In the last decade or so I have noticed a groundswell within a certain segment -- a vocal segment -- of fandom. Again and again I see these people commenting on some new issue or series they don't like and declaring they will "pretend" it didn't happen, or "pretend" that it happened in a way of which they approve.
And every time I read one of these pompous, self-congratulatory comments, I think back to my own days of reading comics, when I would assume that any apparent error in continuity, or characterization, or coloring, or whatever, was my mistake. After all, if (in an instance I have noted many times as a prime example) the BlackHawks could be seen in their own title battling Martians who were purple tentacled monsters, while at the same time J'Onn J'Onzz was appearing in JUSTICE LEAGUE, then it must be me who is misunderstanding something. (As you may have guessed, from the number of times I have referenced it, that little moment really troubled me as a kid. It was the first time I noticed a really big mistake in one of the comics I was reading, and I struggled mightily to understand how it could not be a mistake.)
When I was first getting into the business as a professional, I was aware, as were many of us, of a fringe group in fandom who seemed to take a very proprietorial stance in regards to the characters. They really seemed to think that plunking down their 25¢ (yes. . . ) entitled them to ownership -- and ownership not just of the comic they had just purchased, but of the characters, the concepts, the continuity. It was Taxpayer Mentality gone mad -- I really did have people telling me they "paid [my] salary" and so expected me to do what they wanted in the books.
Even setting aside Stan Lee's wise admontion that one should "never give the fans what they think they want", these were people I would not consider giving what they wanted even on a good day.
It is this same kind of thought process, I suspect -- this assumption of ownership -- that gives some people the notion that they are entitled to manipulate the work in their own minds. Not manipulate their own thinking, as I used to, but actually restructure panels, pages, stories, whole series, to fit what they think the books and characters should be.
I try to imagine this in other fields. I wonder if JK Rowling gets fanmail telling her she screwed up the latest Harry Potter novel, and the letter-writer is going to "fix" her mistake in his own mind. I wonder if even the most nutball STAR WARS fans write to George Lucas telling him they are going to "pretend" some or all of the most recent "chapter" was something other than what he presented.
It's always gratifying to know that one's work has connected with someone at a really visceral level. I have been brought close to tears more than once, for instance, by the heartfelt thanks I have received from Gay fans who have told me how important NorthStar was to their self-actualization. But I cannot imagine how I would react if I was approached by a fan who informed me that he did not think NorthStar should be Gay, and so was going to "pretend" he isn't.
There's a lot of pretending going on in these here comicbooks -- but it is the writers, the artists and the editors who are doing it. The people whose job it is to do it. Some fans maybe need to work a little harder at understanding that.
Let's face it -- it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to pay somebody to tell you a story, and then "pretend" the story was something other than what you were told!
[forgot to put my name in the top box!]
This message has been edited by johnbyrne on Mar 13, 2004 5:31 PM
That's right, and it's never something I've found myself doing. When I've read a comic - or, indeed, watched a movie - I'll either think "that was brilliant/gripping/surprising" or else I'll think it was a little disappointing. Not because I believe I could do better, however - just because it didn't connect with me on whatever level. To be honest, when I'm reading a comic (or watching a movie) I tend to switch off and immerse myself in it for however long. Sometimes the medium in question will be thought-provoking, but not to the extent that I'll be thinking "I could have done that better if...".
There have often been times when I've wished certain comics hadn't been published, however. In such cases, I'm not pretentious enough to declare that these comics "don't exist so far as I'm concerned". I simply don't buy/read them instead.
I try to imagine this in other fields. I wonder if JK Rowling gets fanmail telling her she screwed up the latest Harry Potter novel, and the letter-writer is going to "fix" her mistake in his own mind. I wonder if even the most nutball STAR WARS fans write to George Lucas telling him they are going to "pretend" some or all of the most recent "chapter" was something other than what he presented.
--------------------------------------------
Hmmmm..... ever hear about the "Phantom Edit?"
