But then you've got the New Gods gods, who are a level higher yet. And quite how that relationship is going to play out remains to be seen.

But still, what we're in inside of Final Crisis is a passion play for an entire universe, acted out for us by noospheric entities who live in our heads and embody our various attributes. Which is another layer entirely.
I don't mean to put down your whole thesis here but this to me is borderline indecipherable and a little too well thought out so I can't see how it relates to the story in that manner.

[dotdotdot]

And here's a further thought.

Okay, so Grant's going with "gods means gods". Now what that might mean is anybody's guess, but what Grant's going to mean by this is beings who are extra-dimensional relative to the domain in question: the Flatland interpretation. Also, as we see, beings capable of possessing people further down the dimensional ladder, like the Loa. But also (as in Zenith), the gods/higher dimensions are emergent properties of our own situation. As above, so below, as they say.

However, it's worth recognizing that superheroes, like all fictional characters, are themselves noospheric entities. In Animal Man, we see "Grant Morrison" lording it over Buddy as his temporary deity. But that's playing out the 3-dimensional over the 2-dimensional Flatland game. At the same time, we've got the bottom up paradigm where we're material entities, and fictional beings and gods both exist one level up in the noosphere. They are the gods who possess us.

So combining those two thoughts, we've got a two-way relationship with fictional characters which can either be sacralized and personal or commodified and impersonal; iow, the difference between the fan and the fanboy, the participant and the worshiper (which are, of course, modes we each of us slip uneasily into and between from time to time).

And this is the same two-way relationship that obtains between civilian identities and superhero identities: Bruce Wayne becomes "The Batman"; Superman becomes "Clark Kent". Superheroes are, in a real sense, their own gods. But then you've got the New Gods gods, who are a level higher yet. And quite how that relationship is going to play out remains to be seen.

But still, what we're in inside of Final Crisis is a passion play for an entire universe, acted out for us by noospheric entities who live in our heads and embody our various attributes. Which is another layer entirely.

i imagine the 5th world will either end the need for monitors or fulfill that need and appropriate the role of monitor somehow. but other than that, i can't imagine what the new relationship between the new gods and our superhero gods will be like.

[dotdotdot]

I don't mean to put down your whole thesis here but this to me is borderline indecipherable and a little too well thought out so I can't see how it relates to the story in that manner.

which part do you need deciphering? this is pretty dead on and relates heavily to the story, even though paul's post doesn't really elaborate on that connection for those unfamiliar with morrison's work, interviews, and typical goals/content.

[Corrina]

Discussing Morrison's writing, especially online, can be like playing Scrabble with competitive people. People let their egos get involved, or at least that part of self-esteem based on their intelligence. People who understand Morrison's concepts sometimes strut and preen like Scrabble winners with poor sportsmanship. Meanwhile, people who don't understand Morrison's concepts do the verbal equivalent of flipping the game board. Rather than trying to engage and improve their appreciation of the diversion at hand (playing Scrabble or reading Final Crisis) the anti-Morrison reader gets offended by a perceived insult, an implication that they are somehow stupid.


Is it okay to completely understand Morrison's work and not like it in the least? Because that would be my angle.

[dotdotdot]

Is it okay to completely understand Morrison's work and not like it in the least? Because that would be my angle.

yeah. some people find him and johns to be contradictory or antithetical and others of us don't see the issue and enjoy both creators.

[Will.S]

which part do you need deciphering? this is pretty dead on and relates heavily to the story, even though paul's post doesn't really elaborate on that connection for those unfamiliar with morrison's work, interviews, and typical goals/content.
Well if you can break down Paul's whole post and tell me in layman's terms how it relates to Final Crisis then please go ahead.

[Indigo Al]

I love how this series results in teeth-gnashing pretentiousness and intellectual defensiveness

[dotdotdot]

Well if you can break down Paul's whole post and tell me in layman's terms how it relates to Final Crisis then please go ahead.

i can try that hold on. it will be better when/if he tries it himself.

ok so the new gods are actually supposed to be gods to the people in the dcu. so instead of just the fourth world dudes we know hanging around, we're shown these actual gods who possess people or take on appearances that don't necessarily reflect their entire essences. like darkseid in the dark side club, old man metron, etc. the actual gods are things we haven't really witnessed yet, which is why darkseid's actual incarnation on earth has all these awful ramifications with time and space, right? grant has stated that the new gods are going to be taken back to godlike status, but what does that mean? because the entire fourth world is dead and the fifth world is coming, which is even beyond gods, like the new creations himon or whoever that is in issue 5 is suggesting that nix the monitor create to save us all.

but the superheroes we know in the regular dcu are their own gods in a sense. the most popular/most important heroes seem to be dicated by this: superman, batman, wonder woman, green lantern, etc, all have secret identities as humans, or as us. so our need to mythologize, to create heroes, is constantly reflected in this shift from clark kent to superman, etc. and the jla is like the pantheon of gods, so we're already in this territory of myth and godhood even before we get near the idea of the "new gods".

so you've got this passion play, or this black metal lotr for the dcu that final crisis is enacting, starring the heroes which are godlike versions of ourselves or what we'd like to be, and then you have something that acts as a god to even these guys. on top of that, you've got monitors.

so it's tough to predict just how this can all play out.
something like that.

