Three times I've been exposed to interesting ideas on this thread. This is horrible!
/e puts Xanatos, Heroid and Sorah on 'the' list.
That being said, I have heard Lovecraft wrote mostly story with almost no character development although I guess descent into madness could be considered character growth or slowly becoming aware of the larger uncaring and ultimately fatal existence outside oneself. It usually doesn't require any growth on the part of the protagonist though, just kind of a sudden awareness due to the Shoggoth in the room which can no longer be ignored.
I guess in the other direction stories like 'As Good As It Gets' have very little story and almost all character driven. I know I could think of others but its wee early and I havent had breakfast. :P Hrmmm maybe 'Being John Malkovich'?
I sleep now.
Let us stifle under mud at the pond's edge
and affirm that it is fitting
and delicious to lose everything. ~ Donald Hall
???
You people talk too much.
Quote:
((IMHO, writing, whether for comic books, screen, or novel, is as much craft as art. Lovecraft, despite his excesses, was a master craftsman, able to build a world and draw you into it. The chief character in his stories was the atmosphere. He was the rare writer who could create a story without either character development or plot, and still get an emotional and intellectual response from the reader. I think that's why his name evokes a certain awestruck dread/excitement among those of us who enjoyed his work.))|
Originally Posted by Rookery.
Three times I've been exposed to interesting ideas on this thread. This is horrible!
/e puts Xanatos, Heroid and Sorah on 'the' list. That being said, I have heard Lovecraft wrote mostly story with almost no character development although I guess descent into madness could be considered character growth or slowly becoming aware of the larger uncaring and ultimately fatal existence outside oneself. It usually doesn't require any growth on the part of the protagonist though, just kind of a sudden awareness due to the Shoggoth in the room which can no longer be ignored. I guess in the other direction stories like 'As Good As It Gets' have very little story and almost all character driven. I know I could think of others but its wee early and I havent had breakfast. :P Hrmmm maybe 'Being John Malkovich'? I sleep now. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Haetron
???
You people talk too much. |
))
Quote:
sleep tight birdie |
Originally Posted by Rookery.
Three times I've been exposed to interesting ideas on this thread. This is horrible!
/e puts Xanatos, Heroid and Sorah on 'the' list. That being said, I have heard Lovecraft wrote mostly story with almost no character development although I guess descent into madness could be considered character growth or slowly becoming aware of the larger uncaring and ultimately fatal existence outside oneself. It usually doesn't require any growth on the part of the protagonist though, just kind of a sudden awareness due to the Shoggoth in the room which can no longer be ignored. I guess in the other direction stories like 'As Good As It Gets' have very little story and almost all character driven. I know I could think of others but its wee early and I havent had breakfast. :P Hrmmm maybe 'Being John Malkovich'? I sleep now. |
as Ood Sigma said....We will sing to you, Doctor. The universe will sing you to your sleep. This song is ending. But the story never ends.
WB man.
Quote:
You're right, I didn't understand what you had originally meant |
Originally Posted by Xanatos
I don't agree with this. Stories which focus too much towards character developement are boring, and stories which focus to much towards the plot at the expense of the characters are boring. They are not supposed to be two different styles of writing, they are supposed to be two equal parts of every story. They are supposed to compliment one another. (OMGZ NO WAI!) To me, using one without the other amounts to something as crazy as writing a story with nothing but grammatical words. (Leaving out the Lexical ones because "that's the way we do things.") It would make no sense and move for a poor story.
Origin stories are examples of what every story should be like in comic books. The character enters the story, significant change occurs, the character exits the story. The only real changes the majority of superheros have are the moment they get their powers. After that point they basically plateau. If you are writing a story and a character is not able to undergo significant change...then let someone else be the protagonist. Let Green Lantern become a background character while "Ginger Lantern" copes with the death of his wife. I have always thought that a characters book should focus more on the characters mythos/lore than it should the character themselves. I don't think you quite understood why I mentioned the movies. The only reason I mentioned X-Men, Watchman, and Batman Begins, was because the costumes the heroes have are all much more dark costume wise than their source material. That was the only comparison. It shows that the style of the costumes have changed. Costumes are still needed as part of the superhero mythos. "Random guy in a suit who can shoot lasers out of his eyes" is BORING. The entire concept of the costume is hard-wired to the very central theme of what superheroes ARE. They are supposed to be exaggerations of human potential. By day I am John Smith, but when I put on my mask/cape/cowl/whatever I can be ANYTHING. Basically the sentiment of the latter part of my message was this: Morales != Costumes. The golden age of morales is dead, but superhero costumes have not died with them. |
And I completely, absolutely agree with this.However, I still don't like non-functioning random costumes haha.
