Fanboys are Really Annoying Me

Didja' notice the annoying fanboys are all complaining about Marvel stuff, and not DC stuff? I think this is a litmus of the difference between people who are fundamentally Marvel fans (Basement-dwellers) and people who are fundamentally DC fans (People with jobs). The former is more likely to get all worked up over the dauntingly complex canon that is the Marvel universe, whereas the DC Universe has been rebooted so many times that basically you just focus on the characters you like, and ignore the fact that Superman should be like 126 now, or that Captain Atom fought in Vietnam except all of a sudden one day he didn't.

Leaving that highly insulting off-the-cuff observation aside, when asked why "Batman" in the 80s differed so much from the source material, Tim Burton said (Eventually) 'I wasn't copying someone else's story, I was telling my own story.' I think this is fair. If I were doing a superhero movie, I most certainly would *not* use an existing one, though I would use existing characters. Why? Because a movie is not a comic book. It has different sensibilities, and there's no point making a movie if you're just gonna' use the source material as a storyboard. Why bother if you're not going to bring something new to it?

Which was ultimately my problem with Watchmen: It *did* use the source material as a storyboard (Excepting the lame ending), and as a result it was stately, ponderous, boring, and had no life of it's own. It was a stale regurgitation of a tale we all already knew way too well, and frankly it was a waste of time to film it.

>>>It is alright to be inspired by a fictional character even to the point of naming your children after them but it is not alright to forget that in the end they are still fictional and not real.<<<

You're aware that Sheldon's kids are all named after DC characters, right? But there's nothing wrong with that. Some of my kids are named after fictional characters, some are named after musicians. You go with where your inspiration is. As long as they don't have names like "G'nort" or "Zathras" it's cool.

But, yes, I think it's an obsession with the story as written, and I think also it's probably a lack of broader exposure to different kinds of stories. Making a novel into a movie is easier because novels are really long (In script terms, your average Hardy Boys novel would clock in at about 2 hours, "Juggler of Worlds" would clock in at four and change, and "Atlas Shrugged" would come in at about 11 hours) so everyone knows you're going to have to drop tons of stuff to fit it into 90, 120, or 180 minutes. Also, being that it's written, everyone has a different idea of what characters and things look like, so most people are more likely to accept a new visualization of those things.

In the case of comics, you've got a very set visual style, and departure from that can be jarring. Ditto the characters, and their backstory, personalities, etc. If you're a fanboy, that's *all* you have to go on, and any deviation from that becomes kind of an unacceptable sin to the thing you love.

>>>First of all, I am not ashamed of my kids' names, nor do I believe anyone here would expect me to be.<<<

Certainly not! Just seemed apropos to bring it up right there.

>>>my wife hates my grandpa's name, John. She liked Jonathan, but that wasn't the dude's name, so what's the point?<<<

It's the single most popular name in the world! Boring, yes. Hate? That seems a bit extreme. Is there a story behind that, or just an aesthetic thing? ("It was on this very night, fifteen years ago, when a guy named set fire to my Barbie Dream House.")

>>>We talked about Selina and Harley Quinn, but she wanted to use her middle name Ann so we decided Shiera sounds good with Ann and that's how it happened. Interesting story.<<<

Yeah, probably a good call on your wife's part there. Probably not a good idea to name a daughter after a prostitute and/or psycho killer.

>>>Back to the subject, R3 mentioned that movies based entirely on a graphic novel or certain story arc are mostly going to be bad. I respectfully disagree. I rather enjoyed how true Watchmen stayed, and the DC Animated movies based directly on storylines, while streamlined for time, are usually quite true to the source and quite good.<<<

I find them kind of a mixed bag, about 30% good, 30% bad, and 30% meh. The remaining 10% are ones I haven't seen. I also find them frustrating because what I really like about DC stuff is the continuing story lines. Mostly, to me, they don't feel like movies (Though I know they are), they all feel like unsold pilots for TV series. Frustrating.

>>>But it is nice to see someone take something and do their own thing with it. That's what I loved about Smallville. It stayed true to Superman while doing its own thing and it was an approach we had never seen before. Richard Donner didn't stay true to the comics of the time, in fact the comics adapted to incorporate the Donnerverse elements into the stories.<<<

Burton, too, though I generally didn't care for his take on things. But, yes, when you're dealing with what is effectively a mythological character, the character is more important than the myth. That's why there are eleventy kerjillion retellings of King Arthur, most of which have only a vague resemblance to each other apart from some obvious touchstones they have to hit. I know a lot of people didn't like the Elseworlds, but I totally dug 'em. I liked how the character was (generally) the same, but in a completely different universe. In a lot of ways, that was liberating, freeing them of 30 or 60 years of backstory and letting the person come out. (That's not to say that a lot of Elseworlds didn't suck out loud, they certainly did, but...) So, while I never watched Smallville, conceptually I really liked the spin they put on the continuity. Can you have Superman without Batman? Apparently, but it takes longer for him to cook. In the absence of Batman, who fills that evolutionary niche? I wouldn't have picked Ollie Queen, but, hey, in retrospect that was kinda' shway!

