# "Superhero Shows Have No Plot" and Other Pleasant Fictions...



## Guy Gardner (Apr 15, 2011)

Continuing where we left off...



DracoStorm said:


> Yes, because the forum is called Naruto Forum, and has various forums dedicated to different aspects to it, while only one board is dedicated to this stuff, it's trolling to say it may possibly attract Naruto fans primarily.  Man, people love to throw around the word 'troll' if they can't think of anything to counter point.  It's pretty much lost any meaning at this point.



Just because you are a Narutofan on a Naruto board doesn't mean you aren't a troll. Lord of the Uchihas and so many others have proven that.

Rather, trolling a behavior defined by posting with a lack of logic or reasoning, often intended to anger others and attract their ire. In this case, the people in question feel that you are not actually addressing the arguments against you, but either backpeddling when confronted with evidence or restating your argument without addressing the counter-argument.

This board, as has been said, is far broader than just Naruto. I've been on boards which started as specialist boards, but evolved into something larger because the community grew. I used to post about Naruto a lot when I started here, but I don't any more. It's the evolution of the board; people leave the original topic, but stay for the community itself. I didn't think that was too hard to understand, but your young and relatively new. It's forgivable.



> That was the point.  You can make anything complex if you analyze it that much.  It'd be cool if Bataman explored those themes with it's plot, but it doesn't because there isn't one.



Here's the problem: Your definition of plot is not a definition of "plot". It is a _type_ of plot. If your definition of "plot" were true, then short stories could never exist. Sherlock Holmes would not be a character, he would be a name in a random assortment of words. Again, as a serialized character, he had individual stories published over a long period of time. You could come in on any of them and not be completely lost.

You know what? I'm going to give you a chance here. Tell me how long a plot has to go to be defined as a proper "plot". How long must a story be? 4 episodes? 5 episodes? 25 episodes? Give me something to go on here, because you are especially vague with it. Maybe if we get something more definite we can start hashing this whole thing out.



> Batman will never stop crime, or kill his villains,



Yes, but since when is this a requirement for having a plot?



> they'll never fully flesh out these characters and give them resolution



Dozens of characters get resolution, on shows and in comics. Every villain you've come up with so far has had a resolution on the show, where their character arc has basically come to an end. Mr. Freeze, Two-Face, the Riddler, the Penguin, the Joker... they all had endings.

In comics, while characters never die, stories end. Civil War ended. Siege ended. Secret Invasion ended. Infinite Crisis ended. All these stories had definitive _endings_, though their _repercussions_ lasted longer than the comics themselves. Thus new situations came, new problems, new arcs. So on and so forth. While there is no permanent closure, that does not mean there isn't closure to the arcs, stories, and problems themselves. As comics make a far larger world than any manga could hope for, it reflects that; they go on like the real world, reflecting it and changing with it. Eras reflect the times, just as 50's comics reflected attitudes then. Just because 



> because that means to end the show.



Funny: comics end all the time, as well as their shows. You act like JLU didn't end, or that Blue Beetle or Gotham Central or God-only-knows how many other books haven't ended. Sometimes they end with closure for the character, sometimes they don't. Sometimes it comes it comes later (Crispus Allen finally avenging his own murder), sometimes it comes at the end of the comic (Blue Beetle). Sometimes it sucks (Countdown), sometimes it rocks (52), but many of them do end.



> It's just a marketing gimmick they'll reboot every few years when the money starts getting thin.



Or they come to an endgame where they can do no more. For example, I doubt Siege was done because they were not making enough money off of Dark Reign. It was done because they had reached a point where they wanted to move on to a new round. 

This isn't to say that certain comics aren't put out there to grab money. But a lot of events do have build up to them. For example, World War Hulk was built up for a while and resolved many of the things which happened for the Hulk while he was off-planet. Of course, that didn't end his character, but that specific arc ended, just like an anime or manga arc. They both use the same thing, the difference is mangas tend to create smaller universes which are based around one vision, while comic book universes really have lives of their own (for better or worse; see Civil War). I can completely respect preferring one over the other, but that doesn't mean you can completely disrespect and defame the one you don't like without getting your shit tossed back at you.



> You'll notice any resolution they characters got were in later shows after B:TAS was canceled.



It wasn't cancelled. It evolved into Justice League. The story hadn't ended, it was briefly put on hiatus. I'd also point out that Batman Beyond ran simultaneously with the original animated series. Thus, a lot was resolved before we got to JL.



> They never had the plan to give them resolution in the show, because that would mean willingly ending the series.



Except they did end it, and started up Batman Beyond and Justice League. Why did they need to resolve things in New Batman Adventures that they could resolve in those two shows instead?



