|
Daredevil Message Board
The Board Without Fear!
|
The Message Board is currently in read-only mode, as the software is now out of date. Several features and pages have been removed. If/When I get time I intend to re-launch the board with updated software.
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dimetre
Underboss
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 1366
Location: Toronto
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject: The Bendis debate |
 |
|
| james castle wrote: | | Dimetre wrote: | | james castle wrote: | | Who else shall we ask? Nearly every critic who thought Bendis' run was nothing short of legendary. It's not even worth arguing. Bendis' run was among the best DD runs of all time. It's not even debateable. |
Actually, I'm sure I could debate it just fine. You want me to? |
Actually, I do. Explain to me how you fail to see Bendis' run as a landmark in the series. Was it the original tone? The original stories? The experimental arcs? I'm sorry it didn't have the glaring plot holes and self congradulatory dialogue of Guardian Devil but, hey, you can't have everything.
Bendis' run is widely regarded as a major achievement. You don't like it? Fine. That's cool. But to pretend that it isn't something worth acknowledging as something celebrated is just childish. |
As I’ve stated before, I dropped Daredevil following #55, and only recently picked it up again at the beginning of Brubaker’s run. The only reason for this was I was not enjoying Bendis’ work on the title. I realize I’m in the minority here. (Even my current favourite writer, Ed Brubaker, loves Bendis’ run.) My only point in starting this thread is to show that the merits of Bendis’ work on Daredevil can be debated.
In saying that I’m in the minority here, I don’t think that visitors to this message board are representative of consumers at large. While the accolades for Bendis on this board have always been overwhelmingly positive, a visit to the sales page on this site shows that at the end of Bendis’ run, sales for Daredevil were at their lowest ever for Volume 2. In fact, a steady drop in sales was characteristic of Bendis’ run, with the only spike in sales occurring around the release of the movie. (The regulars on this site are not representative of the moviegoing public either. The positive response to the movie on this board differs strongly from the comments on the Daredevil page at imdb.com.)
Prior to #55, I was a regular visitor to this site. Stephan and myself seemed to be the only ones who had anything negative to say about Bendis’ work. (I never type in FULL CAPS.) While Stephan focused his complaints on continuity issues, I was being put to sleep by Bendis’ pacing, and the never-ending chatting. I recently reread the "Wake Up" arc and #26-#50. While I admit that Bendis’ work reads better in one sitting, Daredevil is unfortunately published in monthly installments. Even if read in one sitting, I still don’t think that Bendis’ work deserves the superlatives that have been heaped upon it.
“Wake Up” was my introduction to Brian Michael Bendis, and I was immediately puzzled by his choice for his first work at Marvel. Reading through it, I wondered why he didn’t write it as a Ben Urich mini-series. For the first time in Volume 2, Daredevil was a secondary character in his own book. It would happen again in #51-55, but at least Mack wrote “Echo” intending it to be a mini-series, but the ever wise Joe Quesada decided to publish in Daredevil’s ongoing title, where it clearly didn’t belong. I didn’t hate “Wake Up,” but it didn’t do much for me either. It was a slow moving story, but it only lasted for a few issues, so I waited to see what was next.
Bendis took over the writing position full-time with #26. It wasn’t long before his pacing became a full-time complaint for me. In his first issue he ties up four pages for Nitro’s explosion. But there was something else too. Matt Murdock had changed. I didn’t like him as much. He was more of a bully, constantly barking through gritted teeth. Even his fighting style resembled something closer to a schoolyard bully than one of the most agile superheroes around. In #27 he sits on top of Nitro and punches him in the face – no acrobatics. Daredevil’s agility was one of the reasons I first picked up the book 20 years ago. Where had it gone?
Number 27 also introduced the recap page into Daredevil, although there were times when I wondered why they bothered, because sometimes Bendis would render it redundant by wasting pages within the issue for nothing more than a recap. Take #32 as an example. The FBI agents take up page after page filling us in on every singe thing that happened up until then. Not only could the recap page have been eliminated in this issue, but because we the readers already knew most if not all of this information, this conversation could have been considerably tightened. This happens again in #43 with a two page conversation between Matt and Foggy that didn’t need to happen. It happens again in #46 when Milla is listening to the radio.
