Do you agree with the saying "There no bad characters, only bad writers"?

[Goggindowner]

Clipped

Part of the issue I brought up, though, is that Superman's threat of action should be enough to get anyone to do anything he told them to. Poverty in the inner city a problem? Threaten action against the corrupt politicians, business and land owners who are not giving those people a fair shake. If Superman threatened to string up every corrupt official in town, every corrupt official in town would be stupid to not do what they were told. When you have a character who can be anywhere, hear everything and operates on such an infinite power scale, regular human beings would just fall in line. What choice would they have? Superman could influence every government, corporation and individual on the planet just by being alive.

The only way the character can exist as a part of a shared universe is to ignore those things, because if this were portrayed realistically, Superman's existence would eliminate a lot of what everyone else in the JLA is doing.

As far as what the character was originally used as, that is pretty irrelevant at this point. That was almost 80 years ago. The character has become something completely different in the decades since his creation. Unfortunately, it isn't a genie that is easy to put back in the bottle, so any attempt to dial him back down is going to cause a rift in the fan-base.

[Carabas]

yeah, but Superman WAS created to tackle everyday street level stuff just like the stuff you're saying is utterly beneath his notice. and part of what made him special is that even though it SHOULD have been beneath his interest he took an interest in it anyways.

To be fair, back when he was created he had a lot more in common, both in personality and power level, with Luke Cage than with 21st century Superman.

it's also not a cheat to have Superman not do everything for us. it doesn't have to be an excuse to not use all of his godlike powers if the STORY works best for him not to use them. nobody expects Superman to care about a washed up boxer who got robbed of winning his last fight... but he DOES care. not only does Superman care about giving him a chance to win his new last fight-- he wants the guy to win on his own terms with his own abilities. if the boxer actually loses because the other guy was a better boxer-- that would be heartbreaking, but Superman allowed him to have a chance at a fair fight that he was robbed of earlier. Superman didn't simply keep wearing the disguise and win the fight for him. Superman knows that winning the fight for the boxer wouldn't have been satisfying for either him OR the boxer.

Not at all sure where you're heading with that boxer... Is this some kind of bootstrap allegory? To hell with bootstraps.

And nobody said anything about Superman doing everything. Constraints of status quo do keep him from doing a lot more than he could.
There's a lot of evil in the world, and he hears all of it. Most of it a whole lot more severe than a washed up boxer. A washed up boxer losing a match doesn't even show up on the scale of heartbreaking. And if there isn't a supervillain involved he casually ignores that evil. Because reasons.

[Totoro Man]

I mentioned the boxer story because it's a classic Golden Age Superman story. I mentioned it because of what Superman does NOT do with his powers. Superman doesn't simply win FOR the boxer while using his identity. (even though that would be easier, the disgraced boxer would not feel like the victory is his own. in fact, he wouldn't even see Superman as helping him.) no, Superman fights his way through a whole network of cheaters and crooked boxers to give this one poor guy another shot at another title fight. Superman hands the fighter a new opportunity. he gives the man another chance at the title fight that he was robbed of through the treachery of the boxing promotors and community. that being said, Superman allows the boxer to fight his own battle on fair terms (the way he should have been allowed to the first time).

complaints were made that not having Superman use his full power his a cop-out or a cheat. but if him holding back serves the needs of the story being told then this generalization isn't true. some people (and characters) can be satisfied with taking credit for other people's actions. other people can't accept a reward for something that they didn't do. it's part of their character. Superman already knew the boxer wouldn't tolerate him winning the title fight under an assumed identity and have him take credit for a victory he didn't earn. that's part of why the story about the boxer is interesting. it would be easy if Superman could just disguise himself as the boxer and win on his behalf-- but that's not what happens.

if you've never read the story then it's going to be tricky understanding why I'm writing about it. if you've actually read the story then you should understand that I didn't mention it for allegorical reasons. last I checked Golden Age Superman stories don't have layers of meaning and hidden meanings.

[Totoro Man]

That's a cheat. It's cheapening the potential of the character and an excuse to not work with his godlike powers.

You need supernaturally gifted writers, artists, and editors too for that variety to go on ad infinitum with 3-4 books per month. Especially if you want stict deadlines.

so... the reason I mentioned the boxer is because of this post. you say that it's what DrNewGod has proposed is a "cheat" and an excuse to NOT use Superman's powers.