> So, Joker, Freeze, and I guess Talia or whoever die in Batman Beyond, many years later, when Timm got a second chance.



Justice League came out in 2001. Batman Beyond came out in 1999 and ended in 2002. New Batman Adventures literally ended the week after Batman Beyond began. This is stuff which is easily accessible online, and messing up your facts this badly is one of the reasons people consider you a troll.



> Course, it didn't stop him from using Joker in Justice League even after he died in BB, so even beyond death in the future, there's ways to milk the character out.



Because we haven't seen characters in animes use flashbacks before? "Holy crap, man, the 4th Hokage was dead, but Kishi totally milked his corpse by going back and showing Kakashi as a new jounin with him." Christ, the hypocrisy is sickening.


----------



## Stunna (Apr 16, 2011)

I know it doesn't exactly pertain to the purpose of this thread's creation, but my only issue with superhero shows, and it's barely even that, is that since I don't own any comics, I don't get any of the references made or cameos that may appear.

I enjoy discovering easter-eggs 

Besides that, good stuff :33


----------



## DracoStorm (Apr 16, 2011)

Guy Gardner said:


> arguments against you, but either backpeddling when confronted with evidence or restating your argument without addressing the counter-argument.


 Because the 'evidence' is weak and faulty.  How else would you respond when someone tries to claim Naruto or One Piece is no different than a superhero comic book? Don't the sales numbers pretty much indicate the bulk of people seem to think there's a distinct enough difference to make a preference between the two and gravitate towards one over the other? The one writer VS dozens? The 'will end' VS 'will not end'? I'll restate my point because it's yet to be countered.



> You know what? I'm going to give you a chance here. Tell me how long a plot has to go to be defined as a proper "plot". How long must a story be? 4 episodes? 5 episodes? 25 episodes? Give me something to go on here, because you are especially vague with it. Maybe if we get something more definite we can start hashing this whole thing out.


 It's not really length, just the way it's handled and executed.  If I had to pick a number, more than one episode would be the bare minimum I suppose.  The thing with anime is most of them are only 13/26/52 episode; they're created with an foreseeable ending in mind, and outside some rare occasions, once those episodes are over, that's it.  It's a main fundamental difference between the West and the East.  American television in general is different due to the seasonal structure.  It operates on going on for as long as they can until they get canceled.  Look at various live-action television shows in their 9th season; they generally only end when the creator gets tired of it or the network pulls the plug due to poor ratings.  American television by default does not lend itself to shows with a continuing storyline that spans the series; the format just doesn't allow it to be feasible when just about every show ends in cancellation prematurally. (And this says nothing of the views on animation just being for children here and not a viable storytelling medium like it is in other parts of the world) Even longer running shows like Naruto or One Piece; each chapter and episode leads into the next and there's an actual timeline there.  It's just the natural way they're created.  

When Scar appears in Fullmetal Alchemist, I know it means something and isn't just a throwaway episode where he's the villain for that episode.  When it's the Joker, well, he'll appear to do some scheme, get arrested, then get thrown in jail (or escape) by the end of the episode, and they'll repeat as many times as they want because there's no ending point or goal for that character.



> Dozens of characters get resolution, on shows and in comics. Every villain you've come up with so far has had a resolution on the show, where their character arc has basically come to an end. Mr. Freeze, Two-Face, the Riddler, the Penguin, the Joker... they all had endings.


 Correction: they had resolution on another show after B:TAS was canceled.  Anyone can go back after their show was canceled and end things when they know they'll only have that one episode to do it (Mr. Freeze wasn't really a recurring character on Batman Beyond, he was in one episode), and one should not be expected to go watch another show to get resolution for a previous one; that's what comics do.  But like I said, Bruce Timm is lucky in that regard he can retroactively do it in another series.  Other superhero shows do not get that luxury of multiple shows, so using non DCAU examples nullifies that point.  Also, there's characters like , Scarecrow, Two Face, and so forth who never even got that luxury; or heck, everyone in Justice League Unlimited the league let go in the end.  That was at least a hundred villains there.  It's not restricted to the villains either.  What happened to the Flash? You can name hundreds of characters that just get left dangling.



> In comics, while characters never die, stories end. Civil War ended. Siege ended. Secret Invasion ended. Infinite Crisis ended. All these stories had definitive _endings_, though their _repercussions_ lasted longer than the comics themselves. Thus new situations came, new problems, new arcs. So on and so forth. While there is no permanent closure, that does not mean there isn't closure to the arcs, stories, and problems themselves. As comics make a far larger world than any manga could hope for, it reflects that; they go on like the real world, reflecting it and changing with it. Eras reflect the times, just as 50's comics reflected attitudes then. Just because


 Yeah, those specific crossover events ended, but so what? My point is there's no overall plot to those comics; and there's fine because there's not meant to be, I accepted they're not for me long ago when I stopped reading them. 