And yeah the morals are dead.
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
Quote:
Absolutely, you SHOULD to have 2 "styles" into one comic/film/book. To bring in a wider audience. But again, I think this boils down to taste.|
Originally Posted by Heroid
((Good point. As an example, look at the James Bond movies. The Sean Connery ones were interesting because they were something new. Over the top violence and sexiness hadn't been seen in a mainstream movie before and the "hip" generation (and that's "hip", not Hippie -- big diff) of the 60's ate it up. Girls started wearing their hair like "Bond Girls" and guys started trying to be suave and cool like Bond. Things wore a bit thin though, and the new had worn off long before Roger Moore took over. His first two Bond movies played on two things: the "exploitation films" of the 70's and humor. As his Bond career rolled on, however, the Bond movies seemed dated. Up to this point, the franchise had relied almost exclusively on plot and story, with almost no character development.
Enter Timothy Dalton. The Living Daylights was a better movie in many ways than any of its predecessors. It was a combination of political intrigue, world politics, and high adventure. It just wasn't a very good Bond movie. (I still recommend it. I think it's ironic that he's teaming with the Taliban to fight the Russians.) Then came License to Kill. This was an entirely different Bond. This Bond was more than a throwback to the Sean Connery days. This Bond was ruthless in both his duty and in romance. Similarities to the Connery Bonds ended there. Dalton's Bond wasn't cool -- he was downright cold. Though the film went out of its way to provide him with "just cause", I don't think this Bond would hesitate to kill anyone he deemed neccessary to kill. It would have been a much better movie if the writers/director hadn't wimped out so much to soften him. Still, both of the Dalton movies relied more on story/plot and had very little character growth. Except for Golden Eye, all of Pierce Brosnan's Bond movies sucked. A rehash of the Roger Moore Bond. They had their moments, but it was a step backward from the edgier Dalton movies. Then came Casino Royale with Daniel Craig as James Bond. For the first time we see a James Bond conflicted about his chosen profession. He is still a man who will kill without hesistation, but you get the impression that he has to detach himself a bit in order to do it. Like there's a part of his brain that is normal and human and a part that is the consumate MI-6 operative. This Bond fails. This Bond hurts. This Bond has internal conflicts that easily match the external ones. This Bond is not entirely trusted by M. In short, this Bond is not perfect. He's the most interesting Bond yet. The two Daniel Craig movies are still tautly plotted and rely heavily on plot devices and exotic locales, but they are equally about what makes James Bond tick, something that has never been explored on film before. This approach has revived the franchise and made a whole new generation of James Bond fans. Now, if they went to the other extreme, and made a Bond movie about his growth as a human being without having the tight plot and a good story, it would suck just as bad as the World is Not Enough. So yeah, character and story. Gotta have them both. Otherwise you have stupid soap opera (as opposed to a telenovela which is the soap opera done right and makes me wish I could speak Spanish). And I like costumes. Even if they're not functional. But it's a matter of taste, I think. I mean, if you can lift a tank and throw it, and you want to wear red spandex, who's to say you can't? As Nacho says, "When you are a man, sometimes you wear stretchy pants. In your room. Just for fun."  )) |
I used Transformers (Michael Bay) vs. any Eric Schaeffer movie because...they were 2 extremes both of which I enjoyed (I didn't like Transformers 2...long story and unrelated). The former, was a GIANT ROBOTS BATTLING, SEXY CHICKS RANDOMLY PLACED, HUUUUUUUUGE EXPLOSIONS MOVIE, with very little in terms of character, plot, and story (however, I liked it, I went to go see it for the mere graphics, ended up enjoying myself...maybe due to my low expectations? I have no idea). The latter is a humorous, emotional true-life story where the dialogue is the "action" and the characters, philosophical meanings, story development, the emotional rollercoaster are so rich and so tangible, that when you are done watching the movie, you are a changed human being.