A Star Wars "fan" took Episode one and did his own cut of the film - as I understand it, he took Jar-Jar out completely and removed a few plot threads he didn't like. Of course, comparing JB to George "I'm not done with it yet..." Lucas is a bit ludicrous, but just thought I'd mention it.
Hm. I wonder something here - and stop me if you don't like my new sweater - (It's red!) - but if you didn't like the last few Star Wars, then... maybe you're not a fan anymore? I consider myself a fan, to whatever degree, (I don't go to Star Wars conventions, or dress like a yoder or whatever, you know) and I thought they were fine fun films.
I'm sure JB was just using that as an example, but I wonder if the general consensus has reached that point - that the last 2 SW films were so bad that even the fans hated them? But would they still be fans at that point?
Cases: Having loved the masterpiece "Ed Wood", and being one of the few who like "Mars Attacks", I called myself a Tim Burton fan for a number of years - then he made a few films that were, to me, awful, and finally, he crapped out Planet of the Apes, and I could no longer consider myself a fan. I didn't pretend it didn't happen. I just stopped caring about him. (Till I saw Big Fish!!)
Likewise, with Miller's (Horribly named!) DK2. I spent decades loving Frank Miller's work - both of his runs on DD are among the best the character has ever been! (Till JB does it!) And I enjoyed his Batman, too! And more! And DK2 was so odious to me, that I just stopped caring about him and his work, and will no longer be interested in it.
So, I don't bring these up to show all my tastes, but to say, why bother "pretending", you know? If you no longer like it, give it up, no? Or am I being too callous?
I hate to be the real rain on this parade, but aren't comics supposed to be something we out-grow, anyway? I mean, I like all of you, and you all handle your fan-ness perfectly, but the goons who are crying over on other boards? Shouldn't they move on to a new hobby now? If they're that unhappy? Why do they stick with it? Are these the same types that stay in abusive relationships? ((more to the point, does that mean that the women in their Maxim's and Comic Book Swimsuit issues sass them??))
After JB was s-canned from M*****, I lost all interest in the company - they're a bad company that does buisness in a poor manner, and whereas I spent probably hundreds of thousands of dollars and a quarter of a century buying their product, it no longer appeals to me. I don't find myself sitting up and night, rocking, crying, imagining myself in the "happy place" and so on - I just gave up Marvel comics.
Or is this just why I can't become addicted to drugs?
I don't expect any creator to do what I want. I may not buy what they do but they are in no way obligated to satisfy me. Let the market punish or reward the creators' decisions. However, unless its a creator owned or a creator conceived character (like Northstar), I expect the person doing the book to be professional, respect the character and not do something completely AGAINST what the character is about or its original creator intended.
No, no, wait - that's right, JB - but there's something I left out here -
Of course someone can be a fan of the original - in my examples, I forgot to add this important point - (forgive me - I was out late with the missus last night, and I'm only on my second cup of coffee this morning!) - in my examples, I still love ED WOOD, but I don't care what Burton does these days - likewise, Miller's Daredevil is still the perfect DD for me, but I will not buy anything new from Miller - does that make any more sense? I mean, OK - like the old stuff, but it's ok to walk away when the new stuff goes awry?
Mike O'Brien
Another clarifying point - I meant, like, you're not an active fan anymore. You can like the old stuff just fine, but don't watch the new stuff - you won't like it. It's why I don't buy M***** anymore.
[edited to add last point, and refill coffee cup...mutter/grumble...]