> Funny: comics end all the time, as well as their shows. You act like JLU didn't end, or that Blue Beetle or Gotham Central or God-only-knows how many other books haven't ended. Sometimes they end with closure for the character, sometimes they don't. Sometimes it comes it comes later (Crispus Allen finally avenging his own murder), sometimes it comes at the end of the comic (Blue Beetle). Sometimes it sucks (Countdown), sometimes it rocks (52), but many of them do end.


 The thing is even if the Blue Beetle comic was canceled and ended, he's still in about four other books.  Wasn't e on the Teen Titans eventually? Someone who actively follows it could probably name many other titles he's in.  So yes, the books end for one reason or another, but it's not the same as when a manga ends, because the character end with that series.  Those books are just like 'windows' into their lives.  If one closes, there's still about four others we see, we just won't see that specific view.  (i.e. if Teen Titans is cancelled, we wont see Robin on the weekends hanging with the Titans and doing that stuff, but we'll see him all his other times as Batman's sidekick)



> Or they come to an endgame where they can do no more. For example, I doubt Siege was done because they were not making enough money off of Dark Reign. It was done because they had reached a point where they wanted to move on to a new round.





> This isn't to say that certain comics aren't put out there to grab money. But a lot of events do have build up to them. For example, World War Hulk was built up for a while and resolved many of the things which happened for the Hulk while he was off-planet. Of course, that didn't end his character, but that specific arc ended, just like an anime or manga arc. They both use the same thing, the difference is mangas tend to create smaller universes which are based around one vision, while comic book universes really have lives of their own (for better or worse; see Civil War). I can completely respect preferring one over the other, but that doesn't mean you can completely disrespect and defame the one you don't like without getting your shit tossed back at you.


 It's hard to take any of those events serious when Marvel and DC treat them as marketing gimmicks.  Death, crossover (Civil War hyping Captain America's death), it' just to boost sales because those crossover events are the only comics that sell over 100,000 because of collectors wanting them.  That's why there's one or two or more crossover events each year.  



> Because we haven't seen characters in animes use flashbacks before? "Holy crap, man, the 4th Hokage was dead, but Kishi totally milked his corpse by going back and showing Kakashi as a new jounin with him." Christ, the hypocrisy is sickening.


 And this is why I call your points weak.  That wasn't some other cartoon in the same continuity using the character in the past, it was a flashback of an important plot point.  You seem to not be able to comprehend the difference of two completely different storytelling formats.


----------



## -Dargor- (Apr 16, 2011)

Batman having no plot

Good one, I stopped reading after that, he's clearly a troll (one that can't spell too).


----------



## Castiel (Apr 16, 2011)

Stuff gets punched

what more do you need


----------



## cobraed (Apr 16, 2011)

Kilogram said:


> Stuff gets punched
> 
> what more do you need



Lol agreed


----------



## DracoStorm (Apr 16, 2011)

-Dargor- said:


> Batman having no plot
> 
> Good one, I stopped reading after that, he's clearly a troll (one that can't spell too).


 She, and you're free to explain why rather than cry troll and act like one yourself.  What's the overall plot for Batman? Any cartoon or the comics if you prefer.  Who's the main villain? What's the goal he achieves? B:TAS had none, and was just episodic Batman stories. Brave and the Bold has no goal and is just episodic Batman stories (with team ups from obscure comic characters).  Unless the next one is different, it'll remain that way.


----------



## Knight (Apr 16, 2011)

DracoStorm said:


> She, and you're free to explain why rather than cry troll and act like one yourself.  What's the overall plot for Batman? Any cartoon or the comics if you prefer.  Who's the main villain? What's the goal he achieves? B:TAS had none, and was just episodic Batman stories. Brave and the Bold has no goal and is just episodic Batman stories (with team ups from obscure comic characters).  Unless the next one is different, it'll remain that way.



Ever heard of a rogues gallery? Luffy has them(Smoker fore example). Not everything in fiction has the end all or be all villain. for example in Mangas, Vinland Saga from the route its taking isn't going to have one and Death Note didn't really had one.


