What are things you dislike about the comic book fandom?

[GrandEleven]

The Hero's Champion No story about a "world event" is ever complete unless a specific Hero is included. On top of that, no story about this hero is ever right, nor has been right sense the 60s, and is instead an "over simplified caricature" lacking the depth said Hero deserves. Secret Wars, Civil War, whatever it was it would have been better if it was 90% focused on said hero and a deep character study on them (that drives them to their predetermined conclusion). Anything less is a failure, and the Hero's Champion is ready to let the world know it. Warning signs you may be in the presence of a Hero's Champion: this hero should never lose a fight, or it's PIS. Any post on new series being released is immediately met with how that impacts their chosen hero... or a lament on how their chosen hero doesn't have a solo book yet. During successful runs, the Hero's Champion can seem to go into hiding ... but are usually quick to invade during crossovers or any event not putting the proper spotlight in place.

End-Timer Every event announced marks the end times of that company, they are now spiraling to bankruptcy. The End-Timer can be similar to the Hero's Champion only instead is focused more on the state of the Marvel/DC universe as a whole, and how things were vs. how they are. The End-Timer usually is armed with odd half-truths and glorified partial memory about the "good old days" of comics and how nothing is right anymore. Unlike the Hero's Champion, nothing about anything is correct, and a blend of X-conspiracies, event fatigue, and feminism is running the franchise to bankruptcy and bleeding into everything. Warning signs you may be in the presence of an End-Timer: anyone quick to post their distaste of a new launch while simultaneously declaring their lack of intent to buy _anything_ from said company and move onto greener pastures (usually their rival). Be especially concerned if their distaste for a new launch contains buzzwords like "oh another <blank> just to keep the <conspiracy movement> happy". The End-Timer cares not for details or general evidence why something may in fact be good ... it's a sinking ship.

[codystarbuck]

I was talking more at the top like Didio, though. There's really no incentive to sabotage a title at that level because he personally likes one character better than another. As for office politics below that level of management, that's a different story.

I would tend to agree with that, other than the blinders element; of thinking this direction/character/story/whatever is the way to go and we are going to stick with it, even when everyone else says it's wrong. Or, denying marketing budget for a title you think doesn't have the goods in favor if a pet project. It's not deliberate sabotage; but, it is clouded judgement and we have seen that from many at the very top. You also have the situation where those at the very top are taking bad advice from subordinates with an agenda. Is it deliberate on their part? No, it's following bad advice and not exercising leadership.

[Agent Z]

Sexism, racism, homophobia, people acting like writers and editors are above this stuff, people who think using lethal force automatically turns you into a bloodthirsty killing machine.

[The Darknight Detective]

It doesn't bother me when someone says a character is boring, it's such a subjective thing. What bothers me is when folks say a hero is a mary sue and most of the time they're using the term wrong.

Very true, ed.

[The Darknight Detective]

I would tend to agree with that, other than the blinders element; of thinking this direction/character/story/whatever is the way to go and we are going to stick with it, even when everyone else says it's wrong. Or, denying marketing budget for a title you think doesn't have the goods in favor if a pet project. It's not deliberate sabotage; but, it is clouded judgement and we have seen that from many at the very top. You also have the situation where those at the very top are taking bad advice from subordinates with an agenda. Is it deliberate on their part? No, it's following bad advice and not exercising leadership.

That's different, which you agree with, obviously. That can happen in any business. But a Didio is not going to knock down a character that is selling out of spite or to be replaced with a character he likes instead. I don't understand others who feel the opposite.

[Trey Strain]

That's different, which you agree with, obviously. That can happen in any business. But a Didio is not going to knock down a character that is selling out of spite or to be replaced with a character he likes instead. I don't understand others who feel the opposite.

He gets paid to sell comics. The idea that he'd intentionally keep a character down out of spite is ludicrous.

[The Darknight Detective]

He gets paid to sell comics. The idea that he'd intentionally keep a character down out of spite is ludicrous.

Exactly my point, Trey.

[Carabas]

In general I've never got why people get mad when another character is more popular than their favorite.

I can understand it in specific cases where the favourite character got reduced or written out altogether in favour of another character... Wally West/Barry Allen, Kyle Rayner/Hal Jordan...

[ouroboros]

A) It would imply that you feel the examples I used were rare occurrences when they were in fact not.

B) You can make more of a case for the former, but it's still not something a reasonable person would argue. No reasonable person says "it doesn't matter the quality of a project, it just matters if it's 'diverse' so you are up on 'points'."

Not wanting to hear about internment camps doesn't really reveal where a person stands on diversity in the media.