This message has been edited by MikeOBrien on Mar 13, 2004 6:46 PM
I largely agree with what you are saying here JB, but I can't shake the feeling it's just a tad limiting. It seems, like it or not, a certain collaboration with the reader is inevitable. Every reader has their own biases, experiences, and level of intelligence that always alters the story from the one the creator intended. That is unintentional editing. However, let's look at intentional editing. Let's take an average Star Trek fan such as myself. When I watch the episode Shore Leave and Kirk talks of his time in the Academy, I will momentarily imagine him there, having the piss taken out of him by Finnegan. I surely put in details that are not in the script, to give the story more richness, even if only in my own head. What I won't do of course, is tell a creator they are wrong if they later create a back-story that contradicts the one I imagined. I am also capable of ignoring something I don't like, especially if it is not essential to the story. Again, Star Trek has several out-of-character (from my perspective anyway) Spock lines from writers not familiar with the series. I just ignore them. It seems to me that a creator must accept that when his work goes out into the world, it leaves his hands, both figuratively and literally. In the end, the point of the story is to spark the imagination, and it is impossible to say "go this far and imagine no further."
The point I agree with you on is that it is a really stupid move to share with the creator your version of his story. If nothing else, it is rude, because it implies you could have done a better job. The sort of editing I'm describing is perfectly acceptable, but something best done in private.
Stephen
[edited for spelling and to strengthen a point]
This message has been edited by StephenBertrand on Mar 13, 2004 6:57 PM
Many sports fans criticize athletes as if they knew exactly how it should be done. Sadly, most of those same fans dont have the athletic talent to even get out a couch.
I'll add my usual mantra to sharpen the edge (I believe) to which JB is speaking.
I am one who fully believes in the "ignore the things you don't like" philosophy...in a way. We're dealing with a serial medium, really, and that means I can ignore uhm, certain less quality portions of whatever "history" I choose, even as they are being released!
If I don't like a certain creators work, I get to NOT buy it, and *GLEE*, never have that insufferable episode in my little memory! Or, retroactively, I can lop off story arcs I detest and not worry my little fanboy head about it.
The difference is, I don't "create" the serial, I react to the serial. I get to choose which episodes I will observe and "believe", while someone else does the creating. It has always been fascinating to me, to see many people say they could do a great job of writing X-Book, or creating great adventures for Y-Man, yet almost all of them are so fundamentally unqualified for such a task, myself included! I've tried, and its laborious, and a lot of work, and I still think its far below what the people who even moderately know what they're doing every month!
While I might be the first (as a personal fer instance) to not buy FF right now, I am not going to bellow from the cyber rooftops about how "wrong" it is! I'll just wait 'til its right again, and BING! The FF will start appearing in my home again!
I have it. I have also made my own version of (changing things I didn't agree with and using DD 5.1 instead of mono sound). Jar Jar HAS NOT BEEN totally removed. What has happened is that the editor made some excellent choices in streamlining the film, reducing and removing extraneous and redundant dialogue and some of the more silly elements.
The difference between this and what JB is saying, to me, is that re-rediting a commercial film using only the material provided can only reflect (well or poorly depending on execution) the original material. One can't change or redub dialogue, or remix the sound, or add inserts. With a comic, a reader who wants to pretend it didn't happen or happened more to their liking, simply has to box it away and imagine they read something different.
I made my own version of Attack of the Clones using the same mindset of clarifying and reducing redundancy.
I don't think I've ever pretended that a character I read is something other than its presented to me in a story (like pretending Spider-Man is still single). But I think everyone is guilty of ignoring stories that we don't like or that just was a travesty to the character.
I'll admit that the "Spider-Clone saga", "Tony Stark as a murderer, then teenager" and "Alicia was a Skrull" stories are not a part of my reading collection. I'm not saying that I pretend they never happened, but I just ignore them.
I'm not saying that I pretend they never happened, but I just ignore them.
***********
Therein lies the key difference. There's lots of stuff I ignore -- including some of my own work! -- but there is a difference between saying "Didn't care for this, so I think I'll skip it. . . " and attempting to reshape the universe in one's own mind so that it all "works" as one requires it to work.
It's all about understanding what this is: fiction.
"It seems, like it or not, a certain collaboration with the reader is inevitable.
*****
Look up the word "collaboration"."
