CBR: LBCC: 50 Questions in 50 Minutes with Mark Waid

[CBR News]

Mark Waid answered fan questions about "Irredeemable," CrossGen, Hawkman, "Barry Allen, digital comics and much more in a quest to answer 50 questions in 50 minutes at Long Beach Comic Con.


Full article here.

[Mark Waid]

Thanks to Josie Campbell for doing a good job of transcribing. Through no fault of hers (I talk very, very quickly--like, auctioneer-quickly), a few follow-ups I'd like to add:

1) When asked "If Jack Kirby is God, who is the Devil?", I publicly apologize for answering "John Byrne." If you were there in the room, it was obviously meant to be funny and a call-back to a previous joke--I was obviously caught off-guard by the question, as anyone in the audience can tell you, and I fumfurhed for a clever answer (and failed)--but that's a poor excuse for poorly chosen words, and of course he's not Satan. Bad joke, bad attempt at humor on my part. It was meant to be funny and just came out mean. Apologies to Byrne and to all his acolytes over at the Springfield Retirement Castle Message Board.

2) I was probably talking too fast for transcription to catch it, but I remember distinctly that I made the point of saying this is the first time I've been reading Cap regularly "since I left," which is an important distinction.

3) Yes, there have been a lot of really good Hawkman runs, more than I immediately remembered on the spot. But, remember, I've been reading Hawkman for almost fifty years, and that's the canvas I was evaluating. Still, if I could change my answer, it would be DC's Captain Marvel.

4) Yes, I know the phrase "big, giant fan land swell" makes no sense. You try answering 50 random questions in 50 minutes.

5) As was clear to the audience, who laughed along with me, but not clear in a cold-type transcription, my answer about bacon was a total bluff on my part.

6) I looked at Bru like he was a bug, not a bog. I think. He could tell you better. Regardless, he was right and I was wrong.

7) Jamelle Williams is awesome.

8) About the New DC, I say "without a slight to Geoff" meaning that Jim's appointment was more of a surprise, that's all. Also, I know the rest of that answer sounds like a drunken ramble. Sorry. The honest, more articulate answer is, "I think they'll steer it in the right direction. I might not agree with every last thing they do, any more than anyone else in this room would, but yes. The reason it's hard to answer briefly is because it doesn't feel like the DC I grew up with, but that's as it should be. I shoudn't be their audience. DC doesn't exist to service me."

9) Big, big thanks to Jonah (and Chip!) for pulling this off!

[StoneGold]

Thanks to Josie Campbell for doing a good job of transcribing. Through no fault of hers (I talk very, very quickly--like, auctioneer-quickly), a few follow-ups I'd like to add:

1) When asked "If Jack Kirby is God, who is the Devil?", I publicly apologize for answering "John Byrne." If you were there in the room, it was obviously meant to be funny and a call-back to a previous joke--I was obviously caught off-guard by the question, as anyone in the audience can tell you, and I fumfurhed for a clever answer (and failed)--but that's a poor excuse for poorly chosen words, and of course he's not Satan. Bad joke, bad attempt at humor on my part. It was meant to be funny and just came out mean. Apologies to Byrne and to all his acolytes over at the Springfield Retirement Castle Message Board.

Now I'm sad I came in the room late, missed you answering that one.

[PyroTwilight]

Thanks for the answers Mark, including the one you answered of mine (A Wonderwoman for the Paradigm).

[G. Wayne]

Huzzah! Two questions answered!

The hat is a staff thing though? Drat.

..
1) When asked "If Jack Kirby is God, who is the Devil?", I publicly apologize for answering "John Byrne." If you were there in the room, it was obviously meant to be funny and a call-back to a previous joke--I was obviously caught off-guard by the question, as anyone in the audience can tell you, and I fumfurhed for a clever answer (and failed)--but that's a poor excuse for poorly chosen words, and of course he's not Satan. Bad joke, bad attempt at humor on my part. It was meant to be funny and just came out mean. Apologies to Byrne and to all his acolytes over at the Springfield Retirement Castle Message Board...

Granted I'm just one guy, but to me there was a set-up to the joke, and your answer comes off humorously in the transcription.

