Axel-In-Charge - Apr 27, 2012

[RCF]

'Cause folks complain about editorial mandates, but they wouldn't mind working their own ideas into a writer's stories.

This is as good as any distillation of the Crazy Comics Internet as I've seen.

Also, I liked the part where the guy called Steve Wacker a liberal. HILARIOUS.

[okpanic]

If you were making comics, would you change a storyline midway through because you hear that readers are disgruntled online?

The notion of that just makes me cringe a little.
While I think it helps a lot to have your ear to the ground in terms of readership, no creative company should completely pander. The problem is that I think some people (usually disgruntled fans themselves) equate fan reaction as the total word of God and everything should bend to what they feel.

Here's a recent example in another medium - the big blockbuster videogame Mass Effect 3 was released almost 2 months ago now, to a great reception... until people got to the ending. There was a big uproar over the ending because some fans felt it was inconclusive, shoddily written, etc. It was the climax of 5 years of story, and it just didn't live up to a lot of people's expectations. Some were so pissed off that they demanded that a new ending should be written for them via online petitions. Some even came up with a fanwanked theory which they believed would make more sense then the ending and demanded that it be changed to that.

So here's my problem with that - firstly, to tell a professional writer that their work sucks is one thing. We're entitled to our opinions. But to demand they re-write it for you or change it to your specifications is completely ridiculous. As clinical as it sounds, we need to remember that at the end of the day most of us are not creators and merely consumers. We ultimately talk with our money.
Secondly, if fans can dictate fiction to their will, where is the surprise or suspense? If the creators of Mass Effect bent to the fan outrage and wrote up an ending in line with everything the fans specifically demanded, how hollow would that be? How about how such a thing would completely devalue the emphasis put on actual script writing in the industry itself? Most of all they'd be robbing themselves and others of the ability to be told a story. And nobody likes a predictable story.

If fan opinions were to be listened to as much as some people think they should, the poignancy of Gwen Stacy's death would have never stuck.

[vh4ever]

If you were making comics, would you change a storyline midway through because you hear that readers are disgruntled online?

If early returns on the sales numbers were abysmal, hell yeah if I want to keep working in the medium, and sales are the bottom line for ANY business. Comics are a blatant example of editorial malfeasance. Ask Roger Stern how his Avengers run ended.

[vh4ever]

The notion of that just makes me cringe a little.
While I think it helps a lot to have your ear to the ground in terms of readership, no creative company should completely pander. The problem is that I think some people (usually disgruntled fans themselves) equate fan reaction as the total word of God and everything should bend to what they feel.

Here's a recent example in another medium - the big blockbuster videogame Mass Effect 3 was released almost 2 months ago now, to a great reception... until people got to the ending. There was a big uproar over the ending because some fans felt it was inconclusive, shoddily written, etc. It was the climax of 5 years of story, and it just didn't live up to a lot of people's expectations. Some were so pissed off that they demanded that a new ending should be written for them via online petitions. Some even came up with a fanwanked theory which they believed would make more sense then the ending and demanded that it be changed to that.

So here's my problem with that - firstly, to tell a professional writer that their work sucks is one thing. We're entitled to our opinions. But to demand they re-write it for you or change it to your specifications is completely ridiculous. As clinical as it sounds, we need to remember that at the end of the day most of us are not creators and merely consumers. We ultimately talk with our money.
Secondly, if fans can dictate fiction to their will, where is the surprise or suspense? If the creators of Mass Effect bent to the fan outrage and wrote up an ending in line with everything the fans specifically demanded, how hollow would that be? How about how such a thing would completely devalue the emphasis put on actual script writing in the industry itself? Most of all they'd be robbing themselves and others of the ability to be told a story. And nobody likes a predictable story.

If fan opinions were to be listened to as much as some people think they should, the poignancy of Gwen Stacy's death would have never stuck.

I don't believe in asking for pandering to one's audience. As an artist, the 'same-old-same-old' mentality would burn me out too. Opinions are subjective to taste of course, but as a fan of the medium, a bit of progression for characters like Spiderman, Bruce Banner fathering Skaar, isn't asking a lot. I don't care that Iron Man's origins have been updated to Iraq instead of Vietnam. Sliding time scale and all that. I get it.

I've read that for DC's Nu52, Batman had 4 Robins in 5 years?? Really?? Who in their right mind would sign on for that gig with that kind of turnover?? It's ploys like that that bring out the cheese factor and the cynicism of the older fans (like me,) who're propping up this hobby with our $$$. DC threw us under the bus. I no longer support DC Comics. Pretty simple.