=====
I think a big part of the problem is the fact that, thanks to the internet and conventions, many fans feel like they are somehow a part of the process. They've met their creators and spoken with them about a plot or a technique, and then start to believe that they are on the inside.
Many just don't want to accept that they are just consumers, and that posting to a message board doesn't make them best buds with their favorite creator.
JB
You did read ALL the post did't you? The word collaberation came with a charming little item called a modifier pronoun. In this case the word "certain". When used as a pronoun Mister Webster defines it as An indefinite but limited number; some. My intention being that the collaberation was not total or complete, indeed it is "indefinite and limited." To quote an ol' cherished zinger "...but you knew that."
"Many just don't want to accept that they are just consumers, and that posting to a message board doesn't make them best buds with their favorite creator."
That's NOT true! Me and JB are just the BESTEST of friends, right JB?
col·lab·o·rate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lb-rt)
intr.v. col·lab·o·rat·ed, col·lab·o·rat·ing, col·lab·o·rates
To work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort.
To cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force in one's country.
Personally, I thought it was quite funny when Grant Morrison encouraged those who did not like his take on the X-Men to get their wite-out and re-write the dialogue so it fit in with their idea of what the X-Men should think and say. He even went so far as to say something like You're re-sale won't be much but at least you'll be comfortable with it. I'm always of the mind that if you don't like the way something is done, don't read/buy/listen to/watch it. Problem solved.
There's a lot of pretending going on in these here comicbooks -- but it is the writers, the artists and the editors who are doing it. The people whose job it is to do it. Some fans maybe need to work a little harder at understanding that.
**********************
Some writers and editors seem to make a LOT of
bad decisions that cause readers to that a that stance.
The Spidey-Clone, Death of Superman, Batman's Replacement (forget his name)-- some might say those
are stories worth fogetting. Unfortunately these stories make
it easy for readers to "re-imagine" or "pretend" with other
stories that may not warrant these drastic actions.
My stance- if i don't like the stories, i don't pick up the books.
i fondly remember the periods in which i DID like the
character(s) book.
The word collaberation came with a charming little item called a modifier pronoun. In this case the word "certain". When used as a pronoun Mister Webster defines it as An indefinite but limited number; some. My intention being that the collaberation was not total or complete, indeed it is "indefinite and limited." To quote an ol' cherished zinger "...but you knew that."
********
What I knew , Stephen, was that you were mangling the English language. Had anyone asked, I could probably also have predicted you would try to backpeddle out of it, as here.
"Collaboration" occurs only when 2 or more people have creative input on the same work. Buying a ha,burger does not make you a "collaborator" with the farmer who raised the cow, or the butcher who chopped up the meat. It makes you a consumer, which is what the readers of comic books are.
"Consumer" is not a dirty word. We would none of us be here without them. Trying to pretend that role occupies a greater or different part in the scheme of things than it actually does is a waste of time.
When I buy a car, I am not "collaborating" with the engineers in Detroit. When I watch a TV show I am not "collaborating" with the writers, producers, actors, or anyone else involved.
Some writers and editors seem to make a LOT of
bad decisions that cause readers to that a that stance.
The Spidey-Clone, Death of Superman, Batman's Replacement (forget his name)-- some might say those
are stories worth fogetting. Unfortunately these stories make
it easy for readers to "re-imagine" or "pretend" with other
stories that may not warrant these drastic actions.
********
Wise to remember that some of the tales you mention above happened because of a kind of "collaboration" with the readers. The editors got wind of a (sight unseen) negative reaction from the Fans, and so modified their original intent and storyline. Result, stories the fans hated -- probably more than they would have hated the stories that would have been produced by the editors having the courage of their own convictions!
I'm not trying to imply that the way that you look at your relationship to your readers is wrong JB, it's just barren. I've never come across an artist who demands that his audience be a passive consumer, especially one who's genious lies in getting his audience emotionally involved. Your job, as an artist anyway, is akin to that of an illusionist. And as an illusionist, you rely on your audience to "go along", to do a bit of mental creating of thier own. That is not passive consumption.