[StoneGold]

Granted I'm just one guy, but to me there was a set-up to the joke, and your answer comes off humorously in the transcription.

Honestly, it can be as humorous as can be, it can be as apologized as can be... this is the internet, someone will take offense.

[G. Wayne]

Honestly, it can be as humorous as can be, it can be as apologized as can be... this is the internet, someone will take offense.

Right, right. I thought it was funny, but you can't win 'em all or some such.

[thedanofsteel]

Those were really great answers to flick through. The ones that struck home with me being the one's about Dick Grayson, and why relating to Superman isn't the gig it's relating to Clark.

Looking forward to The Traveler breaking the record next month!

[Iron Maiden]

I'm a fan of both their FF's but I had to laugh at the John Byrne remark. Who knows? Maybe Byrne would too. I didn't know the two had met when Waid was just a fan.

[Sijo]

That was an enjoyable read. I have only one major disagreement with Waid: writers should never write characters they don't own as if they were theirs. First, you're setting yourself up for a disappointment when what you do is later changed or even ignored; second I don't agree that it always makes for better stories. If anything, watching how writers like Johns have been given more and more control over characters over the years has convinced me it leads to contradictions for their own selfish reasons, even basic characterization being thrown out for their own personal vision. There IS a reason why these comics have editors, even if we may not like their decisions all the time.

[Reptisaurus!]

That was an enjoyable read. I have only one major disagreement with Waid: writers should never write characters they don't own as if they were theirs. First, you're setting yourself up for a disappointment when what you do is later changed or even ignored; second I don't agree that it always makes for better stories. If anything, watching how writers like Johns have been given more and more control over characters over the years has convinced me it leads to contradictions for their own selfish reasons, even basic characterization being thrown out for their own personal vision. There IS a reason why these comics have editors, even if we may not like their decisions all the time.

Conversely. I always like seeing (I assume you mean previous) characterization thrown out for the writer's personal vision.

The one I really disagreed with....

I think Superman would be more interesting if you gave him the powers Grant Morrison tends to give him in "All-Star Superman." The most interesting thing about Superman is not his power level,

Not that part. (Although I was really unfond of the general approach to Supes in ASS. The pure craft was stunning, but it was my least favorite take on the character ever.)

and the people who say, "I can't relate to Superman," well, you're not supposed to relate to Superman. You're supposed to relate to Clark Kent. That's what he's for.

Yeah you are. Clark Kent is just the outer shell. Superman is the "real you."
Not even counting all the Weisinger-esque moments of shame and and adolescent emo separation from the world around you.

[gwangung]

Conversely. I always like seeing (I assume you mean previous) characterization thrown out for the writer's personal vision.

The one I really disagreed with....


Not that part. (Although I was really unfond of the general approach to Supes in ASS. The pure craft was stunning, but it was my least favorite take on the character ever.)



Yeah you are. Clark Kent is just the outer shell. Superman is the "real you."
Not even counting all the Weisinger-esque moments of shame and and adolescent emo separation from the world around you.

Well, of course you feel that way, given your assumptions.

Other people, however, start from different assumptions and get different answers (Clark being the gateway for the reader---notice he didn't say "real" or "shell").

[Reptisaurus!]

Other people, however, start from different assumptions and get different answers

Yeah, I feel bad for them, being completely wrong and all. (I so feel a little bad nit-picking, 'cause I had way more than one minute - average - to formulate my answer here. By my estimation I woulda given absolutely brain-dead answers to about 30 of the questions, given similar time restrictions. Q: Would Superman torrent? A: Um.... Oh shit! A HUGE fire! Everybody run away! )

(Clark being the gateway for the reader---notice he didn't say "real" or "shell").

And he didn't say "Gateway" either, although actually I'd call the brightly clad guy who does cool stuff like toss tanks around the thing that gets readers through the proverbial door.

But on a fundamental level, the character is designed so that readers/viewers "relate" to the idea of an extraordinary man under a timid exterior.

[christinereed]

What I would like to know, given the announcement last month that Boom would be distributing their comics digitally at http://www.mydigitalcomics.com/, will The Traveller be available there Nov. 24?

[Ilash]

So...Mark... any reason why you only mentioned Geoff Johns and Jim Lee in regards to the new DC? Isn't there a name missing there?