[vh4ever]

Yes! I grew up in an era of fast moving stories, where most stories took only a single issue. It was standard practice for a writer not to know what would happen the following month, or to only have a rough idea.

The great irony is that these early stories had a stronger long term structure. Characters grew and developed. Events has consequences. The ability to change direction on a dime seemed to make stronger long term stories. Odd that.

Take Fantastic Four 34 for example. Stan and Jack tried something totally off the wall, a non-super powered villain. In the letters page they asked for feedback - do readers like that kind of thing? In the same letters page they said they had not decided the details on the nest story yet, but it would take place on campus. It ended up being one of the best FF stories ever (the first Dragon man) and the start of the greatest comic run ever (FF35-66). And as it happened the fans did not like the non-powered story (I did, but that's OK) so the ideas was not repeated.

Back then things happened quickly. Everything was changing. The fans opinions mattered. Read the letters pages - Stan was genuinely worried if a fan didn't like something, he remembered what it was like to stare bankruptcy in the face with no brands or franchises to rely on.

Today's six issue stories (or in the case of Hickman, 36 issue stories) may be beautifully planned in great detail, but they can be boring as heck. They drag on for year after year, and what is the point in all this careful planning? The stories will be retconned or forgotten anyway. Give me the rawness, the white heat of the early stories any day. You never knew what was happening next! You'd be crazy to miss an issue. It was like real life war, or real life romance, or real life politics, everything could change from day to day. It was like real life, but bigger and more colorful and faster moving.

These old comics were a partnership. The customer knew he was king. His dime (or later his 60 cents) meant that he called the shots.

Of course, maybe this only works if you have highly talented writers. It takes great skill to write a story where everything changes in unexpected ways yet the story still hangs together. Maybe you needed people like Stan Lee who had been writing like that since 1940: three stories per issue, constant change, and they all had to appeal to non-fans. He could handle the pace. I don't think anybody today has that skill or experience.

So, yes, I would listen.

Byrne, before he sailed off the deep end, was quite good at both the 1-2 part stories or building sustainable arcs and subplots that resonated to the larger stories, regardless of the title he worked in his prime. Michelinie and Layton's Iron Man Obadiah Stane story from Iron Man 162-200 is one of my all-time favorites. Gruenwald's 'Captain' story from Cap #332-350 was another, albeit briefer example. Claremont's original X-Men run is still a classic, although he got quite convoluted at his end, with the magic never to be recaptured unfortunately.

You don't get that stuff anymore in today's market. And that's not for the lack of talent, which I personally believe exists, it's just harder to find amongst 7 X-Titles or 5 Bat -books.

[CyberHubbs]

I believe that this is the nature of the business.

You wanna work on a comic like Superman or Spider-Man- it comes with strings. You want to tell your own story, create your own IP over at Image or Dark Horse so you can tell whatever story you want.

That would be called an editor, and of course the PTB higher up. Doing what the fans say is, I'm fairly certain, not in their contract.

Because humility is not a bad thing either. No one starts out as a great writer or artist. And even talented creators can still make mistakes. And if one does not learn from their mistakes, or take the advice from others in how to improve, then they can't grow as an artist.

That's what other professionals are for. People that work in the industry. Not the guy that has an online shrine to Dr. Bong.

[CyberHubbs]

If early returns on the sales numbers were abysmal, hell yeah if I want to keep working in the medium, and sales are the bottom line for ANY business. Comics are a blatant example of editorial malfeasance. Ask Roger Stern how his Avengers run ended.

When you're known as the guy willing to flip-flop according to someone's online rantings (or in-person rantings), you start to lose artistic integrity. Not to mention any company you work for, be it Marvel, DC, Image or Dark Horse, are going to think you're not willing to support your own work. They're hiring you for your writing, not PlutosAnus2345.

[CyberHubbs]

Byrne, before he sailed off the deep end, was quite good at both the 1-2 part stories or building sustainable arcs and subplots that resonated to the larger stories, regardless of the title he worked in his prime. Michelinie and Layton's Iron Man Obadiah Stane story from Iron Man 162-200 is one of my all-time favorites. Gruenwald's 'Captain' story from Cap #332-350 was another, albeit briefer example. Claremont's original X-Men run is still a classic, although he got quite convoluted at his end, with the magic never to be recaptured unfortunately.