"Seriously, if we consider Superman as a godlike being, he can also be written as someone constrained by not wanting to do too much for us."

you were not addressing DrNewGod's actual point. you simply dismissed it as a "cheat". you don't even have evidence to prove your point from existing Superman stories. why would this be authorial cheating when it could logically extend from the character's beliefs and motivations? I provided those lengthy posts about Golden Age Superman helping the boxer as a prime example of Superman not wanting to do TOO MUCH for somebody else. it's a good story-based reason for Superman not using all of his power.

a good writer should be able to make you care about even small things. a boxer losing a fight can be heartbreaking in context of the narrative. if you watched Rocky and found out that Rocky not only loses the fight at the end, but gets paralyzed and has his life ruined at the end of the film-- that would be considered a "sad" ending. there's no way DC was going to allow that boxer to lose that fight that Superman set up for him-- because lots of little kids would have been utterly appalled by that outcome. of course, we could probably retell the story now and have him lose and nobody would bat an eyelash because it's nothing compared to what Superman normally deals with.

and, to look at Revenge of the Sith, it can be implied that dozens of children can be brutally murdered and it utterly fails to register with the audience on an emotional level. entire planets can be destroyed and with no audience investment in the outcome because it's just a special effect.

naturally writers intentionally ignoring or neglecting Superman's power is bad writing... but this isn't what DrNewGod suggested.

and if Superman needs supernaturally gifted writers to work as a monthly title with good stories maybe the character is simply broken beyond repair in it's current form. a good, well functioning character shouldn't need such such exceptional writers to make them work in a monthly title.

[Kees_L]

This is a fairly common saying in the comic industry. Do you agree with it?

I'd say that yes, I do. A change in writers can have a night-and-day effect on how I care about a character.

Edit: Bah, meant to say "There are no bad characters, only bad writers" in the title.

Well, I think I need more context since I feel unfamiliar with the statement, to the point of questioning whether this would even qualify as a *common saying* at all.

Also since I never ever feel able to be regarding any comic industry as proving a onesided or single-language-speaking sort of thing at all. I'd think that within all aspects of whatever industry or format every creative or person can be having their own personal work ethics most entirely.

I mean if an editor or colleage says this to a fellow creative, I'd reckon' they would mean to say that for any potentially lacking or deemably hapless characterization the writer would be to get the flack instead of any characters. Like a warning almost, moreso than saying anything about any generally required character quality or some such - yet its meaning would still seem weirdly ungraspable to me.

Then there's the aspect that for popular entertainment any characterizations aren't neededly a thing for just the writers or either creatives signing their names to it, but a thing of the brands or publishing houses as something between shareholders or financers and creative executives I would think.
The treatment of characters would get done by executives if or as long as they contract creatives to work accordingly I'd think.

In plain terms I wouldn't think there would have to exist any commonly held beliefs or work-methods between two writers as regarding whatever.

Or at least to me there seem potentially lightyears between for instance Frank Miller and alan Moore, or Will Eisner and Robert Crumb or between Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.
To say I would regard any work- or characterization-element to being not the most easily distiguishable consideration at all.

[ed2962]

Part of the issue I brought up, though, is that Superman's threat of action should be enough to get anyone to do anything he told them to. Poverty in the inner city a problem? Threaten action against the corrupt politicians, business and land owners who are not giving those people a fair shake. If Superman threatened to string up every corrupt official in town, every corrupt official in town would be stupid to not do what they were told. When you have a character who can be anywhere, hear everything and operates on such an infinite power scale, regular human beings would just fall in line. What choice would they have? Superman could influence every government, corporation and individual on the planet just by being alive.

The only way the character can exist as a part of a shared universe is to ignore those things, because if this were portrayed realistically, Superman's existence would eliminate a lot of what everyone else in the JLA is doing.

As far as what the character was originally used as, that is pretty irrelevant at this point. That was almost 80 years ago. The character has become something completely different in the decades since his creation. Unfortunately, it isn't a genie that is easy to put back in the bottle, so any attempt to dial him back down is going to cause a rift in the fan-base.

Well, first of all Superman does not have infinite power and there's a number DC characters that are just as if not more powerful as him.

Even so, the way you write it almost makes Supes sound like a bully. He's going to threaten people into doing the right thing? And anyway that's not how human nature works. Sure some folks will fall in line and others will still do whatever they think they can get away with. And many real world problems are a lot more complicated. Supes can't punch people and automatically make the economy better.

Having said that, I think you can get interesting stories where Clark/Superman has to deal with say the economy or whatever. Say Clark's mission is to help a small town farmer who's being squeezed out by big agri-business. Supes can't just beat up a corporation, he'd have to use other means to solve the problem.

[Ghost Rider TheHellfireDemon]

This is a fairly common saying in the comic industry. Do you agree with it?

