Rarely, almost never, and never: The plot techniques that are better off avoided

[Username taken]

The greek also had their group of virgin goddess too. Remember that. (But I confess I have certaind doubts about what "virginity" meant to greeks.)



Anyway, the question with Hercules being every moment closer to his mythical version is not only his love life, but also we should face the questionable actions than also are described in mythology. And that is going to be complicated.

That's the thing, some of the stuff around mythological Hercules is problematic to say the least.

[Sutekh]

There's some neat stuff in the original post I agree with, regarding elements to be careful with, like aging up child characters (definitely one of my pet peeves!), but the thread, IMO, has gotten bogged down in this sexuality stuff.

I've met like, two gay people *that I knew to be gay when I met them,* the other gay people I've met were 'just people' until they either came out, or I found out, sometimes *years later* were gay (and they didn't stop being 'just people' after I knew they were gay, just to be clear). That didn't 'ruin them' or 'break continuity.' That's just f***ing life with humans. Sometimes you don't know everything going on with everyone. Sometimes *they* don't know everything about themselves. Sometimes people grow and change, and not just their costumes or their hairstyles.

If you want a character that never changes, comics are not a great fit, especially those with characters that will be written over many decades by a dozen very different writers. Try still pictures. They never change. Nothing ever happens to the characters in those Norman Rockwell portraits. No one can 'ruin' them by making them act like human beings with all our messy inconsistencies.

[Anthony W]

There's some neat stuff in the original post I agree with, regarding elements to be careful with, like aging up child characters (definitely one of my pet peeves!), but the thread, IMO, has gotten bogged down in this sexuality stuff.

I've met like, two gay people *that I knew to be gay when I met them,* the other gay people I've met were 'just people' until they either came out, or I found out, sometimes *years later* were gay (and they didn't stop being 'just people' after I knew they were gay, just to be clear). That didn't 'ruin them' or 'break continuity.' That's just f***ing life with humans. Sometimes you don't know everything going on with everyone. Sometimes *they* don't know everything about themselves. Sometimes people grow and change, and not just their costumes or their hairstyles.

If you want a character that never changes, comics are not a great fit, especially those with characters that will be written over many decades by a dozen very different writers. Try still pictures. They never change. Nothing ever happens to the characters in those Norman Rockwell portraits. No one can 'ruin' them by making them act like human beings with all our messy inconsistencies.

Many mistakes with characters can be walked back. You know what can never be walked back? Changes to a characters sexuality. Support original characters because when you support gimmicky nonsense that ruins characters you make it that much harder for worthwhile original characters to emerge and for anyone to give them a chance. Characters can and have been ruined and their fanbases fractured stop being so naive. Demand better instead of using living breathing flesh and blood people as shields for terrible changes.

[Agent Z]

Many mistakes with characters can be walked back. You know what can never be walked back? Changes to a characters sexuality. Support original characters because when you support gimmicky nonsense that ruins characters you make it that much harder for worthwhile original characters to emerge and for anyone to give them a chance. Characters can and have been ruined and their fanbases fractured stop being so naive. Demand better instead of using living breathing flesh and blood people as shields for terrible changes.

Crying about how it's a mistake without offering any proof doesn't make it a mistake. Fanbases get fractured over the pettiest reasons. See trunks vs no trunks for Superman.

As for making new characters, let's not pretend the same people whining about sexuality changes don't react the same way when an original LGBT character is created.

[Anthony W]

Crying about how it's a mistake without offering any proof doesn't make it a mistake. Fanbases get fractured over the pettiest reasons. See trunks vs no trunks for Superman.

Yes, because trunks on Superman is every bit as petty as ((checks notes)) changing a character's orientation.

As for making new characters, let's not pretend the same people whining about sexuality changes don't react the same way when an original LGBT character is created.

Midnighter and Apollo say hello. Here is a picture of The Nile. R.jpg I'll let you in on a secret, it's more than just a river in Egypt

[skyvolt2000]

Midnighter and Apollo say hello.

You mean the two guys who were built up at ANOTHER company?

So when DC tries stuff with Midnighter-nobody says a word.

Because folks from Warren Ellis to Keith Griffin were allowed to fully develop him.

See when it comes to new folks at companies NOT named DC or Marvel-you can pretty much create and do what you want.

Also those two were gay from the start not guys who came out later on like Tim, Alan and Prodigy.



It's at DC and Marvel where entitled fans have CLAWS out the moment some projects are announced.
It's at DC & Marvel where the double standards of fans is alive and well.

Folks SCREAM at both companies to make new characters..
Folks SCREAM at both companies to get new blood in writers.....
Folks SCREAM at both companies to try to get new readers.....

And we see FOLKS (LED by those who were NEVER going to support the books anyway) bytch bytch bytch about it before the first preview.

From New Age Heroes, Duke Thomas, City Boy, Mosaic, Mother Panic, Gotham Academy, Strange Academy, Superman of China, DC 100 Page magazines, Supersons and so on.

While supporting badly done Batman and Spider-man books. While supporting badly done events. And then WONDER why both companies keep doing what they are doing.

[ShatteredReality]

Yes, because trunks on Superman is every bit as petty as ((checks notes)) changing a character's orientation.

I think there's something very deeply wrong if you if you think changing a character's orientation is somehow being petty.

[JackDaw]

Never: Turning a hero into a villain. I cannot think of one time that such a plot device ended up well.

Hal Jordan? His run as a villain and the journey back to hero led to a very long run of stories that many people love.