You don't get that stuff anymore in today's market. And that's not for the lack of talent, which I personally believe exists, it's just harder to find amongst 7 X-Titles or 5 Bat -books.

Hickman's Fantastic Four run is a perfect example of how the industry is moving back to shorter arcs (two to three issues) and more one-shots. People are just still thinking about the five-to-six issue arcs from not that long ago. But there has been a corner-turn.

But if tolworthy believes comics haven't been good since Stan Lee worked on them fifty years ago, then I don't really know what to tell ya.

[tolworthy]

Hickman's Fantastic Four run is a perfect example of how the industry is moving back to shorter arcs (two to three issues) and more one-shots.

That would be good news, but his recent shorter stories may be just breathing space, or may be because he's leaving the book soon. His Four Cities arc only finished recently and that was what, 30 issues? I remember it starting in the early 570s, an cancelled my subscription with 582 because it never seemed to go anywhere.

But if tolworthy believes comics haven't been good since Stan Lee worked on them fifty years ago, then I don't really know what to tell ya.

No, Stan was just the most outstanding example. I agree with vh4ever, Byrne's early FF were superb examples as well, and there are many others. However, longer, decompressed stories are now the norm. The occasional one shots, like this month's Torch-Spidey, are best suited to jokes because they contain so little information.

[vh4ever]

When you're known as the guy willing to flip-flop according to someone's online rantings (or in-person rantings), you start to lose artistic integrity. Not to mention any company you work for, be it Marvel, DC, Image or Dark Horse, are going to think you're not willing to support your own work. They're hiring you for your writing, not PlutosAnus2345.

..and yet some of those 'known' entities are still working in the biz today. *cough* Kevin Smith*cough*

Freelancers are more than willing to sacrifice 'integrity' while they're working at page rate if it means keeping the lights on and food on the table, and it's not just 'artists' anymore. Naive to say that. Plenty of 'Yes Men' out there these days.

[PwrdOff]

The notion of that just makes me cringe a little.
While I think it helps a lot to have your ear to the ground in terms of readership, no creative company should completely pander. The problem is that I think some people (usually disgruntled fans themselves) equate fan reaction as the total word of God and everything should bend to what they feel.

Here's a recent example in another medium - the big blockbuster videogame Mass Effect 3 was released almost 2 months ago now, to a great reception... until people got to the ending. There was a big uproar over the ending because some fans felt it was inconclusive, shoddily written, etc. It was the climax of 5 years of story, and it just didn't live up to a lot of people's expectations. Some were so pissed off that they demanded that a new ending should be written for them via online petitions. Some even came up with a fanwanked theory which they believed would make more sense then the ending and demanded that it be changed to that.

So here's my problem with that - firstly, to tell a professional writer that their work sucks is one thing. We're entitled to our opinions. But to demand they re-write it for you or change it to your specifications is completely ridiculous. As clinical as it sounds, we need to remember that at the end of the day most of us are not creators and merely consumers. We ultimately talk with our money.
Secondly, if fans can dictate fiction to their will, where is the surprise or suspense? If the creators of Mass Effect bent to the fan outrage and wrote up an ending in line with everything the fans specifically demanded, how hollow would that be? How about how such a thing would completely devalue the emphasis put on actual script writing in the industry itself? Most of all they'd be robbing themselves and others of the ability to be told a story. And nobody likes a predictable story.

If fan opinions were to be listened to as much as some people think they should, the poignancy of Gwen Stacy's death would have never stuck.

I doubt that any of the fans who complained about Mass Effect 3 really expected the ending to be completely changed for their sake, but that doesn't mean that all of their nerd raging was pointless. EA and Bioware have received a lot of negative press from this, which according to Alonso should have shot sales through the roof, but the opposite has happened. This game which was supposed to be a huge hit is struggling to match the sales of the first two, due in no small part over this ending controversy. They can talk all they want about respecting artistic integrity now, but you can be sure that when it comes time to make Mass Effect 4, the writers that caused this mess will be out of a job. That's what voting with your wallet means. It might sound callous to deny someone the means to put food on the table because they wrote a story you didn't like, but when your job is to tell appealing stories and you fail to the point of significantly hurting the bottom line, it's time for someone else to step up and try and do it better.

