Deep/Shallow

I prefer something in between (I know, I'm making such a powerful stance there). I think writers, sometimes, get too caught up in trying to prove that "comics can be powerful and deep and meaningful" and get lost in that effort, forgetting to remain entertaining and fun.

At the same time, I'm not a fan of campy, hyperbolic absurdity. My favorite superhero has long been Batman, and I think that the Batman: Animated series got his character, his adventures, and general execution of comic book plots, damn near perfect. Obviously it's not an actual comic book, so it's not the best reference, but with the writing and the approach, I always thought it was brilliant. It's this crazy, unrealistic blend of pulp adventures, sci-fi and crime noir, but it's grounded with solid characters that behave somewhat realistically. And it made you feel the situation was dire without having to kill off characters and / or paralyze characters, and in that respect it was light and easy to go along with. It was just incredible, and I think it exemplifies how to make a "serious" superhero story and keep it fun.

I think on a long running series you HAVE to include, what I call, "The Soap Opera" element.

If you watch a soap, you aren't there for the insane plots. You're there for the characters. You wanna see how A reacts when he discovers B's affair with C and what he will do to D who knew all along and didn't say.

It's that complex, actually OVERLY complex interplay between really full characters that drives the series. there are plot arcs that run on the surface, but under that, I think is the character interaction.

I prefer the deep stories as you have defined them, Peedee. I also think that the writing today is, in general, far better than it has ever been. That said, Claremont is a god among men and his X-Men will always be THE X-Men.

I like a healthy balence between the two as well. I think they're more like real life that way becuase who's serious all the time?

I started reading the X-Men in the early 80's, just about issue #200 (the one where Magneto goes on trial at the World Court. Anyone remember that one?) I always had a deep personal connection with the X-Men characters of that time. I guess something about them struck a chord with a hopelessly unpopular, practically bed-ridden, pre-pubescent kid, huh?

Most of the other characters at the time never really seemed to struggle as much with what happened to them. It always seemed to be chance that did it and even though they had their share of villains to deal with, they never seemed to grapple with it nearly as much.

Of course, another favorite of mine was "Cloak and Dagger," so maybe I was just an especially angst-ridden kid.

Sometimes I like 'em dark - I loved DC's "Identity Crisis" up until its disastrously weak reveal in the last act. But I also like 'em happy, and that's why I love Dan Slott.

For those who haven't been lucky enough to pick up his stuff, he writes stories that are steeped in continutiy, but somehow totally accessible to new readers. His stuff is always lighthearted and sometimes literally laugh-out-loud funny, but often he slips in some real sentiment. My favorite of his is the Spider-Man/ Human Torch "I'm With Stupid" collection.

The best part of it, for me, is one chapter that takes place just after the Gwen Stacy incident. Spidey's depressed, and Torch tries to cheer him up by giving him a driving lesson... in the Spider-Mobile. THE SPIDER-MOBILE!!! They attach one of Reed Richards' gadgets that lets it drive up walls, so they take a vertical joyride through New York. A local news crew interviews bystanders, one of whom is sixth-grader Dan Ketch, who remarks how cool it is that they're driving straight up a wall.

How awesome is that. And his ongoing She-Hulk is pretty much the only Marvel monthly I read. He managed to make the Mad Thinker's Awesome Android, a totally lame villain's totally lame sidekick, a genuinely engaging character who you totally get behind and feel for. That's the mark of a true great.

And with that, I'll hop off Dan Slott's sack.

Excelsior said:

Sometimes I like 'em dark - I loved DC's "Identity Crisis" up until its disastrously weak reveal in the last act.

Click to expand...

I agree to an extent. I initially liked the idea behind Identity Crisis. It lost me earlier, however, at the Sue Dibny rape reveal, which is somewhat at the heart of why I think some writers get too caught up in wanting to write a story that's too serious.

If the story and characters already have an established, "serious" history then I can ride with it. But when Sue Dibny gets raped by a guy wearing a cape and the goofy head gear, who shares his name with the villain of the Mega Man video games, and now I've got a Hawkman talking about how he should've killed Light for the deed... it all just feels misplaced to me.

Depends on my mood. The old stuff is corny but fun and there are times when I want mindless fun.

The new stuff is much deeper and a better read. But I get enough deepness in my life without getting them from comics.

Hey, I written Fairly Odd Parent comics so I obviously like the deep stuff.

PeeDee said:

Todd McFarlane could do Fairly OddParents. Everyone would have a lot of sex, and then Timmy would eat someone's eyeball off a sai (cripes, that issue of Turtles still freaks me out) and then everyone would DIE.

And then Todd McFarlane would steal the franchise. Because he's scum.

Click to expand...

Nah, Todd wouldn't work for $125 - $150 / page.