[Rio_de_Janeiro]

you ARE Deleuze. You never threw yourself out the window.



Why would you think that Hades would replace Orion?

I think that what we're looking at here is Grant's old tip of the hat to Vico and Joyce. The universe is Here Comes Everybody, prostrate on his deathbed but about to wake and be reborn. We start in an age of Gods, move to the age of Heroes, and wind up in the age of Democracy, before Apocalypse and the ricorso (Finnegan begin again!). One lot moves up the ladder (or topples off its perch, whichever you please), and everyone else budges up.

Which is what we saw in Grant's JLA; the gods die, the superheroes become as gods, and everyone gets to be a superhero. But now we get deeper into the game, as the noosphere descends to earth and is corrupted into the plebian urge to suppress all imagination, so too the supermen are ascending into the noosphere to beat the crap out of the egotistical fear of death itself.

Thus the interesting amibiguity of RIP, where on the one hand we fear that Bruce Wayne is trapped within his psychopathology, but on the other we cheer as he ascends into his archetype as Michael well-prepared to slay the dragon.

Given that Batman's big moment happens in the penultimate issue, I'm not thinking that's the end of the story.

[darkhanamaru]

So combining those two thoughts, we've got a two-way relationship with fictional characters which can either be sacralized and personal or commodified and impersonal;


i get you except for this point: why does the sacred always have to be personal...why couldn't the possession be of a commodified character? does the sacred by definition have to be personal?

[darkhanamaru]

Thus the interesting amibiguity of RIP, where on the one hand we fear that Bruce Wayne is trapped within his psychopathology, but on the other we cheer as he ascends into his archetype as Michael well-prepared to slay the dragon.


Michael? not george?


Nevermind, michael fighting satan the kabbalh serpent...get it....thought it complicates his position as Hades

[40footwolf]

I think Grant Morrison is the Pink Floyd of comic book writers: He's technically brilliant, deeply intellectual, wildly popular and puts on one hell of a show but some people are just not going to like or understand what's so great about him until the day they die. And that's okay.

[dotdotdot]

I think Grant Morrison is the Pink Floyd of comic book writers: He's technically brilliant, deeply intellectual, wildly popular and puts on one hell of a show but some people are just not going to like or understand what's so great about him until the day they die. And that's okay.

cool but it's best not to superficially compare him to things like pink floyd, david lynch, or anything else. except for direct literary influences and things.

[40footwolf]

Why is it best not to do that?

It's not like I'm taking myself terribly seriously, anyway.

[dotdotdot]

Why is it best not to do that?

It's not like I'm taking myself terribly seriously, anyway.

oh yeah of course, not a big deal.

[Paul McEnery]

you ARE Deleuze. You never threw yourself out the window.

Deleuze was a bollockbrain.

I'll accept Debord, though.

[Paul McEnery]

I think Grant Morrison is the Pink Floyd of comic book writers: He's technically brilliant, deeply intellectual, wildly popular and puts on one hell of a show but some people are just not going to like or understand what's so great about him until the day they die. And that's okay.

Say that to his face, he'll clock you. Pink Floyd indeed.

Hawkwind, mate.

[Paul McEnery]

Michael? not george?


Nevermind, michael fighting satan the kabbalh serpent...get it....thought it complicates his position as Hades

George didn't exist. :evilsmile:

http://www.msgr.ca/msgr-4/Coventry-Michaels-victory-over-the-devil-jacob-epstein.jpg

See: Libra "killing" Martian Manhunter.

But also see: Batman fighting Killer Croc in Arkham Asylum.

[Tony Bang]

Say that to his face, he'll clock you. Pink Floyd indeed.

Hawkwind, mate.

A bit off-topic, but what's the best Hawkwind album to start with? Seems like a good use for these gift-cards I got.

[Paul McEnery]

A bit off-topic, but what's the best Hawkwind album to start with? Seems like a good use for these gift-cards I got.

Space Ritual.

But if that's not close to hand, Doremi and In Search of Space.

[Paul McEnery]

Well if you can break down Paul's whole post and tell me in layman's terms how it relates to Final Crisis then please go ahead.

Sorry. I was talking at berk, who I know will follow my references. Ask away.

[40footwolf]

I don't think Hawkwind is popular enough to compare to Grant Morrison. I know that SOUNDS weird, but I'm talking about relative popularity, here.

Wasn't Lemmy in Hawkwind? I sort of like my comparison better.