----------



## Knight (Apr 16, 2011)

DracoStorm said:


> She, and you're free to explain why rather than cry troll and act like one yourself.  What's the overall plot for Batman? Any cartoon or the comics if you prefer.  Who's the main villain? What's the goal he achieves? B:TAS had none, and was just episodic Batman stories. Brave and the Bold has no goal and is just episodic Batman stories (with team ups from obscure comic characters).  Unless the next one is different, it'll remain that way.



the epsiodes them self have plots(example in the black canary episode it explains why Wildcat is protective of her due to her mother's death). If you think about it it does have a main plot. Batman doing what batman does best.


Batman: TAS was concluded in the JLU episode *epilogue*(as well as everything else in the DCAU such as Superman, Batman Beyond(Terry taking on the mantle fully knowing he has Batman's blood in him) and on smaller scale static shock(which had a ending as well).


----------



## DracoStorm (Apr 16, 2011)

Knight said:


> Ever heard of a rogues gallery? Luffy has them. Not everything in fiction has the end all or be all villian. for example in Mangas, Vinland Saga from the route its taking isn't going to have one and Death Note didn't really had one.


 Um, you man besides L/Near/Mellow?  Anyway, a rogues gallery isn't really what shounen manga have, at least not executed the same as it is in superhero stuff (a group of villains which to pick one at random to fill the episode's plot of the day).  I guess you can say Ed and Al had a rogues gallery with the Homunculi but, uh, most of them kind of died and were taken care of by the show's end, they were more like bosses in a video game you meet along the way and defeat and move on.  Death Note's whole thing was catching Light, which L failed to do so Near and Mellow took up the slack.



Knight said:


> the epsiodes them self have plots(example in the black canary episode it explains why Wildcat is protective of her due to her mother's death). If you think about it it does have a main plot. Batman doing what batman does best.


 Yeah, there's plot in the sense of 'this is the villain's plan this week to rob the bank or defeat Batman, but gets thwarted, and all is well in 20 minutes' that's being episodic.  The plots are self contained and limited to each episode to make it easier for kids as well as it's more rerun friendly.  Networks usually tell writers to keep it episodic for a reason.



> Batman: TAS was concluded in the JLU episode *epilogue*


 Well, that didn't really give any conclusion to anything other than revealing Terry is Bruce's biological son.  Maybe if the whole show was a drama about Terry finding out his true identity or his true father or something, but even if it did, you shouldn't have to watch a whole another show to get it.  I remember reading Green Arrow years ago and then it was a continuation of when Dr. Light appeared and ranted how Green Arrow helped brainwash him and I was like "When did this happen"? then people said it happened in the Identity Crisis miniseries I should have been reading along with another title.  Yeah..  I just wanted to read Green Arrow not a bunch of other stuff.  And that was a more obscure title.  I remember picking up the first issue (of whatever volume) of JSA to check it out and the very next issue said 'story continued in Justice League #238 or whatever'.  Bah. That's like being forced to read One Piece to get the conclusion of the Zabuza arc in Naruto.


----------



## typhoon72 (Apr 16, 2011)

DracoStorm said:


> What's the overall plot for Batman?



This is the overall plot of Batman, stolen from comicvine:
_
After witnessing the murder of his parents, billionaire Bruce Wayne dedicated his life to ridding Gotham City of crime. After years of physical and mental training, and utilizing his vast family fortune, he became a heroic symbol that strikes fear into the hearts of criminals, the Dark Knight: Batman._

Just because a story is open ended doesn't mean there is no plot. 



DracoStorm said:


> Who's the main villain?


The main villain depends on whoever is writing the story.



DracoStorm said:


> What's the goal he achieves?



Keeping Gotham safe from criminals.


Listen, just because you may not care for a typical comic book format doesn't mean there isnt any plot. You're wrong and you know it, just eat crow and leave.


----------



## Knight (Apr 16, 2011)

DracoStorm said:


> Um, you man besides L/Near/Mellow?  Anyway, a rogues gallery isn't really what shounen manga have, at least not executed the same as it is in superhero stuff (a group of villains which to pick one at random to fill the episode's plot of the day).  *I guess you can say Ed and Al had a rogues gallery with the Homunculi but, uh, most of them kind of died and were taken care of by the show's end*, they were more like bosses in a video game you meet along the way and defeat and move on.  Death Note's whole thing was catching Light, which L failed to do so Near and Mellow took up the slack.
> 
> Yeah, there's plot in the sense of 'this is the villain's plan this week to rob the bank or defeat Batman, but gets thwarted, and all is well in 20 minutes' that's being episodic.  The plots are self contained and limited to each episode to make it easier for kids as well as it's more rerun friendly.  Networks usually tell writers to keep it episodic for a reason.
> 
> Well, that didn't really give any conclusion to anything other than revealing Terry is Bruce's biological son.  Maybe if the whole show was a drama about Terry finding out his true identity or his true father or something, but even if it did, you shouldn't have to watch a whole another show to get it.