By this time all the critics were falling over themselves to sing Bendis’ praises. However, it was acknowledged that there were some grumpy gusses out there who wanted more action in the book. Marvel’s hype machine responded saying, “You asked for action? You got it!” Preview pages were posted showing Daredevil swinging around rooftops, screaming into the night. But then you pick up #34, and it’s all a sham. Foggy is chattering away about how this vicious circle of violence gets perpetuated every time Matt puts on the costume, but instead of just having pictures of Foggy talking, Maleev fills up the page with images of Matt swinging around Hell’s Kitchen – which obviously isn’t really happening because who would Foggy be talking to then? It feels here like Bendis and Maleev are cheating. They fill up issue after issue with endless chatter, but try to make it seem as if action is actually taking place by showing action… which isn’t actually taking place. They would cheat some more in the very next issue. A man falls on a counter which doesn’t break or collapse. Instead of the man making a sound like “Ugh!” we get the big sound effect of “SMASH!” which is way more than the sound we’d actually hear. It’s just another way of making the comic seem more exciting than it actually is. We saw this again in #49 when a “SMASH!” and “CRASH!” appears in panels where that sound would not be heard.
Bendis became indefensible to me with #40, the final issue of his Trial of the Century arc. Matt Murdock knows that Hector Ayala is innocent of the crimes he is charged with, but he loses the case. Ayala loses it and tries to run out of the courthouse, but there is an entire SWAT team outside. Matt can tell by people’s pulses if they are preparing to fire a gun. Matt is agile enough to dodge bullet fire, let alone rush Ayala to safety. Does he bother to do anything to save a man he knows is innocent from an unjust death? No. This to me was a horrible failure by Bendis, and showed a huge misunderstanding of the character I knew. The only possible justification for Matt’s lack of action was that he would be found out to be Daredevil for sure. But I always thought that Matt’s sense of justice was stronger than Matt’s sense of self-preservation. He is, after all, named Daredevil. As it turns out, Bendis would declare in an interview that Matt Murdock is “an asshole.” (http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=6488) His evidence is his treatment of Heather Glenn during the Miller era. He totally fails to see where Matt was coming from at this time, and why he would be screwed up following his first love’s murder at the hands of Bullseye that just happened a few issues earlier. Taking that into account, along with countless other selfless and heroic acts throughout Daredevil’s 40 year history, I found him to be the farthest thing from an asshole. Bendis changed that.
One of the basic tenets of storytelling (along with the title of one of Rush’s better songs) is “show, don’t tell.” I feel like a lot of Bendis’ stories would be more powerful if he would simply show us a story happening instead of showing us characters standing around telling a story. The beginning of #41 is a key example. Wilbur Day stands around Matt’s office telling us how Vanessa Fisk is selling off the Kingpin’s empire bit by bit. We never see him again. With Bendis’ pacing, the conversation ended up taking up several pages anyway, so why not just show a scene with Vanessa dealing with mobsters, or the Owl being refused by Vanessa?
In #42 Daredevil overturns a car. With people inside. Does the writer of Daredevil actually think that Daredevil is strong enough to do this? Shouldn’t somebody in Marvel have had the cojones to say, “Ummm, Brian, I realize you have an Eisner and a Wizard award, but you don’t seem to understand something.” Sorry, but anybody with a basic understanding of the character knows Daredevil can’t overturn a car. For Bendis to make a mistake like this and for it to actually get published is just stupid.
“Lowlife” introduced another annoying feature in Bendis’ stories – the belittling of the antagonist. The best stories always challenge the hero with a compelling obstacle or antagonist. The more threatening the antagonist, the more intense the drama. In #44 the Owl is belittled and essentially called a loser by Agent Driver. When Daredevil shows up and takes him out, there is no drama because we don’t feel the Owl is a threat. In #49 Daredevil calls Bullseye a loser, even though we all know that Bullseye has defeated Daredevil in the past and at the very least has given him his most intense battles.
