-
[QUOTE=Bored at 3:00AM;4018580]Or he's simply recontextualizing it. Given that Morrison is moving the Guardians away from the out-of-touch old bastard shtick they've been stuck with for the past few decades and back to the unknowable ancient cosmic beings that they originally were, there's likely going to be so much stuff going on with the Oans, whose lifetimes and knowledge span billions of years, that the mortal members of the GLCorps simply weren't aware of until know because they didn't need to know, or was being kept secret.
If you'd like to look at it as Morrison imposing his own view upon things, sure. When dealing with any property that spans decades and hundreds upon hundreds of often contradictory comics, that's the job of a good creator. That's what Geoff Johns did and look at how successful that was for the GL franchise.[/QUOTE]
I think he's re-contextualizing the idea. My question is why WOULDN'T I want Morrison to put his own view on the GL universe? If he's not doing that I don't see the point. If they just wanted more of the same they could have Venditti or Jurgens or any other company man on the title. I don't want to read a Morrison who is constrained very tightly by decades of conflicting and mostly forgotten ideas, I want him to have free reign to do what he wants and break molds and challenge perceptions.
I'm reading the book (I forget the title) where Frank Miller interviews Will Eisner over a period of several days. In one of their discussions Frank says (paraphrasing) "Why would I make a brilliant writer overly beholden to a story a lesser writer cranked out in a day in 1942"? That's pretty harsh and I don't totally agree (Amazing Fantasy #15 cranked out to fill pages of a cancelled title) but I do understand where he's coming from.
I hope Morrison has free reign. Change, erase, add, challenge, kill, resurrect, whatever. I don't think creators work better when they are tightly constrained, I think they work best when they have more freedom.
-
The problem is for some of these ideas is that they are really at the very core of the franchise especially the question over the exact nature of the Guardians (imo). And the arguments of whether the Guardians are benevolent or lawful order extremists are ideas that preceded even Geoff Johns. Morrison could easily ignore these things, but then the next guy who takes over will just pick up where he left off and continue running with the old ideas of the Guardians being morally questionable. Grant Morrison kind has to present a new take on the Guardians or you are just going to get backsliding to them being evil since that plot is so simple and tempting for most writers.
-
[QUOTE=Daniel22;4020057]
I hope Morrison has free reign. Change, erase, add, challenge, kill, resurrect, whatever. I don't think creators work better when they are tightly constrained, I think they work best when they have more freedom.[/QUOTE]
This might be neither here nor there, but this reminds me of Moore on "Watchmen" and how DC felt his story would have made the Charlton heroes unusable in the future, so he was asked to make them new characters. Who knows how that would have turned out if he hadn't? I agree that creators like Morrison should be given a lot of room, but having some constraints is just part of the conventions of this shared universe.
And I would love for Morrison to rehabilitate the Guardians for future writers, essentially giving them a template for how to write then in this vein.
-
[QUOTE=j9ac9k;4020836]This might be neither here nor there, but this reminds me of Moore on "Watchmen" and how DC felt his story would have made the Charlton heroes unusable in the future, so he was asked to make them new characters. Who knows how that would have turned out if he hadn't? I agree that creators like Morrison should be given a lot of room, but having some constraints is just part of the conventions of this shared universe.
And I would love for Morrison to rehabilitate the Guardians for future writers, essentially giving them a template for how to write then in this vein.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I see where you're coming from. It can work both ways for sure. There's definitely been times where I've thought "Maaaaaybe a second set of eyes on this might have helped". And it's true that they are using toys that they have to eventually share with others. I believe that special people get special treatment though, so I'm more willing to let someone like Morrison (who I consider special) run wild than I am someone who I don't hold in as high esteem.
I would be fine with the Guardians going on the shelf for a good long while. As Bruce Wayne pointed out, this idea of "Guardians:Good or Nah"? seems to be something most writers can't pass up. If they're off the table for a while maybe that aspect can get a rest.