Which happened in Batman: TAS all the villains where taken care of in their respective arcs. 

As for Batman Beyond yes it did gave you the conclusion. The point of the show is Terry's Ascension to the mantle which the "Beyond"(and I believe it was even the name of the project that made Terry in the first place) title comes from. Terry continuing where Bruce left off.


----------



## Taleran (Apr 16, 2011)

I am going to start by saying I love your posts because there is SO MUCH to respond to.



DracoStorm said:


> Because the 'evidence' is weak and faulty.  How else would you respond when someone tries to claim Naruto or One Piece is no different than a superhero comic book? Don't the sales numbers pretty much indicate the bulk of people seem to think there's a distinct enough difference to make a preference between the two and gravitate towards one over the other? The one writer VS dozens? The 'will end' VS 'will not end'? I'll restate my point because it's yet to be countered.



You used the Apples and Oranges argument earlier and the Japanese comic market and the American one are very much that situation the reason Japanese comics have more sales is because they have a bigger comic market period, If you made the markets the same size Superheroes would have the Shounen sales easily.

Okay To go into your other point about endings I am going to not look to character but to Creator. Modern superhero comics are much different than they were in the past, they have very rotating casts of creators and largely a book is not shaped by a single person over the period of time say a One Piece or Naruto is.

For example, Grant Morrison's tenure on the character of Batman has a beginning and and will have an end and because he is a good writer the character goes through change and will be at a different place at the end of the story than they were at the beginning. The character will still be alive at the end of the story (just like how the finale of Naruto has a precursor that not everyone in the story will be dead and no longer having adventures) and then a new creator will come on and tell a new story with the same character. It would be like if after One Piece ends someone else gets permission to do another story with those characters.




> It's not really length, just the way it's handled and executed.  If I had to pick a number, more than one episode would be the bare minimum I suppose.  The thing with anime is most of them are only 13/26/52 episode; they're created with an foreseeable ending in mind, and outside some rare occasions, once those episodes are over, that's it.  It's a main fundamental difference between the West and the East.  American television in general is different due to the seasonal structure.  It operates on going on for as long as they can until they get canceled.  Look at various live-action television shows in their 9th season; they generally only end when the creator gets tired of it or the network pulls the plug due to poor ratings.  American television by default does not lend itself to shows with a continuing storyline that spans the series; the format just doesn't allow it to be feasible when just about every show ends in cancellation prematurally. (And this says nothing of the views on animation just being for children here and not a viable storytelling medium like it is in other parts of the world) Even longer running shows like Naruto or One Piece; each chapter and episode leads into the next and there's an actual timeline there.  It's just the natural way they're created.



By the way the only shows that fit into your 9 seasons of TV are shows like The Simpsons or Seinfeld that are a style of entertainment unique to TV and are designed to explore as many ideas with the same characters as they can. Yet those shows (I am including Batman: TAS in this aswell) have a plot in every episode, it is a *short* plot yes but it is still about things has characters and a beginning and an end.




> When Scar appears in Fullmetal Alchemist, I know it means something and isn't just a throwaway episode where he's the villain for that episode.  When it's the Joker, well, he'll appear to do some scheme, get arrested, then get thrown in jail (or escape) by the end of the episode, and they'll repeat as many times as they want because there's no ending point or goal for that character.



This is false. When you are watching or reading something for the first time you have no idea when they are going to appear in the narrative again until they do, you are using after the fact knowledge to support your position.




> Correction: they had resolution on another show after B:TAS was canceled.  Anyone can go back after their show was canceled and end things when they know they'll only have that one episode to do it (Mr. Freeze wasn't really a recurring character on Batman Beyond, he was in one episode), and one should not be expected to go watch another show to get resolution for a previous one; that's what comics do.  But like I said, Bruce Timm is lucky in that regard he can retroactively do it in another series.  Other superhero shows do not get that luxury of multiple shows, so using non DCAU examples nullifies that point.  Also, there's characters like , Scarecrow, Two Face, and so forth who never even got that luxury; or heck, everyone in Justice League Unlimited the league let go in the end.  That was at least a hundred villains there.  It's not restricted to the villains either.  What happened to the Flash? You can name hundreds of characters that just get left dangling.



Why is this important? EVERY STORY IN THE HISTORY OF STORIES DOES NOT TELL EVERY MOMENT IN EVERY CHARACTERS LIVES IT IS AN INHERENT FUNCTION OF NARRATIVE. You will never get all the answers.