And I almost feel that Batman has almost been turned into a villain, and it sells well.

Almost never (for me): I enjoy very few stories where the time line jumps about (sometimes we are reading about “present day”, then the past, then the future, then the present, then…

No, keep it linear, keep the time line straightforward.

[Anthony W]

I think there's something very deeply wrong if you if you think changing a character's orientation is somehow being petty.

Sigh...I think that there is something deeply wrong if you couldn't see that this was a sarcastic response to this poster...

Crying about how it's a mistake without offering any proof doesn't make it a mistake. Fanbases get fractured over the pettiest reasons. See trunks vs no trunks for Superman

Can you see that now ShatteredReality? Not quite sure how you missed that. It should have been the first thing you saw.

You mean the two guys who were built up at ANOTHER company?

So when DC tries stuff with Midnighter-nobody says a word.

Because folks from Warren Ellis to Keith Griffin were allowed to fully develop him.

You are about to contradict yourself in 5. 4. 3. 2. 1....

See when it comes to new folks at companies NOT named DC or Marvel-you can pretty much create and do what you want.

Also those two were gay from the start not guys who came out later on like Tim, Alan and Prodigy.

Houston, we have contradiction! Maybe Marvel's original charges just aren't up to snuff. Thanks for making my case for me. Please continue.

It's at DC and Marvel where entitled fans have CLAWS out the moment some projects are announced.
It's at DC & Marvel where the double standards of fans is alive and well.

Folks SCREAM at both companies to make new characters..
Folks SCREAM at both companies to get new blood in writers.....
Folks SCREAM at both companies to try to get new readers.....

And we see FOLKS (LED by those who were NEVER going to support the books anyway) bytch bytch bytch about it before the first preview.

From New Age Heroes, Duke Thomas, City Boy, Mosaic, Mother Panic, Gotham Academy, Strange Academy, Superman of China, DC 100 Page magazines, Supersons and so on.

While supporting badly done Batman and Spider-man books. While supporting badly done events. And then WONDER why both companies keep doing what they are doing.

It's like.... almost all new characters fail and it's a long and hard process that needs the right mixture of luck, skill and timing. I find it amusing that people still have the audacity to throw stones from their glass house at the customers while still demanding their cash. But hey, you do you.

[ed2962]

The OP posted a lot of interesting tropes, but most of them I can easily think of examples where they worked. It really depends on the character, the editors, the creative team and the fans.

Having said that, one thing I have a problem with is killing characters for shock value. Unless it's a new character or some obscure character from yesteryear, you know it's not going to stick. Why go through the presence?

[Agent Z]

Yes, because trunks on Superman is every bit as petty as ((checks notes)) changing a character's orientation.

They both cause fans to lose their minds so apparently, yes.

Midnighter and Apollo say hello.

Kate Kane and Jay say hi back.

Never mind that homophobia on the part of both the editors and certain audience members was a reason we had so few LGBT characters in the first place.

[Midnight_v]

They both cause fans to lose their minds so apparently, yes.


Kate Kane and Jay say hi back.

Never mind that homophobia on the part of both the editors and certain audience members was a reason we had so few LGBT characters in the first place.

Who is jay?

Well. The audience is who you're trying to please. So "Ah we don't have more *things most of the audience hates* because the *audience is Bad/Wrong*" isn't a flaw
its a feature. An Editor is supposed to keep things sellable at some point. We don't get normalized stories about Pol Pot for the same reason".
Sounds like you've described being in a business.

While I mostly agree with op.

I have NON controversial addition to this thread: CLONES.

I guess it was the prototype to "Alternate dimension version" and maybe before that it was probably "Evil Twins" . . .

Probably the idea is that we want a scene of "our hero" fighting someone on an equal field a visually similar rival maybe but its just so burned down at this point.

[Agent Z]

Who is jay?

Jon Kent's boyfriend.

Well. The audience is who you're trying to please. So "Ah we don't have more *things most of the audience hates* because the *audience is Bad/Wrong*" isn't a flaw
its a feature. An Editor is supposed to keep things sellable at some point. We don't get normalized stories about Pol Pot for the same reason".

1) I said certain audience members, not all.

2) Really? Comparing normalized stories about Pol Pot to LGBT characters?

[Midnight_v]

Jon Kent's boyfriend.



1) I said certain audience members, not all.

2) Really? Comparing normalized stories about Pol Pot to LGBT characters?

1) *shrug* doesn't matter. The implication that it was "enough" to keep it out.

2. Yawn. Faux outrage aside., Agent Z... You might not know how deep the river flows with ACTUAL homophobic folks, but iykyk if you DON'T know.
Selling things that people have a visceral level of hate to will won't get you far. Might get you something worse historically be it mcarthyism or the canceling thing
our culture likes to do today.

Its not the most important thing in the thread though. So... whatever.

To me the cloning is way more rampant but then people have only had a couple years to try to push the issue of retroactive-gender for progressivism. I could do without either really.

Aside though the apollo and midnighter is a good example of why that move is piss-poor

[Anthony W]

I have NON controversial addition to this thread: CLONES.

I guess it was the prototype to "Alternate dimension version" and maybe before that it was probably "Evil Twins" . . .

Probably the idea is that we want a scene of "our hero" fighting someone on an equal field a visually similar rival maybe but its just so burned down at this point.

That's because we have been reading for awhile. It's something that works best on new readers. It's a very cool thing when you are first exposed to it but it loses its strength with each use.