I'd say that yes, I do. A change in writers can have a night-and-day effect on how I care about a character.

Edit: Bah, meant to say "There are no bad characters, only bad writers" in the title.

No i dont believe that saying. There are bad ideas and bad characters are a example.
If a character has to be hugely changed over 60 percent from the original idea that is saying they sucked before as a stinker and needed a extreme makeove so thry don't suck.
There are characters that are simply bad ideas that no great writer could make a good character.

Just the same as no director can make a good or great movie out of a bad or awful script.

[Kees_L]

last I checked Golden Age Superman stories don't have layers of meaning and hidden meanings.

Without regarding myself an expert or knowledgable person all that much, what I feel able to relate with, in what you appear to be saying, is how actual Golden Age comics material may involve pretty distinct constraints onto the story material.

I think that any story matter might show to being of its own time, but for Golden Age or pre-1950s comics material it would appear to be the adagium that for commonly poppy entertainment at the time, there wouldn't normally be much concessions or deep considerations needed?

Since something as throwaway as 10-cent comics or anything as tittilating as Mens Magazines/ Womans Reading such wouldn't have to be "nuanced" but just "crude" or bold more rather?

But then even so would it not have to be straightforward to create or either read any such a thing since even if "crude" would be the norm it could still be up to the creative to be proving themselves creative or imaginative and even tasteful in ways regardless.

I can like super-individually created "creator-material" together with the most traditional or history-conveying stuff - depending on whether it'd seem good or well-made to me - more rather than however it would belong to whatever traditions or not.
But as far as traditions or times proving significant at all, it would just mainly seem a good idea to try and be aware of as a reader notwithstanding.

By which I mean that Golden Age stuff or anything long-running needn't be just inherently better than whatever else, but any considerations for a reader to become aware of might just be a good thing and in no way too far-fetched a thing for anyone. Learning from stuff doesn't involve only the condemning, but understanding through actual awareness would seem more of a goal, for literally any type of reader.

For instance I find it interesting to try and understand how come older or more historic stuff may seem potentially closeminded or even bigoted but to me that doesn't necessarily mean the writer or creative would have to be perfectly of a similar mindset all that much.

I do find myself more at ease with reading totally independent or personal seeming material, like I wish to read or follow creatives and not companies or corporations at all times.

[Agent Z]

I would actually really hate a grim/dark version of Superman. If the DCU Superman were more like Morrison's All-Star Superman, I would read that book more often than not. That is, hands down, my favorite version of the character and grim and depressing never come into play.



The problem is that if Clark Kent is really serious about tackling these problems, it requires a special level of stupidity to not do it as Superman. He is a beacon of hope and his level of power is known. Once he puts his Super-nose into the situation things are going to start falling into place for him. Which really just opens a whole new set of issues with the character, because his threat of action should be all ANYONE needs to not do that thing he told you not to do. Real world problems don't apply, because his ability to defeat entire armies single-handed, throw buildings into space and melt the world WITH HIS EYES should keep all the idiots in check, especially since he can pretty much hear everything all the time.

No Superman only gets interesting when you introduce something metaphysical or other-worldly into the story. Street level stuff is too far beneath him to be of any real concern. His existence, realistically, would solve most of those problems.

Threat of retribution is not enough to stop criminals from committing crimes. If it could, it would have happened in real life. Plus, I doubt Superman's powers can fix the socioeconomic problems that led to these crimes in the first place.

[Ghost Rider TheHellfireDemon]

Paste pot pete got changed to the trapster.

He hasnt used the name in over 40 years, gets pissed off each time spider man brings up his former lame super villain name, costume sucked as much as the name along with a pathetic weapon.

[Nitmo]

Heck, 'The Calculator' got a makeover, dude used to run around with an actual calculator on his chest.

[DrNewGod]

To me, the greatest example of the OP question is Black Adam. Ordway improved him from the one-note chariacture that he had been, but it was really Johns that made him into a premier anti-hero of the DCU. I sometimes think they keep Captain Name-Now-Unavailable as an unfortunate price of keeping Black Adam.

[Carabas]

Heck, 'The Calculator' got a makeover, dude used to run around with an actual calculator on his chest.

Not so much a make-over a replacement with a conspicuously similar name.

Name aside, old Calculator and new Calculator have nothing in common.

[Handsome men don't lose fights]

Nope. No one will ever be able to write a compelling story featuring the Rainbow raider.


No one else does.

[jonnythewolf]

Nope. No one will ever be able to write a compelling story featuring the Rainbow raider.


No one else does.

give him to grant morrison, i guarantee you he can write something compelling.