> *Yeah, those specific crossover events ended, but so what? My point is there's no overall plot to those comics;* and there's fine because there's not meant to be, I accepted they're not for me long ago when I stopped reading them.



This is an inherent contradiction.




> The thing is even if the Blue Beetle comic was canceled and ended, he's still in about four other books.  Wasn't e on the Teen Titans eventually? Someone who actively follows it could probably name many other titles he's in.  So yes, the books end for one reason or another, but it's not the same as when a manga ends, because the character end with that series.  Those books are just like 'windows' into their lives.  If one closes, there's still about four others we see, we just won't see that specific view.  (i.e. if Teen Titans is cancelled, we wont see Robin on the weekends hanging with the Titans and doing that stuff, but we'll see him all his other times as Batman's sidekick)



You keep throwing this out like it is a bad thing when it is not.




> It's hard to take any of those events serious when Marvel and DC treat them as marketing gimmicks.  Death, crossover (Civil War hyping Captain America's death), it' just to boost sales because those crossover events are the only comics that sell over 100,000 because of collectors wanting them.  That's why there's one or two or more crossover events each year.



You probably will not understand this but the reason those events sell more is that people get invested in the overall story of the universe and the crossover usually effects the entire thing. I prefer well written stories so whatever.



> And this is why I call your points weak.  That wasn't some other cartoon in the same continuity using the character in the past, it was a flashback of an important plot point.  You seem to not be able to comprehend the difference of two completely different storytelling formats.



If you are specificly referring to B:TAS, Batman Beyond and JLU. You are 100% completely wrong.

They are show under the overall direction of the same person (along with Superman The Animated series) and it is pretty clear it goes in this order.

B:TAS / S:TAS are happening at the same time.
JLA which transforms into JLU in season 2 or 3
Batman Beyond is in the FUTURE of the same earth depicted in those previous 3 shows just like say Legend of Korra will be in the future of Avatar.

That is concrete.

Here is the final example, I will take 2 character Batman and for the sake of this forum Naruto.


Batman was created at a specific point that you can point to, he has a goal or an ideal he wants to show the world So his stories showcase his triumphs pitfalls obstacles and relationships on that path. Batman does not fight his fight for something for himself, therefore its culmination is not entirely in his control.

Naruto was created at a specific point that you can point to, he has a goal to achieve and the ending of that story has already been plotted out. Naruto has a very specific very achievable goal given the setup of his universe so if it doesn't end eventually it would feel like getting conned.

Both ways of telling stories are entirely valid, they are just different ways of telling stories.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Apr 16, 2011)

I understand Draco. Basically he's saying Comics dont have a final Endgame. We will never see Batman beat his last villain and retire. We will never see the end of Darkseid.

However Draco, if you want a comic with an Endgame, read Spawn. Every issue, continued into the next once, each arc had an ending, and it had final Endgame. Spawn even had a Final Villain character with Mammon.


----------



## Velocity (Apr 16, 2011)

~Avant~ said:


> I understand Draco. Basically he's saying Comics dont have a final Endgame. We will never see Batman beat his last villain and retire. We will never see the end of Darkseid.
> 
> However Draco, if you want a comic with an Endgame, read Spawn. Every issue, continued into the next once, each arc had an ending, and it had final Endgame. Spawn even had a Final Villain character with Mammon.



That's really the main problem I have with most comics... There's no actual structure to the storyline, creating an entirely episodic "plot" that has no defined beginning, middle or end. Sure, you could call the first issue the character shows up in their "beginning", but that's really about it. Different writers come in and create their own stories, ultimately giving birth to a character that will never get an ending as long as they're still popular.

I like stories I know will actually end.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Apr 16, 2011)

And I can sympathize with that.

I mean there are a lot of Comics out there that do have definitive ends. 300, Watchmen, Sandman, and Spawn, just to name a few.

The only comics that perpetuate the open endedness and episodic trend, are really DC and Marvel.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 16, 2011)

What kinda ignorance is this? Many comics DO have a flowing plotline, and an integrated one among various series under their belt. Past events are referenced all the time, and many do meet a conclusive end. 

Even with Marvel and DC, some of their series meet their end as in the view of the current writer, often to give way to a writer to establish his own universe. The thing with Marvel and DC is that there are various ones, many of which the superheroes' stories have already ended.

Even in animation, something like the DCAU which I believe started with Batman: TAS and then later Superman TAS was integrated into the JL/JLU storyline, that is integrated into the Static Shock storyline and all of which are integrated into and ends with the Batman Beyond storyline.


----------



## ~Avant~ (Apr 16, 2011)

We've established that, and thats not what we're arguing.