“Hardcore” started off full of promise but ended up a complete let down. Number 47 ended with the exact same cliffhanger as #46. How is that fair to the reader, who plunked out good money for both issues? Instead of being defeated by Matt, Typhoid is beaten unconscious by Luke Cage and Jessica Jones and then is handed to Matt for the coup de grace. Like that’s heroic? How satisfying is it to build up anticipation of a Typhoid / Daredevil battle only to have her beaten by somebody else? Then, during his fight with Bullseye, Daredevil reveals that he knows all about Bullseye’s background, but when did he find this out? It comes completely out of left field, and doesn’t end up agreeing with what ends up in the Bullseye’s Greatest Hits mini-series.
In #50 Daredevil defeats the Kingpin (seemingly by boxing his ears and then elegantly sitting on top of him schoolyard bully style and punching him across the face over and over again, while gritting his teeth.) He then goes to Josie’s and plops the unconscious Kingpin in the middle of the floor. No reason is given for why he unmasks in front of a room full of people that would like to see him dead. The reader is left to guess why for themselves. I couldn’t be bothered. This was the last Bendis Daredevil I bought, not counting the What If issue where Daredevil kills Kingpin with a single billy club toss to the throat. (Funny, Daredevil always found this man mountain so difficult to beat in the past. Why on two different occasions the Kingpin nearly beat him to death with his bare hands!) That one I bought to check out Michael Lark’s rendition of Daredevil.
Do I think Bendis is a bad writer? Not completely. He’s gifted with dialogue. I thought #39, with all the courtroom testimony was fantastic. I’ve enjoyed his work on Ultimate Spider-Man. But my experience reading his version of Daredevil leaves me unable to trust him to play out stories to a satisfactory conclusion, or to supply a protagonist with a compelling conflict. In my view, he’s the most overhyped writer I’ve ever come across. Each glowing review for his Daredevil work is a source of complete bewilderment to me. Having said that, I am relieved that Daredevil is in much better hands with Brubaker and Lark. Judging by the upturn in sales, it would seem that a lot of people agree with me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Forrest
Lowlife
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 1439
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: The Bendis debate |
|
|
| Dimetre wrote: | | I was being put to sleep by Bendis’ pacing, and the never-ending chatting. [. . .] While I admit that Bendis’ work reads better in one sitting, Daredevil is unfortunately published in monthly installments. |
Preaching to the choir on this one! By the time Decalogue was rolling out, I could not have been much more disappointed with picking up this title on time! Bendis's DD read more like the Sopranos than a superhero comic. Good stuff, but I felt like I was stuck in a television show where I only got to watch 10 minutes of a 50 minute episode, each month.
Looking back, Widow, Golden Age, and Decalogue are OK stories if read in a single sitting. As monthlies, they were painfully dull. I would have rather had each be a one/two-shot. Consequently, by the time the Murdock Papers came out, I simply could not wait for a new writer to take over.
| Dimetre wrote: | Matt Murdock had changed. I didn’t like him as much. He was more of a bully, constantly barking through gritted teeth. Even his fighting style resembled something closer to a schoolyard bully than one of the most agile superheroes around.
[. . .]
As it turns out, Bendis would declare in an interview that Matt Murdock is “an asshole.” (http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=6488)
His evidence is his treatment of Heather Glenn during the Miller era. [. . .]heroic acts throughout Daredevil’s 40 year history, I found him to be the farthest thing from an asshole. |
Of course, every writer brings his own spin on DD. Still, I hear this complaint and I tend to agree. I think there is a camp of DD writers who focus almost entirely on Miller's DD and put on blinders to the DD of other writers. (This can be severe when you consider how much Miller played with Matt/DD's personality/vibe, even within his own work.) I would put Bendis in this camp, along with Smith, DeMatteis, and Quesada. (Note: I like Bendis's DD and I love Quesada's DD.)
| Dimetre wrote: | | [In #42 Daredevil overturns a car. With people inside. Does the writer of Daredevil actually think that Daredevil is strong enough to do this? |
Ah, this is the kind of arguments that I really don't support one way or the other. Personally, for the sake of argument, I'd say he can based on his abilities under Stan Lee's pen. 
