Comments on: Morrison, Mamet, and storytelling in superhero comics.

By: Daily P.O.P.

Daily P.O.P. — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:52:43 +0000

The choice of examples is very uneven here, I have to note. Loeb is, after all, writing Hulk as a tongue-in-cheek comic on purpose. You could similarly attack the Marx Brothers for the incessant inclusion of musical numbers. It’s vaudeville, that’s what they do.

I agree that Morrison can be one of the best writers in the business but his best works are behind him currently. I also think that the attacks on those who don’t like Final Crisis as being somehow inferior creatures is a but brash, don’t you think? I’m also troubled by the need to feel superior to other comic book fans as being obsessive subhumans lacking reading comprehension.

Surely there’s a better way to get your point across.

By: Kevin Church

Kevin Church — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:24:39 +0000

PS. not to be a dork, but are the â€œdialogue circlesâ€ in #1 the same thing as word balloons?

Nah, I was referring to the way that Loeb’s dialogue circles around and around for the sake of noodling, like a bad trumpet solo from the guy that plays the jazz brunch at your grandmother’s favorite post-church destination.

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:02:14 +0000

Kevin – good points throughout.
As for #6: There’s “hard to follow” and there’s bad storytelling.
Although Morrison can be challenging at times, I think that’s as much a problem with the penciler not having the chops necessary to tell the story Morrison is writing.
Personally, I can’t think of many artists who can pick up on what Morrison is doing or where he’s going with the story other than Quitely — unless his scripts for Quitely have been better written than those for artists like Howard Porter or Val Semieks.
PS. not to be a dork, but are the “dialogue circles” in #1 the same thing as word balloons?

MGK – did you move? I get “http://capella.hostpapa.com/suspended.page/” when I go to mightygodking.com and ”
Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.” appears on the page instead of the Rex header.

By: Dorian

Dorian — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:43:23 +0000

At this point, guys, it’s just haters be hatin’. You’d get further trying to explain quantum mechanics to a dog.

By: Kevin Church

Kevin Church — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:03:44 +0000

It didnâ€™t really strike me as cheap stock characters, but extremely badly written cheap stock characters youâ€™d see in some Michael Bay WWII movie that had two minutes of screen time, but were pounded on the note theyâ€™re very significant and emblematic of all the tragedies we donâ€™t have time to see.

To the majority of readers of the book that’s not the case, though. These are established characters who have had a long-running romance in the DC Universe at large. I don’t even think the nigh-mythical “new reader” who picks up Final Crisis cold could miss the significance of two members of the JLA who sleep together being forced to part under less-than-ideal conditions.

By: Zack

Zack — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:52:52 +0000

But, Benjamin, surely that isn’t enough to pull the strings of the unfamiliar reader’s heart, right? Or to even give them the feeling that the attention given to those two is justified (sure, that can perhaps be better filled in the future, but so far…).

It’s all rather thin and quite blunt, no? “Man says to wife: ‘Ah goddamn militaristic authoritarian bullshit!’”. “There, all they need to know in order for those future scenes to be very emotional”?

It didn’t really strike me as cheap stock characters, but extremely badly written cheap stock characters you’d see in some Michael Bay WWII movie that had two minutes of screen time, but were pounded on the note they’re very significant and emblematic of all the tragedies we don’t have time to see.

It seems strange for that to be your point.

By: Boredyesterday

Boredyesterday — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:29:03 +0000

I prefer a comic that feels like a circus, not a ballet. Matter of taste.

By: Benjamin Birdie

Benjamin Birdie — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:08:46 +0000

But why is that? I only knew he was a angry sort of left-leaning bloke (even if his line in #3 was a nice nod to the current state of superhero fiction), and she apparently was pretty much his boss â€” apparently through her delightful lingerie we saw last issue.

Well, right there. My point is made. Again. It’s all in the text. They were in bed together in #3. Undoubtedly to lay the newb groundwork for the scene in #4. End of story.

By: Kevin Church

Kevin Church — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:07:32 +0000

I didn't blame editorial at all, but I figured your snarky comment deserved a snarky response. Furthermore, I didn't address specific plot points, instead choosing to discuss Morrison's methods and storytelling technique, which I find more compelling and interesting than anyone else at DC. Barry Allen's return has been handled well enough, and as I said in my last paragraph: Even when he makes storytelling choices I disagree with, itâ€™s plain thereâ€™s thought behind them. Any major "event comic" is going to have an editorial hand in it. Morrison tends to work with editors versus fighting with them, giving them what they want done his way. Also, I'll point out that it's Geoff Johns and Ethan Van Sciver that are doing The Flash: Rebirth, not Grant Morrison and Cameron Stewart.

By: Brian Disco Snell

Brian Disco Snell — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:00:19 +0000

So the things you approve of in FC are all Morrison, and the things that don’t fit your thesis are someone else’s fault?

Not that Geoff Johns isn’t well-nigh-unto-omnipotent at DC these days. But once the “blame editorial” meme is used to justify one of THE major plot points of the series, well, haven’t you reduced the “bravura” of Morrison to “hired hand telling somebody else’s story points?” Because after all, who’s to say that much of what you’re enjoying in FC didn’t also come from Geoff Johns and editorial?