Also, hamburgers and cars are not art. That argument is just silly.
PS. I don't imagine their are too many web comic boards where people discuss the realitionship between the artist and his audience!
The audience does not collaborate with the filmmaker when watching a film. They participate in the experience but they have no involvement in the act of creation.
Fans respect purity of vision even when they disagree with that particular vision. It is better to stay true to the vision than to hedge your bets and try to wimp out, because no one respects a wimp. This is why I have zero respect for M***** books these days, because the vision they present is skewed towards the Hollywood "what will sell the most, who do I pander to" idea.
My example: I generally do not like Grant Morrison's work. I don't like the stories he tells, I don't like where he goes with them. I don't think he is the genius his fans believe him to be, but I respect his work as part of a vision that he stays true to.
It takes courage to stay true to the vision when it looks like it isn't going to be "popular" with the fans. They may vote with their wallets and not buy the book. But by having the courage to stay true to your vision, you honor those who chose to follow along with you and you don't cheat them at the payoff.
Second Example: The acknowledged worst Bond Film made that is still a part of the Bond canon is On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It is a bad film with a bad plot. But, despite that, there are more references in future Bond films to this film than any other. The family motto "The World is Not Enough." The death of the Contessa that drove every subsequent Blowfeld scene and gave us the gravesite scenes when Tim Dalton and Pierce Brosnan both took over the character. Bad film, but true to the vision and it paid off in spades in future works.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Nebeker - Super Genuis Good Judgement comes from Experience
And Experience comes from... Bad Judgement
...bringing yer imagination to the table is not a "collaboration" in any sense of the word. DO you collaborate with the guy who builds houses because you live in it? Well, if you say, "Hey, I want my kitchen on the second floor." then maybe you do. Otherwise...
How much interpretation does a house require of the person living in it for it to be successful?
How much does a painting require, or a movie?
Please, don't get hung up on the word collaboration. I guess the metaphor was too much a stretch. My point, from the original post onward, was that consumers of art have a more active relationship with the producer than the passive consumers of other products, in this case houses.
....Steve Ditko (and I!) would disagree with you.
I see the metaphor you are making, but there is ZERO "collaboration" going on between John Byrne and myself.
"Artistic communication"? Yes. Thats closer to what you meant, I believe. Thats what I bring to the relationship, that JB has to build his images/words/ideas/morals around. He has to understand what people are going to interpret, misunderstand, extract, ignore, and extrapolate from what HE brings. S'kinda like poker, actually.
Your post puts me in mind of something that Nick Meyer, of Star Trek II and VI fame, said about movie making. You may recall that in Star Trek II, Kahn never removes his right glove. Meyer reported that fans frequently ask him why Kahn never takes off that right glove. Executives bugged him to put in a reason for the glove, but he refused to do it. His reasoning was that movies are a very literal art form when done poorly in that they spell out everything for the viewer; movement, images, music, sound, color. It's all there. The glove was an effort to get the viewers to become active participants in the unfolding of the story, to wonder beyond what is on the screen. In radio plays, listeners imagine the pictures. In painting, viewers imagine sound or movement. Unlike the clods that JB talked about in his original post, I am not saying that my interpretation or experience is the right one or the objectively true one. It certainly isn't. But art is like a Rorschach test. How one perceives the art is part of the causation of that individual’s unique experience with the art.
It appears to me that Mr. Bertrand is echoing Northrop Frye's famous simile that a work of literature is like a picnic, to which the author brings the words and the reader the meaning. By Frye's definition, there does indeed have to be a collaboration of sorts between writer and reader before a successful narrative can occur.
In its most basic form, this theory asserts that any writer of fiction (and particularly genre fiction) depends upon the reader, first to accept the story as told, and second to fill in those details that the writer does not have time to provide. If the reader fails in either respect, the narrative fails as well.