What Draco's point is, When will it end? When will Captain America die, and actually die? And never be referenced except in Flashback form? When will the Joker finally stop getting away?

Thats the point. Its not the Comic's dont have plot per say, but that it seems like they're not leading to anything definitive. Even when facing opponents who can destroy galaxies with ease, there's just never a serious conclusion. There are serious ramifications, but nothing conclusive.


----------



## Velocity (Apr 16, 2011)

The major problem is that... Take Onslaught. An absolutely huge event, right? Which would've made a brilliant finale, the combination of Magneto and Xavier to create a hulking mass of total badassery that killed countless characters and took most of the remaining Marvel Universe just to bring down. But what happens? Three months later, everyone's moved on and its as if it never happened. Sure, it's referenced a couple of times here and there but any actual ramifications of the event itself are brushed aside for the sake of continuity. 

Then there's that M-Day nonsense - Marvel has too many mutants, so what do they decide to do? "We don't have the resources to give them all a good ending, so just make anyone not popular enough lose their powers". That's a huge problem with a publication that goes on for decades without ever actually ending any particular character's story. They keep adding more and more new characters and before they know it, they've got to cut a load of them because nobody wants them any more.


----------



## masamune1 (Apr 16, 2011)

At some point I'd love it if Marvel did something like, say, being about that Anti-Mutant Police State future that the X-Men are so desperate to avert.  

Which isn't quite on topic, but I'd like to see it.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Apr 16, 2011)

~Avant~ said:


> I understand Draco. Basically he's saying Comics dont have a final Endgame. We will never see Batman beat his last villain and retire. We will never see the end of Darkseid.
> 
> However Draco, if you want a comic with an Endgame, read Spawn. Every issue, continued into the next once, each arc had an ending, and it had final Endgame. Spawn even had a Final Villain character with Mammon.



Hell she should read Fables...or Neil Gaiman's sandman for that matter. If she seriously thinks that no comics have never had an endgame alot of the Vertigo imprints would prove her wrong. 

Also i'm still confused at her opinion that we have to know everything about a every character...which even in most manga doesn't happen ...hell it doesn't even happen in literature all the damn time.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Apr 16, 2011)

Shade: Feel free to drop your own opinion. Just be prepared to defend and justify it. 



> I like stories I know will actually end.



I'm okay with that. It's personal preference. But there is a difference between saying that and "All stories which don't have definite endings have no plot!" _That_ it what DracoStorm is saying. Not when it will end, but that because it never ends, there is no plot or story.



DracoStorm said:


> Because the 'evidence' is weak and faulty.  How else would you respond when someone tries to claim Naruto or One Piece is no different than a superhero comic book? Don't the sales numbers pretty much indicate the bulk of people seem to think there's a distinct enough difference to make a preference between the two and gravitate towards one over the other? The one writer VS dozens? The 'will end' VS 'will not end'? I'll restate my point because it's yet to be countered.



The evidence isn?t weak, you just refuse to recognize it. Let?s go through the stuff here:

Sale: Sales are only higher in Japan. Why? Because culturally mangas have a much different status than comic books. Disregarding anything like quality, they start at different places because of the Japanese people themselves. Look at Hentai, and compare how it would be viewed here versus how it is viewed in Japan. Using the ?sales? argument would be like saying the PS3 is superior to the 360 because it sells better in Japan, disregarding anything about hardware or games library. Or hell, it?s like comparing Soccer versus Football; just because one has a larger world market does not mean that it is somehow superior to the other. If sales is your only argument, why do they not do as well in America as regular American comics do?

One Writer: This is evidence how? Just because something is written by one writer does not necessarily make it a better piece of writing. I don?t even see how this matters.

?Will End? VS ?Will Not End?: Largely preferential. This has no indication of ?quality?: There are plenty of mangas which end, but are still shitty stories. It has no bearing on actual quality.

You focus on completely superficial things without focusing on what actually defines quality: Story and characters. Instead, you make up definitions about ?plot? that make English professors cry.



> It's not really length, just the way it's handled and executed.  If I had to pick a number, more than one episode would be the bare minimum I suppose.



How long is an episode? 22 minutes? What about two 15 minute episodes? How does this apply to writing: Is there a page limit? How long?

Have you ever seen the movie Inherit the Wind? This is me being Clarence Darrow and you being William Jennings Bryan. You are using a completely arbitrary way of deciding what is a plot. If the story has a middle, beginning, and end, then it has a plot. All the episodes lead somewhere and have some level of an ending, even if there are things which come after it. Like reading a Sherlock Holmes story, they can be taken out largely as a stand-alone stories, but put together certain plots and certain changes come about.