Good points. His DD is very overrated, but it is still good. I'm glad that he is not the ongoing writer, right now, but I love that he was on the book for so long. ...basically, I wish that I had started reading his DD with issue #75. 
_________________
"Flash is back. Worlds will die again!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james castle
Devil in Cell-Block D
Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 1999
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:29 pm Post subject: Re: The Bendis debate |
|
|
| Dimetre wrote: | | james castle wrote: | | Dimetre wrote: | | james castle wrote: | | Who else shall we ask? Nearly every critic who thought Bendis' run was nothing short of legendary. It's not even worth arguing. Bendis' run was among the best DD runs of all time. It's not even debateable. |
Actually, I'm sure I could debate it just fine. You want me to? |
Actually, I do. Explain to me how you fail to see Bendis' run as a landmark in the series. Was it the original tone? The original stories? The experimental arcs? I'm sorry it didn't have the glaring plot holes and self congradulatory dialogue of Guardian Devil but, hey, you can't have everything.
Bendis' run is widely regarded as a major achievement. You don't like it? Fine. That's cool. But to pretend that it isn't something worth acknowledging as something celebrated is just childish. |
As I’ve stated before, I dropped Daredevil following #55, and only recently picked it up again at the beginning of Brubaker’s run. The only reason for this was I was not enjoying Bendis’ work on the title. I realize I’m in the minority here. (Even my current favourite writer, Ed Brubaker, loves Bendis’ run.) My only point in starting this thread is to show that the merits of Bendis’ work on Daredevil can be debated.
|
I honestly have no idea how this ridiculous opus of a post is supposed to be a response to my post. Look at the bolded portions of the quoted portions of my original posts. It is clear as day that what I'm saying is that Bendis' run is widely regarded as a high water mark in the series. I'm saying that, in general, the majority of people (critics included) consider Bendis' run to be one of the best DD runs ever. It's this point that I'm saying is beyond debate. I never said, and never would say, that the merit of Bendis' run is beyond debate. To say that would be tantamount to saying everyone loved Bendis' run. I would never say that.
You know why I'd never say that? Because I know it not to be true. I am well aware of Steven and Dimetre and the many others who seem to like (and perhaps only like) stories in which the "hero" kicks the "villian" in the "face" repeatedly. Knowing that, I would never say that everyone likes Bendis. I'm just saying the vast majority liked his run.
As for what is and what isn't debateable: everything is debateable. Neo-Nazi's will "debate" as to whether Hilter was or was not a horrible guy. Christians will "debate" as to whether creationism makes any sense in the world. Who cares if someone is willing ot "debate" something just for the heck of it?
In any case, Dimetre's insanely self involved (and fairly shallow) walk through the Bendis section of memory lane has nothing at all to do with my original point.
_________________
JC
So why can't you see the funny side?
Why aren't you laughing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dimetre
Underboss
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 1366
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: Re: The Bendis debate |
|
|
| james castle wrote: | | Bendis' run was among the best DD runs of all time. It's not even debateable. |
| james castle wrote: | | As for what is and what isn't debateable: everything is debateable. Neo-Nazi's will "debate" as to whether Hilter was or was not a horrible guy. Christians will "debate" as to whether creationism makes any sense in the world. Who cares if someone is willing ot "debate" something just for the heck of it? |
You failed to bold the above part where you said that Bendis' run being among the best of all time was not even debatateable. I didn't argue that the majority of people on this board liked it. I didn't debate anyone's freedom to enjoy it. But if you tell me that something is the best, and it's not debateable, that gets my guard up. That's what I responded to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Francesco
Underboss
Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 1307
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bendis' run, in my opinion, was good. Not enough to consider it "a landmark" in the series, though.
Excessive, avoidable, continuity errors; storytelling too slow-paced at times; often DD/Matt was just a marginal character (the Widow, Golden Age); many possibilities opened, but with few conclusions. The list could go on.