>>And it isn't only Marvel fans who are rabid and need put down. This was the basis for most of the Smallville hate too, that it deviated from the mythology.<<<

Yes, I know. In scientific circles, these kinds of people are called "Stupid."

>>>And Green Lantern stays truer to the mythology than I envisioned it when I was working on a treatment way back in 03. So that could be why the idiots are leaving it alone.<<<

The only reason they're leaving it (Comparatively) alone is that they/we almost got saddled with Jack Black as GL, in a lame comedy version.

>>i can't give them a pass just because I'm one of them.<<<

Oh, I can. DC fans are much less annoying. Also better looking, more popular with women, and better paid.

Green Arrow was created with a definite wink towards the Errol Flynn version of Robin Hood, so what's not to love?

It also seems, per the Wikipedia article on GA, that he was developed and has been used as a stand-in for Batman in that Ollie was originally a rich dude who used his money and talents to create cool gadgetry for his crime-fighting persona.

The big difference, however, seems to be that Ollie is definitely a lefty, whereas I've never seen, in my limited exposure to actual "Batman" comics, that Bats/Wayne has ever been portrayed with any kind of political leanings.

***************

It seems strange the Marvel fans tend to be more rabid about canon. I always preferred Marvel characters because they seemed more three-dimensional. Whenever I think of DC characters, my list pretty much consists of Supes, Bats, and WW. My Marvel list starts with Spidey, of course, and Capt. America, the X-men that I know (about 20 off the top of my head), the Fantastic 4, the Sub-Mariner, Thor, Daredevil, Iron Man, Hulk, and my all-time favorite Marvel title "Werewolf by Night."

I'd like to see your take on superheroes' political leanings, if you can find it.

Thanks,

ME

>>>Green Arrow was created with a definite wink towards the Errol Flynn version of Robin Hood, so what's not to love? [...] The big difference, however, seems to be that Ollie is definitely a lefty, whereas I've never seen, in my limited exposure to actual "Batman" comics, that Bats/Wayne has ever been portrayed with any kind of political leanings."

Well, obviously. There's the whole "Rob from the rich, give to the poor" thing inherent in Robin Hood...

>>>It seems strange the Marvel fans tend to be more rabid about canon. I always preferred Marvel characters because they seemed more three-dimensional. Whenever I think of DC characters, my list pretty much consists of Supes, Bats, and WW. My Marvel list starts with Spidey, of course, and Capt. America, the X-men that I know (about 20 off the top of my head), the Fantastic 4, the Sub-Mariner, Thor, Daredevil, Iron Man, Hulk, and my all-time favorite Marvel title "Werewolf by Night."<<<

Here's the problem for me: In the DC universe, superpowers are a blessing. In the Marvel universe, they're a curse. Everyone is always 'oh, what this has cost me.' Theres' no swashbuckling in it. Also: DC has better art, I think. Marvel art (Apart from the first couple years of "The Ultimates") just fills me with the uncontrolable urge to yawn. There are a few Marvel characters I like: Iron Man is at the top of that list, but realistic or no, I just find I don't care much.

They did an experiment some years back where Stan Lee did DC characters written and drawn as though they were Marvel characters, and it just sucked beyond believing. Anyone else remember that?

Conversely, I mostly really liked the Amalgam stuff.

>>> Robin Hood did NOT, and I'll say it one more time for effect, he DID NOT rob from the rich and give to the poor. <<<

Well, I know that, and you know that, but the average person hasn't read the stories, or even seen 'em (Who do you know under 30 who's even *watched* an Errol Flynn movie?), so they're basing their opinions on popular wisdom. Popular wisdom is notoriously illiterate.

Robin and Don Diego (Since you brought him up) were both fighting against oppressive governments, and in Robin's case an only-questionably-legal-one to boot. They weren't even robbing from all the rich, just the ones who were conspicuously benefiting under the oppressive regimes. Cronies of the local dictators.

Evidently not, since I don't see how it applies. Whatchutalkin'bout, Mr. Li?

Neat article!