[darkhanamaru]

I don't think Hawkwind is popular enough to compare to Grant Morrison. I know that SOUNDS weird, but I'm talking about relative popularity, here.

Wasn't Lemmy in Hawkwind? I sort of like my comparison better.

uh, most people don't know who grant is. we are talking about issues that sell what 50,000 at most. more people know who lemmy and hawkwind is.

[Corrina]

yeah. some people find him and johns to be contradictory or antithetical and others of us don't see the issue and enjoy both creators.

I find most of Johns' work uninteresting, at best. It tends to rely on lots of nostalgia oomph and less on story. Look! It's the Kingdom Come Superman! Let's put him in a loong dull story about temptation that gets neatly wrapped up in one issue because despite all our talking about relative morality, Gog is evil.

See also: the appearance of the different Legions, etc.

[Paul McEnery]

I don't think Hawkwind is popular enough to compare to Grant Morrison. I know that SOUNDS weird, but I'm talking about relative popularity, here.

Wasn't Lemmy in Hawkwind? I sort of like my comparison better.

You know who else was in Hawkwind?

Michael Moorcock.

[40footwolf]

uh, most people don't know who grant is. we are talking about issues that sell what 50,000 at most. more people know who lemmy and hawkwind is.
RELATIVE popularity, bro. Said it right there in the thing you're quoting.

[berk]

And this is the same two-way relationship that obtains between civilian identities and superhero identities: Bruce Wayne becomes "The Batman"; Superman becomes "Clark Kent". Superheroes are, in a real sense, their own gods. But then you've got the New Gods gods, who are a level higher yet. And quite how that relationship is going to play out remains to be seen.Makes sense, when you think of Batman and Clark Kent as fictional characters created respectively by Bruce Wayne and Kal-El/Superman in order to allow them to access certain aspects of themselves they stand in need of if they're to deal with the extreme circumstances each finds himself in: Wayne's childhood trauma and only partially sublimated need for vengeance (against himself first and last of all, if we wanted to take the Freudian view); and Kal-El's complete isolation as the only survivor of a dead species, having to try to live in an alien world.

You might even say that each of the 'ground-entities' here - the material (within the fictional DCU) beings Bruce Wayne and Superman - have become possessed by their own noospheric creations to a greater or lesser degree: Bruce Wayne's become little more than an appendage to The Batman - an idea that will have been taken to its logical extreme if Bruce Wayne really does disappear, as rumours have it, while the Batman carries on without him; and Clark Kent, at least in the eyes of Batman in that little scene in FC#1, continually interferes with and undermines Superman's performance of his superheroing duties.

There's a lot more to think about in the rest of Paul's original post, but it's taking me some effort to figure out how best to present my POV on these ideas, so I'll just throw the above observation into the discussion for now.

[40footwolf]

I find most of Johns' work uninteresting, at best. It tends to rely on lots of nostalgia oomph and less on story. Look! It's the Kingdom Come Superman! Let's put him in a loong dull story about temptation that gets neatly wrapped up in one issue because despite all our talking about relative morality, Gog is evil.

See also: the appearance of the different Legions, etc.
You'd appreciate my sig.

[Paul McEnery]

Makes sense, when you think of Batman and Clark Kent as fictional characters created respectively by Bruce Wayne and Kal-El/Superman in order to allow them to access certain aspects of themselves they stand in need of if they're to deal with the extreme circumstances each finds himself in: Wayne's childhood trauma and only partially sublimated need for vengeance (against himself first and last of all, if we wanted to take the Freudian view); and Kal-El's complete isolation as the only survivor of a dead species, having to try to live in an alien world.

And look at how each of them "dies" in ASS and RIP. One descends into Hell, one ascends into Heaven. Superman becomes pure Superman, purged of all Clark Kent. Batman' situation is more complicated, as we see him shriven of the cowl (literally), and yet all other aspects of him seem to have been subsumed into the Bat-role.

But then, Grant's Batman is totally MPD -- and MPD by design. Whereas his Superman comes across as utterly unitary, with Clark Kent almost entirely disposed of even by the first episode.

[darkhanamaru]

RELATIVE popularity, bro. Said it right there in the thing you're quoting.

Uh yeah but we huge gap there...millions know who hawkwind is even if they don't care and i not even taking lemmy into account. thousands know who grant. that is a big gap

[Adam C]

I don't think Hawkwind is popular enough to compare to Grant Morrison.

You're missing the point, which is that Pink Floyd are a point of ideological contention in British pop music. :tongue:

Anyways as an artistic signpost that is a point of controversy I'd say that Grant is like electric Miles Davis 1968 to 1975.

[40footwolf]

Uh yeah but we huge gap there...millions know who hawkwind is even if they don't care and i not even taking lemmy into account. thousands know who grant. that is a big gap
You are really just totally not getting the point, at all.