Frankly I don't care if the majority of people (critics included) consider Bendis' run to be one of the best DD runs ever (a statement that needs to be proved, and preferably in the long run, after the "hype" has passed). I don't base my opinion on that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dimetre
Underboss
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 1366
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: The Bendis debate |
|
|
| Forrest wrote: | | Dimetre wrote: | | [In #42 Daredevil overturns a car. With people inside. Does the writer of Daredevil actually think that Daredevil is strong enough to do this? |
Ah, this is the kind of arguments that I really don't support one way or the other. Personally, for the sake of argument, I'd say he can based on his abilities under Stan Lee's pen. |
I'm puzzled. What did Stan Lee write that would suggest Daredevil can overturn a car? If you're thinking of the time Daredevil bent the bars of one of the Owl's cages, Lee said he could do that because he could feel "the exact pressure points of the bar with his sensitive touch." That wouldn't help him overturn a car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Clayton Blind Love
Redemption
Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 772
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally, I see Bendis' run in two parts. The pre-Kingpin of Hell's Kitchen and the Kingpin of Hell's Kitchen. I know I am over-simplifying this, but I see it this way when trying to explain to people that haven't read the Bendis run and want a nice "in a nutshell" sell it to me pitch.
The first part, I absolutely love everything about it (26-50) with the only complaint being that Trial of the Century wasn't drawn by Maleev. I think it could of been my favorite arc had Maleev done it (reminds me of Marvel's decision to delay Civil War for the singular art of McNiven to flow through the whole story. "What if" they made the same decision with TofC). The first part is very gangster-centric. The Sorpranos is the perfect comparison. It isn't until the later arcs in this first half that the rouges decide to show up. Even so, these villains play gangster/mafia roles.
The second part (the Kingpin of Hell's Kitchen era 55-81), I love certain arcs and felt let down somewhat with some arcs. Mind you, when I say "let down" I don't mean a failure by any means. The Widow and Decalogue were not on the same level as The Kingpin of Hell's Kitchen or Golden Age from this period. That said, they were still good reads. Decalogue probably gets a lot of dirt here, but I liked that this was a horror-esque (?) type of story. I loved horror comics as a kid and maybe this touched my memories in the right way. I was ready for this type of experimentation.
I think the consistancy waivers more in this second half and maybe Bendis was on too long or had other concerns/distractions. The run thrived when it had this gangster-centic vibe and less so when it got away from that.
What I can say about the run as a whole is that Maleev only got better and better. His art dramatically changed over the whole run and the choices he made to change his style were really for the best. Sometimes the so-called evolution of an artist really isn't seen as progress. Sometimes it gets worse. Maleev really did outstanding work on this run.
C.
_________________
Love is blindness, I don't want to see
Won't you wrap the night around me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james castle
Devil in Cell-Block D
Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 1999
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: Re: The Bendis debate |
|
|
| Dimetre wrote: | | james castle wrote: | | Bendis' run was among the best DD runs of all time. It's not even debateable. |
| james castle wrote: | | As for what is and what isn't debateable: everything is debateable. Neo-Nazi's will "debate" as to whether Hilter was or was not a horrible guy. Christians will "debate" as to whether creationism makes any sense in the world. Who cares if someone is willing ot "debate" something just for the heck of it? |
You failed to bold the above part where you said that Bendis' run being among the best of all time was not even debatateable. I didn't argue that the majority of people on this board liked it. I didn't debate anyone's freedom to enjoy it. But if you tell me that something is the best, and it's not debateable, that gets my guard up. That's what I responded to. |
Yes, yes, taking one line out of context and then bending it to make no sense and then "responding" to it. That's the way to go.
_________________
JC
So why can't you see the funny side?
Why aren't you laughing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dimetre
Underboss
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 1366
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:09 pm Post subject: Re: The Bendis debate |
|
|
| james castle wrote: | | Yes, yes, taking one line out of context and then bending it to make no sense and then "responding" to it. That's the way to go. |
Okay. I'm sorry I directly quoted something you typed on a public message board back to you, and responded to it. How devious of me.