Now, there are plenty of movies with BOTH (Braveheart, Gladiator, Underworld, even Spiderman), but you can still have "good" extremes too
I haven't yet to see either of the new Bond movies (too much crap going on in my life, and I seem to never catch the Casino Royale on my TV), however, I hear the first one was an awesome surprise of potentiality and the second one fell flat on its face. :P And these are peoples' tastes/creative judgment whom I trust haha.
And Haet, of course we talk too much. We're getting our intellectual/creative discourse on
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
Quote:
((Definitely see Casino Royale. A Quantum of Solace only works in a cause/effect kind of way with Casino Royale, and so, yes, it's nowhere near the movie its predecessor was, but still far, far better than any of the Brosnan movies (except Golden Eye, which ranks among the best of the Bond movies).|
Originally Posted by Sorah
I haven't yet to see either of the new Bond movies (too much crap going on in my life, and I seem to never catch the Casino Royale on my TV), however, I hear the first one was an awesome surprise of potentiality and the second one fell flat on its face. :P And these are peoples' tastes/creative judgment whom I trust haha.
And Haet, of course we talk too much. We're getting our intellectual/creative discourse on |
And as far as that last bit, Haet's just not into intellectual intercourse, it seems. Sorry, Haet! ))
Quote:
I know, I'm totally proving the former part of this thread wrong by actually having points and not just fluffbombing the hell outta this thing. |
Originally Posted by Heroid
And as far as that last bit, Haet's just not into intellectual intercourse, it seems. Sorry, Haet!
|
Maybe I should appease him JUST a little....
ZOMG! I JUST WENT SHOPPING AND THE FOOD IN MY FRIDGE IS LIKE JESUS ON MY FACE!!!!
LOL lollerskatez!
and the penultimate...
*ahem*
*walks up to the center of the thread, her right leg slightly in front of her other leg, her back arching ever so slightly....*
*looks around as if hesitating, but the devious gleam in her eyes speaks volumes for her intentions*
*flashes the thread*
*cackles and runs away*
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sorah
*flashes the thread*
|
*doing his best devil impression from Tenacious D & the Pick of Destiny*
I AM COMPLETE!!!
Quote:
Did you just.....fluffbomb?|
Originally Posted by Sorah
I know, I'm totally proving the former part of this thread wrong by actually having points and not just fluffbombing the hell outta this thing.
Maybe I should appease him JUST a little.... ZOMG! I JUST WENT SHOPPING AND THE FOOD IN MY FRIDGE IS LIKE JESUS ON MY FACE!!!! LOL lollerskatez! and the penultimate... *ahem* *walks up to the center of the thread, her right leg slightly in front of her other leg, her back arching ever so slightly....* *looks around as if hesitating, but the devious gleam in her eyes speaks volumes for her intentions* *flashes the thread* *cackles and runs away* |
You did!
At least you didn't shimmy.
Now! This is it! Now is the time to choose! Die and be free of pain or live and fight your sorrow! Now is the time to shape your stories! Your fate is in your hands!
wtf @ this thread.
Disappointment-ton.
I blame Ernest Borgnine.
/e shakes fist at thread. BLAME HIMMMM!
Let us stifle under mud at the pond's edge
and affirm that it is fitting
and delicious to lose everything. ~ Donald Hall
Morals is dead....
Sadly I have to agree with this statement..I saved up between 6months and a years worht of comic books on 75% of my titles I read for post surgery recovery..
Sadly the message in them was this:
'For years now weve been the good guys doing the right thing. Waiting for the bad guys to do something and then just arrest them or try to talk them out of it. Where has that gotten us? Dead innocents and dead teammates. I say we take the fight to them and stoop to thier level!'
Um, great. So, the whole thing about badguys doing wrong and good guys not stooping to thier level is now out the window? greeeaaat....I remember when Wolverine was cool cause he was the 'anti-hero'. the problem is EVERYONE wants to be the 'anti-hero' now. So coolness>morals and being a hero. How is that better than being a villian? Its like blue vs red or home vs away team. Thats the only way to distinguish the two with this mindset. I dont mind the proactive approach sometimes but not the whole 'stoop to thier level' mentality.