Of course everyone wants to be surprised by stories, but a shocking ending really only works if it fits within the context that you've established so far. The death of Gwen didn't come completely out of the blue, the way the story was set up it could have gone either way, just that the audience didn't expect it to end the way it did, and that's why it works. You can't say the same about OMD, and I'd wager that the ending to AvX probably won't make any sense either. Endings are tough to write, and if the author doesn't have the talent to pull off a big surprise at the end well, the story would be better served if the plot twists came early and enough time was left to resolve everything in a consistent manner.

[CyberHubbs]

..and yet some of those 'known' entities are still working in the biz today. *cough* Kevin Smith*cough*

Kevin Smith hasn't been relevant in quite a while.

Freelancers are more than willing to sacrifice 'integrity' while they're working at page rate if it means keeping the lights on and food on the table, and it's not just 'artists' anymore. Naive to say that. Plenty of 'Yes Men' out there these days.

Comic books aren't exactly a huge business like they were in the 90s. I'm willing to say that if you decide to make this your profession, then it is about the artistry on some level or another. The readers are not the only people with any sort of integrity.

[RCF]

That would be good news, but his recent shorter stories may be just breathing space, or may be because he's leaving the book soon. His Four Cities arc only finished recently and that was what, 30 issues? I remember it starting in the early 570s, an cancelled my subscription with 582 because it never seemed to go anywhere.

Ok, Mr. Hickman's story might have been long, but it was hardly "decompressed." In fact it's funny when people complain about how Hickman takes forever to tell his story but then get all mad when he does things like the ultra-compressed Valeria herbiePad notes for those three issues. I realize that's an extreme form of conveying plot information (and was designed to be that way), but guys: those issues were PACKED with story and ideas and fun.

Anyway, seriously, Tolworthy: now that it actually has gone somewhere, I sincerely recommend you pick up where you left off, because it is GREAT when read more or less at once.

[ian33407]

This is on the same level as Captain America waking up one day and deciding that America sucks, and communism isn't such a bad idea after all. If any other character but Steve Rogers did that, it wouldn't be as big a deal as Rogers doing it. Similarly, had this been anyone but Spider-Man -- if it had been Johnny Storm, which is the irresponsible Yang to Peter's Ying -- I wouldn't have so much as batted an eyelash.

THAT would be awesome.

Well I don't know if it has to be because "America sucks", but he could discover something that make him think his own country failed him - or betrayed him (that won't be neither the fact he could "learn" that Ford used to sell weapons to the Third Reich UNTIL they turned them down to support Japan -seeking help for the Russian Front, but Japan didn't help, they just say "thanks" and the American soldiers died under their own bullets this day in Normandie) and he could seek political asylum to Russia, and become the new Red Guardian.Then we could have a WINTER GUARD ongoing (with just Vanguard, Ursa Major, Crimson Dynamo, the new Darkstar and him : the FF, the Avengers, the X-Men, all packed into one, what much to ask for ?) which would be the first part of my machiavelian scheme.

The second part would be making of Jason Strongbow, AMERICAN EAGLE, Steve' replacer (and even Colonel America, seen in the mini VANGUARD for a short amount of time, or as supporting cast, then we wouldn't have a CAPTAIN AMERICA ongoing but a CAPTAIN AMERICA CORPS title) wish could be a very more powerful symbol than the veteran "cachet" of Steve that make the whole World crying and laughing at the same time.Of course, there will always have a reason to find in Russia history or a plot-point that could push Steve back in USA, but what if he really remained in Russia ? I'll be curious about how writers would handle ideological changes and what they could say about the policy of both nations ( Communism is a great idea -the "baby" - after all, who just worked better on paper than anywhere else - the "water", but is everything had been REALLY tried ?) ?? And what if Strongbow really became the new Cap ? That couldn't be really considered as something..you know, anti-American.


I totally agree with the last part of your post, about Johnny Storm who would surprise nobody if he turned evil. Another poster (hope he will excuse me to haven't quoted him) said demonic pacts should only remain into occults titles, like GHOST RIDER. This, in contrary, is something I disagree the most with.

First because Peter often teamed-up with DrSTRANGE, or ZATANNA, or both, or a lot of surnatural-occult-oriented characters, and occultism is part of his world like the rest of the whole MU, but especially because this is a very unexpected move, and almost because it is a so much remoted action from his core than it actually justifies a story. Everybody claims that Peter is "Mr Responsability", how do you show that if you're not challenging it once in a while ? What's the better demonstration to illustrate responsability than a "bad choice" ?