Extrapolating Frye's premise further, we might conclude that the reader who chooses to "rewrite" an author's portion of the narrative has failed to collaborate with him. Alternatively, you can take Umberto Eco's position, and conclude that Frye was a chump.
It appears to me that Mr. Bertrand is echoing Northrop Frye's famous simile that a work of literature is like a picnic, to which the author brings the words and the reader the meaning. By Frye's definition, there does indeed have to be a collaboration of sorts between writer and reader before a successful narrative can occur.
**********
That is not a collaboration by any reasonable definition of the work. Once again, the take the metaphor to other endeavors, Saturday night I had a party here at Stately Byrne Manor. I had it catered, as usual, and the food was terrific. Everyone congratulated me on how good it was, to which, each time, I responded with "Thanks! I was cooking all day!"
Of course, I had not even been in the kitchen since the caterers arrived and began their work. They did what they do (very well) and I, like my guests, merely enjoyed it. No "collaboration", strictly provider and consumer.
Comic fans (many of them) seem to have a nearly unique need to consider themselves part of the creative process. As the audience has shrunk in recent years, it seems the percentage of people who consider themselves somehow "part of the process" has grown proportionately. More and more we encounter a brand of negativity that does not stop at a simple "I did not like this", but takes that next step into "this was WRONG" territory. This is when the "collaborative process" thinking seems to begin. (To return to my party, one of the dishes that gets most requested by my guests is a coconut shrimp appetizer. Everyone loves this one, but I don't like shrimp, so I order it only for the pleasure of my guests. When people notice I am not eating it, I simply say "I don't like shrimp", not "it was prepared incorrectly".)
There are tens of thousands of fans buying comic books. Their comments are always interesting, even welcome, but in the end it is the writers and artists and editors and publishers who decide how much attention will be paid to those comments. What we get from the readers is not collaboration, it's feedback.
I have to disagree about Her Majesty's Secret Service. Not the worst Bond film by any means. It would have been interesting to see how it would have done, with Connery in the role.
Like I said earlier, all I ask is creators are true to the character and don't go out of their way to do something so damaging to a character they don't own, that it makes it difficult for future writers. Like Barbara being crippled or Hal being nuts.
I'm guessing here, but I bet that those decisions had to be approved by DC. Probably more than just one editor had to stamp it, and it was definitely not just the writer deciding on his own.
Like I said earlier, all I ask is creators are true to the character. . .
**********
You'll find that there are as many "versions" of the characters as there are writers, artists and editors to do the work. Going back to Waid's "Can we have the real Superman back?" snarky remark. Whatever he, or anyone else in the audience, might have thought, "my" Superman was the "real" Superman as far as DC was concerned (Altho even that statement is not wholly correct, since many changes had been introduced since I left the character). Waid prefers the Weisinger Era Superman, which itself was very different from the previous incarnations, and almost totally different from the character Seigel and Shuster created.
Being "true to the character", to me, means writing Captain America in THE AVENGERS as he is written in CAPTAIN AMERICA. But if a writer or editor (or combination) is called upon to reboot Captain America, then being "true to the character" becomes something else entirely.
Agreed, but making Cap out to be a rapist or Superman to be a vengeful killer is not true to the character, no matter what. I'm not saying it has to be the same, but how about not changed to the point it would be offensive to the original creators?
Personally, I think there are too many year one stories being done nowadays which is casuing too many problems. Like you said previously, Joker didn't need an origin to be cool and neithe did Batman (more than a few pages). We should just move forward and tell good new stories.
I didn't much care for the coconut shrimp I had at JB's. But the lasagna was great. oh, you didn't serve lasagna? well, the fish was great! I was there, & nobody here can tell me otherwise!!!!