And on a similar but different note, MIDNIGHT LAUNCH OF BATMAN: ARKHAM ASYLUM!!! OMFG CNAT WAIT GOT MY COLLECTORS BOX SET RESERVED!!!! :d
-Pogoman, Master of Kick-Fu
-Co-Leader and recruiting officer of the Virtue Honor Guard
- lvl 50 ma/sr scrapper
-Ace O' Diamonds lvl 50 fire/rad controller
and waaaay to many other alts to mention right now
Yay! Fluff bomb!
And Shimming is bad, can get you modsmacked *knows from experiance*
Don't say I'm out of touch with this rampant chaos your reality
Evilly Yours, Fey Bot/Trap MM
One hopes that if that is the storyline Pogo, someone wiser will explain it to the newly minted anti-heroes that dead innocents and dead teammates will happen no matter what. It is sadly part of existence. Something to be stridently worked against but eventually unavoidable in only the most extreme cases, i.e. some sort of Beyonder 'I snap my fingers and everyone evil goes away forever.'
At some point when their rage has been spent and the blood is wiped from their eyes, there will still be bodies on the floor and some of them will be innocents.
In becoming anti-heroes, the heroes have handed a victory to the villians. They couldn't be made afraid by the villains but just as good they were made to despair.
In despair, like fear, there is nothing that cannot be justified, torture(Rorshack), enslavement(Superman in Kingdom Come), genocide(Ozymandias) and that sounds like villain-work no matter what color spandex you wear.
/e starts to type something else, sees something shiny on the ground and hops after it.
Let us stifle under mud at the pond's edge
and affirm that it is fitting
and delicious to lose everything. ~ Donald Hall
Oddly, I've just made a hero character who is meant to push the boundaries of antiheroism, just to show how not-cool-at-all it can get.
But then, I do <3 my moral grey areas.
The Elysienne; Magical controller
Silent Sickle; Natural scrapper
And many more.
Aenigma Rebis: "Actually, Ely's more like Jean Grey. Only... smart."
Quote:
I already have Flea. Because when it comes to moral grey areas I wrote the book.
|
Originally Posted by Elysienne
Oddly, I've just made a hero character who is meant to push the boundaries of antiheroism, just to show how not-cool-at-all it can get.
But then, I do <3 my moral grey areas. |
Now! This is it! Now is the time to choose! Die and be free of pain or live and fight your sorrow! Now is the time to shape your stories! Your fate is in your hands!
Seeing as morality is entirely subjective, I call shenanigans on the above claim. Like so.
*Clears throat*
Shenanigans!
The Elysienne; Magical controller
Silent Sickle; Natural scrapper
And many more.
Aenigma Rebis: "Actually, Ely's more like Jean Grey. Only... smart."
Quote:
I'm all for being gray and morally ambiguous, but you gotta do it RIGHT. I don't like how Marvel is handling their stories right now. I would go into further detail, but I'd rather the powers-that-be not banstick from work LOL!|
Morals is dead.... Sadly I have to agree with this statement..I saved up between 6months and a years worht of comic books on 75% of my titles I read for post surgery recovery.. Sadly the message in them was this: 'For years now weve been the good guys doing the right thing. Waiting for the bad guys to do something and then just arrest them or try to talk them out of it. Where has that gotten us? Dead innocents and dead teammates. I say we take the fight to them and stoop to thier level!' Um, great. So, the whole thing about badguys doing wrong and good guys not stooping to thier level is now out the window? greeeaaat....I remember when Wolverine was cool cause he was the 'anti-hero'. the problem is EVERYONE wants to be the 'anti-hero' now. So coolness>morals and being a hero. How is that better than being a villian? Its like blue vs red or home vs away team. Thats the only way to distinguish the two with this mindset. I dont mind the proactive approach sometimes but not the whole 'stoop to thier level' mentality. And on a similar but different note, MIDNIGHT LAUNCH OF BATMAN: ARKHAM ASYLUM!!! OMFG CNAT WAIT GOT MY COLLECTORS BOX SET RESERVED!!!! :d |
However, on a purely hypothetical, philosophical, creative level....