I'd quibble with some of the specifics: Ragnar didn't actually give anything to the oppressed, he just sank it and/or hoarded it. The only thing he gives anyone in book is a brick of gold to a guy who doesn't need it. And I wouldn't compare him to Mike from Moon, simply because Ragnar - underdeveloped, offstage, and eliptical as he is - is sorta' cool, whereas having recently re-read Moon, and having thought about it a lot lately, frankly, Mike is a narrative cheat on every freakin' level.

But it's a metaphor, and such things don't bear close examination, so ignore that stuff, it's not pertinent to the point the author was trying to get across. And in fact, I agree with it, mostly. I don't think a single party has a monopoly on Gandalfism, but let that slide: the piece's heart is in the right place. I agree with the sentiment, but I'm not sure about the example.

Let's extend the metaphor a bit, though: Ragnar's entire purpose was to sink all government aid shipments from the US to anywhere in the world. Grain for starving Ethiopians, relief supplies for Haiti, doctors and medicine for Japan, etc. If the government is *giving* anything to anyone, he stops it. The book gives us no reason to believe he makes any distinction between humanitarian aid and chronic moocherism (Rand certainly never does), so Ragnar is sinking food shipments fully knowing that assloads of people will die from him doing so. He does this to make a point.

His point is that the government is bad...because...uhm...it's trying to...uhm...help keep people from...starving? And that's a bad thing because why, exactly? Oh, right, taxation is theft. I'm right there with ya, brother. But the old saw has always been that taxation is bad because we get no return on the taxes we pay out. Ok, sure, but here's the government using taxes to feel starving people, and buying the grain from American farmers. Soooo, again, I fail to see how Ragnar's arcane considerations about the theoretical basis of lassies fare capitalism really have much basis in actual practice. He's killing people (Indirectly) to make a point, and he doesn't care how many people die in order to make it.

Ragnar's stated purpose is to interfere with government aid shipments and thereby hasten the collapse of the international economy. Again: Economies fail, people die, generally in massive numbers. Look at Wiemar Germany, or the last days of Imperial Russia, or the South after the Civil War. Then the scapegoating starts, and a whole lot more people die. It's estimated that 3.5 billion people are primarily dependent upon food we ship overseas. Most of it is sold, though much is given away (Which basically means it's sold here, and the purchaser does whatever he damn well pleases with it). If the international economy collapses, how many of those billions die? Half? That seems reasonable, since most of 'em are only barely subsisting as it is.

Again: Ragnar is doing this to make a point, as is John Galt, and Frisco. He's killing billions of people just so he can say "My untested abstract philosophy is right, and your lives are meaningless before it." This makes him a sociopath. Every major 'good guy' character in the book is a sociopath, excepting Rearden, who's got high functioning Aspergers. Everyone in the book who *isn't* a sociopath is portrayed as stupid, lazy, and/or flat out evil, and hence they deserve to be ruined and/or killed. Which, of course, is a hallmark of sociopathy: you mean nothing to me, and you had it coming anyway. The final scene, when everyone is in their mountain hidey-hole, plotting their capture of the world and the onset of their final solution through social engineering is chilling. It isn't supposed to be, but it is.

Ragnar isn't really a pirate, he isn't Robin Hood, he's more like Alex the Droog if Alex were concerned at all about justifying his actions. Refreshingly he isn't, so Alex is a thug, but at least he's honest. Ragnar ain't. He's a devil insisting he's an angel. The worst kind: the one that actually believes it.

I'm not sure the "Robin Hood" thing scales up, really. Robin was going after one corrupt and slightly-questionably-legitimate ruler. He didn't go all over England, he didn't attempt to overthrow the world, he was just a freedom fighter. A John Hancock, if you will. Ragnar is lacking the moral compass of a Viking.

I said the character is kinda' cool, and he is. But he's cool in the same way Darth Vader is cool: Mad, bad, and dangerous to know. I can't imagine the Libertarian party would want to be associated with that kind of genocide.

I was listening to "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross this morning. It was a rebroadcast of her interview with Daniel Okrent who wrote a popular history and analysis of alcohol Prohibition,

Last Call

Of course, the conversation turned to the evential decriminalization of marijuana - which gave me an important insight:

Which love interest of a DC superhero is named after the author's favorite "muse"?

Yes. I was attempting to continue the discussion of the differences between Marvel characters and DC. I meant that the Marvel boys may have - who knows if it is true? - chosen MJ as a name because of the association with MJ. So my question, following on from the assertion that the DC writers had more middle-American sensibilities, was if any DC love interest ever seemed to be thusly inspired.

As a negative against Marvel, or perhaps a positive in that they portrayed a problem that DC wouldn't look at, we have

Reed Richards, Wife Beater
Hank Pym, Wife Beater
Peter Parker, Wife Beater

(and the literature makes a big deal about how much of a big deal it has been for Hank Pym compared to the other two)