-
[QUOTE=Daniel22;4021223]
I would be fine with the Guardians going on the shelf for a good long while. As Bruce Wayne pointed out, this idea of "Guardians:Good or Nah"? seems to be something most writers can't pass up. If they're off the table for a while maybe that aspect can get a rest.[/QUOTE]
Well, the Guardians as the Guardians (or at least as people recognize them) have kind of been on the shelf for a a few years since Johns ended his run.
-
[QUOTE=Daniel22;4021223]Yeah I see where you're coming from. It can work both ways for sure. There's definitely been times where I've thought "Maaaaaybe a second set of eyes on this might have helped". And it's true that they are using toys that they have to eventually share with others. I believe that special people get special treatment though, so I'm more willing to let someone like Morrison (who I consider special) run wild than I am someone who I don't hold in as high esteem.
I would be fine with the Guardians going on the shelf for a good long while. As Bruce Wayne pointed out, this idea of "Guardians:Good or Nah"? seems to be something most writers can't pass up. If they're off the table for a while maybe that aspect can get a rest.[/QUOTE]
One of the reasons I think Morrison is so special is that he can both (a) run wild and (b) leave the "property" more or less intact by the end. JLA was kind of nuts (ancient gods, a death machine, angels, multiple time travel tales) and it was easy for Mark Waid to step in and do his thing. Batman the same (during his run, the property was topsy turvy and made the ancillary titles a little weird). Maybe you can argue he changed the property a bit for New X-Men (breaking up Scott and Jean, destroying Genosha, etc.), but those changes were all more or less in line with the soap opera of X-Men comics. Even Final Crisis didn't cause great upheaval despite massive deicide.
Morrison left enough pieces laying around that those that wanted to could pick them up and take them in new directions. Metal has heavy RoBW/Final Crisis influences. Tomasi revived Damian Wayne. Grayson picked up on some threads regarding Spyral. If Morrison's take on the Guardians clicks, it'll be easy for the next writer to come along and work with it.
-
Yep, the portrayal of the Guardians as scheming masters has worn thin. Let's see what Grant does with them. Although I think his next arc will be about the Controllers.
-
[QUOTE=Frontier;4022021]Well, the Guardians as the Guardians (or at least as people recognize them) have kind of been on the shelf for a a few years since Johns ended his run.[/QUOTE]
I guess you're right... I guess I just feel like they are always around in some way, even if it is just a wayward Guardian in Green Lanterns for example, and I'd rather them make very occasional appearances. Maybe my impression isn't matching the reality of their actual appearances because I'm so over them.
-
[QUOTE=bob/.schoonover;4022139]One of the reasons I think Morrison is so special is that he can both (a) run wild and (b) leave the "property" more or less intact by the end. JLA was kind of nuts (ancient gods, a death machine, angels, multiple time travel tales) and it was easy for Mark Waid to step in and do his thing. Batman the same (during his run, the property was topsy turvy and made the ancillary titles a little weird). Maybe you can argue he changed the property a bit for New X-Men (breaking up Scott and Jean, destroying Genosha, etc.), but those changes were all more or less in line with the soap opera of X-Men comics. Even Final Crisis didn't cause great upheaval despite massive deicide.
Morrison left enough pieces laying around that those that wanted to could pick them up and take them in new directions. Metal has heavy RoBW/Final Crisis influences. Tomasi revived Damian Wayne. Grayson picked up on some threads regarding Spyral. If Morrison's take on the Guardians clicks, it'll be easy for the next writer to come along and work with it.[/QUOTE]
That's a great point. I hadn't really factored that into my post but I totally agree. He does the "change everything forever (while I'm here)" bit better than almost anyone. I mean Batman died, got a kid, lost a kid, was lost in time, did a thousand other "changing" things but was in as good or better shape as when Grant took over. He follows the camping rule very well.