By the way, feel free to invalidate any of the points I made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Forrest
Lowlife
Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 1439
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clarification on my stance on Bendis's DD:
I don't hate Bendis's DD. I love his DD work, but I still recognize many of the above complaints. I feel extremely bipolar and unstable in my opinion of Bendis's DD! Seriously, no other work in comics leaves me with such back and fourth feelings. (New Avengers is second. ) There's a lot of good and a alot of bad. However, I think an important realization is that Bendis's DD was very unique in style, execution, etc. So much so that I would call it ground-breaking for mainstream comics (i.e. Marvel/DC outside MAX, Vertigo, etc.) and we can excuse a lot of shortcomings in his DD for this reason. I look at Bendis's DD as similar to a progressive rock band like Mars Volta. There are a lot of awkward, flawed and terribly dull moments, but still, this is a very captivating and adventurous work that deserves respect.
_________________
"Flash is back. Worlds will die again!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james castle
Devil in Cell-Block D
Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 1999
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: Re: The Bendis debate |
|
|
| Dimetre wrote: | | james castle wrote: | | Yes, yes, taking one line out of context and then bending it to make no sense and then "responding" to it. That's the way to go. |
Okay. I'm sorry I directly quoted something you typed on a public message board back to you, and responded to it. How devious of me.
By the way, feel free to invalidate any of the points I made. |
My above complaint is that the portion of the quote you're "responding" to is out of context. Read as a whole it's clear that my point was (and is) that Bendis' run is widely regarded as something special.
Your point (which seems to be "well, I don't like it that much and here's an almost offensively long explaination why") has nothing to do with my point at all.
For the record, you have every right not to like the run. Bully for you. Same with Forrest. You guys didn't like the run that much? Fine. Hurrah. I don't like the Avengers that much. Doesn't mean they're not a comic book institution.
As for trying to "invalidate" your "points". Meh. Look, most of your little uber review there is pretty subjective. Looking at one point at random, you say:
| Quote: |
"Lowlife” introduced another annoying feature in Bendis’ stories – the belittling of the antagonist. The best stories always challenge the hero with a compelling obstacle or antagonist. The more threatening the antagonist, the more intense the drama. In #44 the Owl is belittled and essentially called a loser by Agent Driver. |
How in god's name could this point ever be invalidated? It's so heavily opinion based that there's no use arguing against it. I mean, to be honest, I never thought Agent Driver (an FBI agent) "essentially" calling the Owl (a career criminal) a "loser" was much of a big deal. In fact, I'm shocked as hell that anyone would even pretend that something so small mattered in such a big way. But, hey, it's stuff like this that is clearly a matter of opinion. There's no way I can argue against it. Nor do I want to. You didn't like the Bendis run that much. Fine. Good for you.
But just cuz you didn't like it doesn't mean the majority didn't (because, as a matter of fact, they did).
_________________
JC
So why can't you see the funny side?
Why aren't you laughing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Acerbus
Flying Blind
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 96
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That was an exceptionally long post. Please trim them down. Otherwise, it's like an argument over the phone with no mouthpiece. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stanley
Tree of Knowledge
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 293
Location: Houston, TX.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you don't like the length of it, don't read it. Since you seem to be into simile, here's one: coming onto a message board (something that's ALL WORDS and occasionally chimp pictures, mind you) and then providing unsolicited criticism complaining about a post's length is like changing a diaper and complaining about the smell. You KNOW it's a possibility, so what's the problem?
...Your simile sucked too. Nothing personal, but really. If you don't have a mouthpiece, hang up the phone. And if you didn't have a mouthpiece, dollars to donuts you wouldn't be in an argument in the first place.
JC was put in a pickle, since he was cited. I can understand if he's compelled to read it and then thinks it's too long. But you've got no stake in this.
Personally, I skipped it.
***
Also, I liked the Bendis run until 58 or so. Then the pacing stuff starts coming into play. Opinion? Yes. But objectively, two comics end with the same cliffhanger. Objectively, I have an accelerated degree and couldn't keep up with the time gaps and retreads Bendis was introducing in the later stuff.