Heh, well, I actually rarely read superhero comics...but for comics in general, I love both. Both have their own appeal, though for the last few years, I have been more into the deeper stuff, like Sandman, WE3, etc. Stuff that when I read it, it truly shakes me, and I find myself awed by the end. That's the kinda stuff I aspire to.

But, on the other hand, when I was a kid I was a total dork, and I loved Sonic the Hedgehog comics (which, I'll openly admit, aren't exactly the highest form of comic storytelling XD ). And now that I'm all grown up, I'm still a dork, and if I pick up an old issue and read it, I'm still entertained by the goofy over-the-top fun. Cheesy melodrama has its appeal. ^_^

PeeDee said:

I bought a new issue of Sonic the other day, on the same nostalgic kick you have. It's still a fun comic to read. Certainly, it's more fun than to play a new Sonic video game, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Click to expand...

Certainly more fun than the later Sonic video games!

Gotta say I'm glad the deep stuff, as you called it, is out there for those of us who grew up on the four color pulp comic stuff in flat worlds with a lot of trite dialog and have trouble still getting into that style any more (despite standard improvements in all the graphics).

I know what you mean by being able to have good shallow fun with the old crap, though, with or without angst and melodrama. I suspect your old comics (X-men and the like) are considerably better than the ones I grew up on, mostly DC from the 70s. I used to dork out on the even worse DC comics of the mid-40s to 60s too, when they were frequently reprinted in monthly digests in my childhood. I still like them for nostalgic reasons but I know they can't quite immerse me like they used to. Even though I'm pretty sure I could still draw all versions of the Batmobile from memory with reasonable accuracy.

So, PeeDee, when did Todd McFarlane piss in your Cheerios? Just curious.

Whedon is great and no mistake. Quality wise, there are writers today who kick Claremont in the pants...but the Claremont X-Years were the years that made me(and most other people) a fan. Some of his comics will always be among by absolute favorites. Whedon is great because...to me anyway...he is like a Claremont of the modern era. There is something nostalgic about his stories even though they are totally fresh and new.

McFarlane...I don't really care about him one way or the other. I like Image Comics because they made Warlands, which wasn't all that good but was the most beautiful comic I've ever seen, and are now putting out Nightly News which is an incredible comic that DC and Marvel wouldn't touch.

I can't help but think...when on the subject of McFarlane...that the guy paid three million dollars for a baseball that was rendered obsolete a couple years later.

PeeDee said:

Todd McFarlane did some very interesting legal tricks involving Miracleman and Neil Gaiman, the sort of legal two-handed stuff that you would normally expect from PublishAmerica, and their ilk.

This is a good summary of the basics. I followed the legal case with a fair amount of interest as it went down.

Click to expand...

Ah. I was ignorant of this whole thing. Disheartening story.

Your link led me (indirectly) to notes about McFarlane's debates with Peter David relating to the value of writing vs. art in the commercial success of comics. To me this relates to the appreciation of shallow vs. deep in the comics, at least somewhat.

In my casual reading of comics, I find that plain, old fashioned (if you will), not too innovative or stylish artwork in comics often goes hand in hand with flatter, simpler stories, such as various titles obviously aimed at younger readers, movie adaptations, and so on. While I don't feel that writing for children is supposed to be lesser writing, in comic books I notice it usually is pretty crappy, unfortunately. Probably unfair generalization, as I don't get the chance to look at all that's out there, but that's the impression I get from my comic store hunts.

Do you find that the higher grade artwork more often goes hand in hand with better writing, or do the two values sort of get thrown together in even-chance proportions when it comes to corporate comics written, drawn, inked, colored, etc. on the assembly line?

I imagine the discussion of commercial success is a whole separate point from the discussion of quality. I for one, despite being an artist myself, really need good writing married with competent art (even if it's only average art) to enjoy comics anymore, even though my ideal is that terrific marriage of ideas with inspiring graphics. That despite the fact that I view the art as the far harder job between the two, the bulk of the work, in my light experience the part that takes many times longer to do. I imagine a survey of all readers, in order to answer the commercial question, would vary from my tastes, but I don't really know.

When I was little, a comic book rack was found at every corner convenience store, like People magazine and the Auto Traders. They were cheap in both price and quality, and more plentiful, so I imagine the rules were different then. Gradually they disappeared even from regular book stores. In these days of having to go to specialty stores just to find comics, marketed all the more to the most discerning and serious fans, are the best comics generally the most successful? Or do comics mirror films, where superficial imagery can be expected to trump words and ideas at the box office?

I'm also going with the balance, the "huge, ground-breaking events that will change the (Marvel/DC) universe as you know it" thing is getting way out of hand. I'm all for crossovers, but seriously...

I miss Banshee, I found him very interesting (I have a fondness for alcoholic Irishmen) and I thought he had a very original and useful power. It was also fun watching him try to "keep up with the younger X-Men" and him complaining about how he was too old for adventuring.