-
[QUOTE=Daniel22;4032202]I guess you're right... I guess I just feel like they are always around in some way, even if it is just a wayward Guardian in Green Lanterns for example, and I'd rather them make very occasional appearances. Maybe my impression isn't matching the reality of their actual appearances because I'm so over them.[/QUOTE]
We had the Templar Guardians around but the story made it clear they weren't going to function or act like the old Guardians...well, until now when they needed to :p.
-
[QUOTE=Daniel22;4021223]Yeah I see where you're coming from. It can work both ways for sure. There's definitely been times where I've thought "Maaaaaybe a second set of eyes on this might have helped". And it's true that they are using toys that they have to eventually share with others. I believe that special people get special treatment though, so I'm more willing to let someone like Morrison (who I consider special) run wild than I am someone who I don't hold in as high esteem.
I would be fine with the Guardians going on the shelf for a good long while. As Bruce Wayne pointed out, this idea of "Guardians:Good or Nah"? seems to be something most writers can't pass up. If they're off the table for a while maybe that aspect can get a rest.[/QUOTE]You know, I have no objections to writers creating any story their hearts desire. But I don't think it's too much to ask that they don't ignore continuity outright just because they feel like it. That they work with what's been established, and if they think it should be a different way, then come up with some reason that explains the difference. We thoroughly expect characters to be written according to established character. Why don't we care about established continuity?
By all means make something up. Just be consistent about it. Not even bothering with a retcon like Bendis has done? That's just lazy writing.
After that, I worried Morrison might be doing that too. [I][B]Very[/B][/I] glad that's not the case. Sweet lord, let it not be a trend!
-
[QUOTE=Frontier;4032694]We had the Templar Guardians around but the story made it clear they weren't going to function or act like the old Guardians...well, until now when they needed to :p.[/QUOTE]
I really liked Green Lanterns (mainly for Jessica, I think Simon has so much potential but it hasn't really been tapped yet) up until Jurgens took over and I dropped it. Hal Jordan and Co bored me to tears and I skim read a lot of the later stuff. I might be mixing the two up or be doing a bad job of remembering the stuff I wasn't engaged with...
-
[QUOTE=thetrellan;4034103]You know, I have no objections to writers creating any story their hearts desire. But I don't think it's too much to ask that they don't ignore continuity outright just because they feel like it. That they work with what's been established, and if they think it should be a different way, then come up with some reason that explains the difference. We thoroughly expect characters to be written according to established character. Why don't we care about established continuity?
By all means make something up. Just be consistent about it. Not even bothering with a retcon like Bendis has done? That's just lazy writing.
After that, I worried Morrison might be doing that too. [I][B]Very[/B][/I] glad that's not the case. Sweet lord, let it not be a trend![/QUOTE]
That's fair. We all have different standards for how closely we want our continuity. I'm on the looser end and think the continuity exists to serve the story, not the other way around. In an ideal world we'd get fresh, exciting and different ideas that complement continuity. I'm always going to take a better story, even if that means continuity getting a short shrift, within certain bounds.
I also remember that everything was once "not in continuity". Things are contradictory at first, but then they evolve, get accepted and become the new norm and a lot of times I like the new version way better than the old version. I guess I'm more interested in "Is it more engaging" than "Does it fit neatly". I get that you want engaging stories too, of course, I'm just more willing to look the other way on continuity issues than you are, it seems.
I'm also totally ok with filling in the blanks myself. If I really want to make a good story fit with continuity, I'm ok with doing a little squinting and mental gymnastics of my own. I'm also not at all interested in much explanation of "See what REALLY happened was..." as ways to make stories fit the past. I'm always going to care way more about my head canon anyway.
-
[QUOTE=Daniel22;4034379]That's fair. We all have different standards for how closely we want our continuity. I'm on the looser end and think the continuity exists to serve the story, not the other way around. In an ideal world we'd get fresh, exciting and different ideas that complement continuity. I'm always going to take a better story, even if that means continuity getting a short shrift, within certain bounds.