No offense to any creators out there (<3) but I think that "anti-heroes" are SOOOOOO 90s. LOL! I have my own creative intentions on redefining some things. Problem with anti-heroes and the way that the "gray" is handled with current heroes is that people are not willing to "go all the way" with it, they aren't ready to go "b*lls deep" with it, ya know? No committment. If you're going to go that route, you gotta commit, go all the way, OWN IT. GO MICHAEL BAY STYLE AND SAY TO HELL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES! RAWR! But they arent.
Bradders, you are a goon. Shush.
Quote:
|
Yay! Fluff bomb! And Shimming is bad, can get you modsmacked *knows from experiance* |
Quote:
| I already have Flea. Because when it comes to moral grey areas I wrote the book. |
Heroes, generally speaking, function with RULES. To break those moral rules negates the title of "hero." It doesn't make you ANTI, it makes you "human." Which is fine, but when you are creating an air and mythos around you that is "more than human" (Think Nolan's Batman films, he created a mythos of the Bat, etc, etc), you have to maintain to a higher level of morality and rules. And I'm not just talking Superman or anything.
It's kind of like...when you become a professional athlete. You can be GOOD at your game but you aren't a "HERO" if you're a ****** (T.O. in football). However, you can be good at your game and be a good person and live to a higher standard, which makes you a "hero" (Peyton Manning).
If you're going to sit there and redefine morality and heroism, you need to actively do so to make it plausible...don't be "humble" but don't qualify yourself as a hero. Ya know? I have no idea if I am making sense...I need more coffee...
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
Quote:
I believe you are saying it takes more than super power - and, for that matter, more than fighting crime and villains - to make a hero.
|
Originally Posted by Sorah
If you're going to sit there and redefine morality and heroism, you need to actively do so to make it plausible...don't be "humble" but don't qualify yourself as a hero. Ya know? I have no idea if I am making sense...I need more coffee...
|
Well yes, hence the term anti-hero. Coming from the words anti, meaning contrary to or against, and hero meaning rail! Er, hero, sorry, Channeling Lyle Langley for a second there.
I can see your point, though. Original antiheroes were shocking borderline pychopaths who single-mindedly and relentlessly pursued their greater good with implacable brutality. A good example is Rorschach, who would rather die than compromise his black/white morality.
Nowadays antiheroes just seem to be sneering analogues of regular heroes, serving to insert sarcastic barbs to ***** the heroic ego. Oh, and wearing lots of leather.
[edit] ...they really censored... but its a legitimate word! To lightly stab! Have the censors never heard of a pinprick? Gah!
The Elysienne; Magical controller
Silent Sickle; Natural scrapper
And many more.
Aenigma Rebis: "Actually, Ely's more like Jean Grey. Only... smart."
Quote:
Exactly. And it was cool at the time, but now it reminds of like...goth-wannabes or hipsters. It's like, "REALLY? Are you REALLY doing this? Go take a bath. You smell like feet." -_-|
Originally Posted by Elysienne
Well yes, hence the term anti-hero. Coming from the words anti, meaning contrary to or against, and hero meaning rail! Er, hero, sorry, Channeling Lyle Langley for a second there.
I can see your point, though. Original antiheroes were shocking borderline pychopaths who single-mindedly and relentlessly pursued their greater good with implacable brutality. A good example is Rorschach, who would rather die than compromise his black/white morality. Nowadays antiheroes just seem to be sneering analogues of regular heroes, serving to insert sarcastic barbs to ***** the heroic ego. Oh, and wearing lots of leather. |
I KIND of actually put a bit of blame in the popularity of cliche characterizations. Creators try to add depth to "IDEAS" of people without actually trying to make them PEOPLE. It's the difference between giving someone psychosis and giving someone a legit pathology and psychological background.
Granted, I'm a psychology-nut, and I find that stuff the MOST interesting, but also the most believable. I don't want 2-d characters with HINTS of being real, I want a 3-d character who has plausible backgrounds and idiosyncrasies and pet peeves and the like! And ya know what? It never hurt someone to do a little research before just slapping on some B.S. psychobabble onto a character. Come on people. :P
I'm currently writing a religiously themed story...and I've been spending the better parts of my day researching the different realms of religion. ME! READING RELIGIOUS TEXTS! But I'm doing it, so I know wtf I am talking about *nods sagely*
/end rant <_<
Quote:
| [edit] ...they really censored... but its a legitimate word! To lightly stab! Have the censors never heard of a pinprick? Gah! |
Click for Deviant Art Site - Commission List: OPEN
((To see the anti-hero done right, watch Cool Hand Luke. Or Casablanca. Or John Wayne in the Searchers. All are movies that anyone who likes film should see.