Call me crazy..(response here)...but I have always read comics as a piece of art. Just as artists render characters in their style, I would imagine writers are given license to do so as well. Just because I like John Byrne's artistic vision of Batman better than someone like Norm Breyfogle, I can't just say "I'll pretend he never drew Batman". Nope, different styles, not "right and wrong". I figure my job is to read and either I enjoy it or I don't. Why should I pretend something didn't happen just because I may not have liked what direction the creator took? Isn't that just a bit too presumptuous that I would know better? I just like it or I don't. Simple. No complaining. Hey complaining comic reader...don't like it? Don't buy it. Maybe there will be a "HEROES REBORN IN A SECRET CRISIS" storyline that erases what you didn't feel was up to your standards!
Personally, if a reader's pretending, "Event XYZ didn't happen; event ABC is what really happened," is what enables a reader to keep buying a certain book, then I think that book's creators ought to thank the reader for going to such lengths to remain loyal to the book as opposed to just dropping the book and spending his/her money elsewhere.
Come to think of it, haven't I recently heard about a well-known comic book creator who's currently pretending that several decades' worth of this one particular supergroup's adventures didn't happen so that he can tell his version of this supergroup's story?
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else."- Teddy Roosevelt
A man goes into McDonalds and gets a big mac. "Hmm, I love this steak he says".
Case #2
McDonalds finds Big Macs ain't selling, so they change the recipe but keep the name. A man refuses to enjoy it because "Its not the 'historical' big mac, even though objectively the quality of the ingredients are equivalent or even superior".
..Seems to me both men are a bit mad. If you have to pretend thing X is thing Y to enjoy it, why not just go get something nearer to Y. [And yes I know people need "food" and might pretend cheaper food is better than it is, that's where the analogy fails, people don't need to buy a specific comic book. If you have to have "rich in-continuity history" as an ingredient lots of comics still have it, and more PRETEND TO while using I*can't*believe*its*not*continuity(tm).
If a shop decides to sell Z, its no use moaning it isn't Q, if you - and lots of other people - didn't buy the Q when it was sitting there.
I liked 90% of Morrison's Doom Patrol (except the mad Chief ending that scuppered any development through the sub-par follow ups, and undermined the characterisation of his earlier issues(1)), but clearly its follow-up "in continuity" versions did not sell. NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE WERE BUYING IT.
(1) Would a non-paralysed Chief "really" have fought "the beard-hunter" by crawling across the floor of a supermarket and rigging a trap from supermarket supplies? [And I'm not criticising the story itself which was very funny, and showed the Chief to be an intelligent and resourceful man, just that it does not fit with later revelations(2)]
(2) Indeed just after that would be a good place to move the Doom Patrol's stories to "imaginary" - if that sort of reboot had been done(3). While recovering in hospital the Chief could have been tormented by nightmares in which he appeared to take the blame for the DP's fates, created by the evil Candlemaker, using Dorothy Spinner's power. All up to the end of the recent series could have been part of that.
(3) And note I'm not saying that would be better than a "new" version, I'm looking forward to the "new,original DP immensely". NOT having to wrestle a mad murderous Chief, 'headily' subsumed into the caballistic afterlife, back to benevolent overlord ship of the team, is the bonus a "new, original" approach brings. So is the chance to see Rita in new current stories. So is the non-exploded Brain & Monsieur Malliah (possibly!)
Come to think of it, haven't I recently heard about a well-known comic book creator who's currently pretending that several decades' worth of this one particular supergroup's adventures didn't happen so that he can tell his version of this supergroup's story?
*********
From my first post in this thread:
"There's a lot of pretending going on in these here comicbooks -- but it is the writers, the artists and the editors who are doing it. The people whose job it is to do it. Some fans maybe need to work a little harder at understanding that."
I'd like to end my participation in this thread on a positive note. I've heard "around" that one of JB's problems is that he won't brook any disagreement on this board. I say, let them read this thread. I still disagree with what our host (or guest of honor) has to say, yet I NEVER felt the threat of the iron fist. The moral of the story is, if one keeps it basically civil, adults can handle hearing an alternative viewpoint, however loopy they may think it is.
Thanks to our hosts for giving us this place and keeping it pleasant.