I also remember that everything was once "not in continuity". Things are contradictory at first, but then they evolve, get accepted and become the new norm and a lot of times I like the new version way better than the old version. I guess I'm more interested in "Is it more engaging" than "Does it fit neatly". I get that you want engaging stories too, of course, I'm just more willing to look the other way on continuity issues than you are, it seems.
I'm also totally ok with filling in the blanks myself. If I really want to make a good story fit with continuity, I'm ok with doing a little squinting and mental gymnastics of my own. I'm also not at all interested in much explanation of "See what REALLY happened was..." as ways to make stories fit the past. I'm always going to care way more about my head canon anyway.[/QUOTE]
I used to be much more strict in how I approached continuity, but now I don't care because I understand how much of an impediment it can be to telling a good story. I respect writers like Morrison and Johns who can weave old disparate strands of continuity into gold, but I also think creators should waste less pages trying to explain away bad stories and creative decisions and just ignore them.
With long-running continuities like DC and Marvel, I think it's ridiculous to expect the thousands of contradictory comics published over the past eight decades to fit together into one perfect tapestry. It's going to be a mess, a beautiful mess, but a mess none the less. The important stories always rise to the top and the garbage gets forgotten. There's no upside to trying to roll around in that garbage for extended periods of time unless a good story is going to come from it. Most of the time, these attempts to salvage or explain away terrible stories aren't worth the effort.
Because of the regularly occurring retcons, reboots and continuity reshuffles that the DCU has undergone since 1945, creators have the unique opportunity to simply ignore bad stories and ideas. Doctor Manhattan stole a decade of history. Superboy-Prime punched the Source Wall. Parallax sneezed. The Anti-Monitor had diarrhea. A wizard did it.
The reason doesn't matter as much as the quality of the story being told.
-
[QUOTE=Bored at 3:00AM;4034758]I used to be much more strict in how I approached continuity, but now I don't care because I understand how much of an impediment it can be to telling a good story. I respect writers like Morrison and Johns who can weave old disparate strands of continuity into gold, but I also think creators should waste less pages trying to explain away bad stories and creative decisions and just ignore them.
With long-running continuities like DC and Marvel, I think it's ridiculous to expect the thousands of contradictory comics published over the past eight decades to fit together into one perfect tapestry. It's going to be a mess, a beautiful mess, but a mess none the less. The important stories always rise to the top and the garbage gets forgotten. There's no upside to trying to roll around in that garbage for extended periods of time unless a good story is going to come from it. Most of the time, these attempts to salvage or explain away terrible stories aren't worth the effort.
Because of the regularly occurring retcons, reboots and continuity reshuffles that the DCU has undergone since 1945, creators have the unique opportunity to simply ignore bad stories and ideas. Doctor Manhattan stole a decade of history. Superboy-Prime punched the Source Wall. Parallax sneezed. The Anti-Monitor had diarrhea. A wizard did it.
The reason doesn't matter as much as the quality of the story being told.[/QUOTE]
Agreed on all fronts. I think some fans are also yearning for a return to the past where continuity was "tighter", but I'm not so sure they are remembering correctly. Things have NEVER fit together perfectly and it only gets harder to keep it together as time passes. Even if we go back to whatever time period is held as having great continuity, my question is "Did it really, though"?
Neal Adams has a beloved run on Batman. That run jarringly and completely shifted tone from the previous status quo. We went from camp to horror/gothic. It was a complete tonal shift. Many things from the previous decade were totally ignored in favor of a new status quo and direction. (I get that tone, status quo and continuity are all different things, but for the sake of argument and brevity I'm not separating them totally here).Would we have been better served if "The Secret of the Waiting Graves" included a callback to giant typewriters and Ace, just to tie in better with continuity? That's an absurd example but my point is that's a case where paying little attention to old continuity and focusing on creating good, new stories absolutely paid off.