The thing about anti-heroes in comic books is this: the anti-hero sooner or later faces a choice where he has to do something heroic. Otherwise, he's just a schlub. Or a villain. And once you have him do that in a serial setting, he either has to go, "nah, I did that, but it didn't make me grow as a person," or he has to go, "I did that, and now I can't just go back to what I was, so what the hell do I do now?" The first example is how it's usually handled. The second example would make a damned fine series, but hardly anyone goes for such journeys of growth and self-discovery.
As far as the heroes crossing into the grey-zone -- that's why the new Hal Jordan Justice League doesn't interest me at all. It's stoopid. Especially with the characters they've picked for it. James Robinson is one of the best writers around, and maybe he can make it work, but the "taking the fight to the bad guys before they strike at us" premise sounds like some other idiot idea that I spent eight years trying hard not to think about. If you're going to do that, you need a covert team of heroes -- like Birds of Prey or the Outsiders; not Shazamarvel and Supergirl! D-u-m-b. Almost as dumb as having your heroes who have been poker buddies for years fighting a war in the street (only to find out later that some of them were aliens in disguise!).
Read Fables. Read Perhapanauts. Read Invincible. Read Ultimate Spider-man. Read Astro City. Comics done right. There are more, and you guys probably read some of them, but those are mine.
End rant. ))
((And I want to add -- the best anti-hero comic book I have ever read is Road to Perdition. It is so wonderful. Not a superhero in sight, but daaaaamn. If you like sequential storytelling, then you have got to read this! ))
Enter Timothy Dalton. The Living Daylights was a better movie in many ways than any of its predecessors. It was a combination of political intrigue, world politics, and high adventure. It just wasn't a very good Bond movie. (I still recommend it. I think it's ironic that he's teaming with the Taliban to fight the Russians.) Then came License to Kill. This was an entirely different Bond. This Bond was more than a throwback to the Sean Connery days. This Bond was ruthless in both his duty and in romance. Similarities to the Connery Bonds ended there. Dalton's Bond wasn't cool -- he was downright cold. Though the film went out of its way to provide him with "just cause", I don't think this Bond would hesitate to kill anyone he deemed neccessary to kill. It would have been a much better movie if the writers/director hadn't wimped out so much to soften him.
Still, both of the Dalton movies relied more on story/plot and had very little character growth.
Except for Golden Eye, all of Pierce Brosnan's Bond movies sucked. A rehash of the Roger Moore Bond. They had their moments, but it was a step backward from the edgier Dalton movies.
Then came Casino Royale with Daniel Craig as James Bond. For the first time we see a James Bond conflicted about his chosen profession. He is still a man who will kill without hesistation, but you get the impression that he has to detach himself a bit in order to do it. Like there's a part of his brain that is normal and human and a part that is the consumate MI-6 operative. This Bond fails. This Bond hurts. This Bond has internal conflicts that easily match the external ones. This Bond is not entirely trusted by M. In short, this Bond is not perfect. He's the most interesting Bond yet. The two Daniel Craig movies are still tautly plotted and rely heavily on plot devices and exotic locales, but they are equally about what makes James Bond tick, something that has never been explored on film before. This approach has revived the franchise and made a whole new generation of James Bond fans.
Now, if they went to the other extreme, and made a Bond movie about his growth as a human being without having the tight plot and a good story, it would suck just as bad as the World is Not Enough.
So yeah, character and story. Gotta have them both. Otherwise you have stupid soap opera (as opposed to a telenovela which is the soap opera done right and makes me wish I could speak Spanish).
And I like costumes. Even if they're not functional. But it's a matter of taste, I think. I mean, if you can lift a tank and throw it, and you want to wear red spandex, who's to say you can't?
As Nacho says, "When you are a man, sometimes you wear stretchy pants. In your room. Just for fun."