I agree with Dimetre about the whole "belittling the antagonist" bit. A few threads ago we were talking about how shallow DD's rogues gallery was, and how deep Batman's was. Well, who's the "World's Greatest Detective"? Batman has been pitted against multiple criminal geniuses who have been written as equals. Daredevil has one, admittedly written as an equal (until #50). Yes, when the time comes, Batman whips ass. But it's because the criminal brains keep the physicality to a minimum.
And I don't keep up, but I'd be willing to bet that nobody calls the Joker ANYTHING except 'boss'. If Owl's a loser, why did it take 4-5 issues to straighten him out? Does that mean Cap could beat him sooner? Or worse yet, Wolverine? By belittling the antagonist, you DO get a sense that the hero is less impressive for struggling against him. Any shmuck with a shred of powers can beat the Owl. That's not the way I want it, but it's the way it stands right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dimetre
Underboss
Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 1366
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:25 am Post subject: Re: The Bendis debate |
|
|
| james castle wrote: | | Dimetre wrote: |
"Lowlife” introduced another annoying feature in Bendis’ stories – the belittling of the antagonist. The best stories always challenge the hero with a compelling obstacle or antagonist. The more threatening the antagonist, the more intense the drama. In #44 the Owl is belittled and essentially called a loser by Agent Driver. |
How in god's name could this point ever be invalidated? It's so heavily opinion based that there's no use arguing against it. |
It may not be as opinion based as you think. Through the millenia that people have been telling stories, certain things have been found to be true about the best stories. The best stories give the hero or heroes an interesting conflict or problem they have to solve. Sometimes these conflicts or problems are supplied by an antagonist. The bigger the problem or more threatening the antagonist, the more interesting -- and therefore better -- the story will be. I didn't just make this up. It's not my opinion. It's a widely regarded truth in the art of storytelling.
What do you think happens if you begin telling a story featuring an antagonist, and on your way up to the climax you expose your antagonist to be a pipsqueek? Many readers' investment in the story is suddenly diminished. And, as Stanley pointed out, it doesn't reflect well on the abilities of the hero.
Many of the points I made in my post are based on such widely accepted truths about storytelling. Things like "Show, don't tell," and "Get to the next scene."
Anyway JC, if you'd like to accuse me of taking something you typed out of context instead of admitting that you typed something you didn't mean, fine. But even you have to admit that you did type this:
| james castle wrote: | | Actually, I do. Explain to me how you fail to see Bendis' run as a landmark in the series. |
So I did. I've pointed out in numerous ways how Bendis' stories are flawed, and I've even cited sales figures that steadily decreased during his time on the title. Those figures reflect the attitude of the comic-buying public more accurately than any critics you cite.
Perhaps, as Francesco pointed out, after the hype has passed, Bendis' stories on the book can be evaluated more clearly, and more people will disregard the "landmark" status that has been prematurely bestowed upon them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hylozoii
Playing to the Camera
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 148
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
DD is like the story of Dracula or Superman or Batman. They are myths that can be interpreted depending upon the current writers.
Was Bendis' run a landmark? I think so because he unmasked DD. That's a huge thing. You could say that pretty much started the entire Civil War idea at the House of M. He's also a landmark writer of all things Marvel because he has sex with Joey Q. (Why else does he get so much freedom?) Bendis' downfall was the last few story arcs. Especially Decalogue and Golden Age. Those moved too slowly and though I love Bendis' dialogue, it was too chatty for those wanting more swashbuckling.
Some of your complaints seem to be going towards Alex Maleev. I think Bendis/Maleev had a hell of a long run and I have always applauded Bendis for not doing a hit-and-run on a comic book like so many other writers do. He stays with the character for a long time. Just look at Avengers, Spiderman, DD.
There will always be someone finding fault with Bendis' run and that is their opinion. But my opinion is that Bendis did a great job while he was hot, and eventually passed the torch when he was on the decline. Now Bru/Lark is having a great run. Though his Captain America run is better.
Oh also I am of the opinion where having the main character not appear in an issue is kind of cool and mysterious. The last Cap arc didn't have Cap in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