C) I'm not going to pretend that I can read that guy's mind, but it seemed to me that guy wasn't so much upset because of where he thought the plot was going to go. He seemed upset that Kahn imagined herself as a white woman and that the scene itself sent a bad message.

(1) No, I never said that your cited examples didn't happen. I simply said that they had nothing to do with actually reading a story and making an overly hastily interpretation. Your examples had to do with people who rejected the material without reading it.

(2) No one's going to *admit* that diversity is their first priority, because it would sound like a tacit endorsement of tokenism. But if you see a poster complaining about Finn's treatment in FORCE AWAKENS for not being "empowering" enough, and not addressing anything else-- particularly the character's role in the story as a whole-- then you're dealing with a poster who concerned first with representation and not the story as such.

When Roy Thomas does a story touching on the unfairness of Japanese-American internment, he's following a liberal tradition that says, "You can understand people better by understanding their historical travails." A conservative might fairly, in certain circumstances, reject seeing a particular story re-hashed because he doesn't think it will be interpreted well, but I don't think that was the motivation in the case cited.

(3) Still don't see why that's not jumping the gun.

Also:

I don't want to get into the Moore "rape" thing because it has nothing to do with fans jumping the gun or any diversity debates.

(4) I brought it up as an example of certain fans hollering about seeing something they don't like, and paying no attention to context. However, I will note that not all hostile readings of Moore are necessarily "jumping the gun." Some critiques may at least debate the merits of Moore's thematic pursuits and then find against him. I might disagree with such conclusions. But if a critic at least allows for some leeway-- "he thought he was doing this but this was the result"-- then there's at least an element of considered opinion.

[ed2962]

(1) No, I never said that your cited examples didn't happen. I simply said that they had nothing to do with actually reading a story and making an overly hastily interpretation. Your examples had to do with people who rejected the material without reading it.

(2) No one's going to *admit* that diversity is their first priority, because it would sound like a tacit endorsement of tokenism. But if you see a poster complaining about Finn's treatment in FORCE AWAKENS for not being "empowering" enough, and not addressing anything else-- particularly the character's role in the story as a whole-- then you're dealing with a poster who concerned first with representation and not the story as such.

When Roy Thomas does a story touching on the unfairness of Japanese-American internment, he's following a liberal tradition that says, "You can understand people better by understanding their historical travails." A conservative might fairly, in certain circumstances, reject seeing a particular story re-hashed because he doesn't think it will be interpreted well, but I don't think that was the motivation in the case cited.

(3) Still don't see why that's not jumping the gun.

Also:



(4) I brought it up as an example of certain fans hollering about seeing something they don't like, and paying no attention to context. However, I will note that not all hostile readings of Moore are necessarily "jumping the gun." Some critiques may at least debate the merits of Moore's thematic pursuits and then find against him. I might disagree with such conclusions. But if a critic at least allows for some leeway-- "he thought he was doing this but this was the result"-- then there's at least an element of considered opinion.

1) Those people were assuming they were going to be hit before they were in fact hit.

2)How a character is portrayed in a story is in fact part of the story.

Not wanting to see a story rehashed because it might not be done well is not a politically conservative point of view.

3) Because his problem seemed to be that the author thought minorities secretly wish to be white. That's different from, "This story is going to be blah blah blah so I'm not going to like it."

4)Fine. But not understanding context is a slightly different topic.

[RumpusMagoo]

How about fans who can't stand that you are enjoying books they don't like.

[Buried Alien]

Posts about "boring" characters are lacking in substance, too.

Especially when said "boring" characters somehow headline their own comic book series for thirty years, despite being so gosh darn "boring."

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[RumpusMagoo]

Especially when said "boring" characters somehow headline their own comic book series for thirty years, despite being so gosh darn "boring."

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

I feel like DC comic fans get that criticism a lot.

[GrandEleven]

It doesn't bother me when someone says a character is boring, it's such a subjective thing. What bothers me is when folks say a hero is a mary sue and most of the time they're using the term wrong.

English language is wonderful in that we let the culture define terms and not some random governing body concerned about maintaining our language (looking at you, France). So a word or phrase can change meaning over time and it's silly to get hung up over it.

That said I will always maintain Sentry is the worst Mary Sue to come from Marvel, ever. I say hat partially because it's true, partially because I can't think of a more deserving insult to tag that character with

[The Darknight Detective]

Especially when said "boring" characters somehow headline their own comic book series for thirty years, despite being so gosh darn "boring."

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

Yeah, it's amazing how that could even be possible, BA.