The difference here is that you have a _preference_ for one, and to justify that preference you?ve made up something that no person who studies literature would ever put on it. 



> The thing with anime is most of them are only 13/26/52 episode; they're created with an foreseeable ending in mind, and outside some rare occasions, once those episodes are over, that's it.



This is true to an extent; There are plenty of mangas which end prematurely. Generally speaking, though, you just don?t see them. They aren?t nearly as visible because they get lost behind the huge, successful ones. Same with animes. While created with a foreseeable ending, this ending is sometimes stretched out (Dragonball) or in the case of many which aren?t picked or popular, just disappear. The difference is that, as a rule, animes tend to have a much longer shelf life in Japan. It?s a different type of demand, and since they are generally made for the Japanese, it?s easy to just important them.



> It's a main fundamental difference between the West and the East.  American television in general is different due to the seasonal structure.  It operates on going on for as long as they can until they get canceled.



Again, true to an extent. Most shows know when they are getting cancelled, or have an idea and attempt to wrap things up. Shows which end without any sort of closure (Like Spectacular Spider-Man or Wolverine and the X-Men) were honestly meant to continue on, but due to very specific reasons,

But all the superhero shows you talk about really had closure. There was closure at the end of the first two X-Men series. There was closure with Batman Beyond carrying on and finishing up the original Batman series. JL finished up some lines in Batman and Superman, and ultimately ended the universe with JLU. 

The more recent you get, the more complex you get with overarching stories. JLU had a long-running plot throughout most of its episodes (Cadmus). JL had character plots running between episodes (including romances between GL/Hawkgirl and Batman/Wonder Woman), among other things (Such as a running distrust of heroes which carries over and becomes more of a plot point in JLU)



> Look at various live-action television shows in their 9th season; they generally only end when the creator gets tired of it or the network pulls the plug due to poor ratings.



Yes, but hasn't been the case for quite a while. I'll agree that some shows in the 90's may have followed this, but most recent shows have either ended prematurely due to legal battles or ended with plenty of closure. For cartoons especially, this is no longer a good way of looking at things; all recent hero cartoons have had continuing storylines which were meant to be brought to a conclusion. The larger problem was with Marvel?s buyout, not ratings.



> American television by default does not lend itself to shows with a continuing storyline that spans the series; the format just doesn't allow it to be feasible when just about every show ends in cancellation prematurally.



Again, this is a gross over-generalization. The most recent shows to end prematurely were due to legal battles which could never have been predicted. Plenty of shows knew they were on their final season and ended their shows. This is a hallmark of most recent shows, too. Bring up one recent show that was like this.



> (And this says nothing of the views on animation just being for children here and not a viable storytelling medium like it is in other parts of the world)



I can't argue it, though through the efforts of people like Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, Pixar, and many others, animation is getting more credit as a serious medium. This doesn?t mean that shows like Batman aren?t as adult as others, though: You have to judge that by the show itself.



> Even longer running shows like Naruto or One Piece; each chapter and episode leads into the next and there's an actual timeline there.  It's just the natural way they're created.



I agree and disagree with this. For example, there are plenty of fillers which can be inserted in and out without care. Look at Naruto before the time skip. 

But yes, this is somewhat true.  There is a defined order to Batman, but it?s _less_ important and rigid as it needs to be for Naruto or One Piece, which are telling a single story. That?s not to say the stories don?t have an order, or that it?s completely superfluous; they have an obvious order, it?s just not completely necessary to follow that order to enjoy the episodes. I can jump in on any Sherlock Holmes story and enjoy it. That?s not a disadvantage.

Just because it isn?t a point of emphasis (Point in case, newer shows like Avengers and Young Justice have very defined timelines) doesn?t mean it is anything more than a preference. It isn?t an indicator of quality. Would Loony Toons or Monty Python be any less funny or classic because they didn?t have a defined timeline? Is Naruto any better because it has a defined timeline? No. 



> When Scar appears in Fullmetal Alchemist, I know it means something and isn't just a throwaway episode where he's the villain for that episode.



Sort of like Two-Face, right?



> When it's the Joker, well, he'll appear to do some scheme, get arrested, then get thrown in jail (or escape) by the end of the episode, and they'll repeat as many times as they want because there's no ending point or goal for that character.



The Joker is static because he?s chaotic; it?s part of the character. He?s the antithesis of Batman, just as implacable and unending. It?s the Yin and Yang, light and dark dichotomy. He _has_ a goal; he?s chaos. Trying to define him like Scar is going to be difficult because that?s part of his character. In fact, considering a lot of Batman?s villains are defined by their psychosis, getting clear goals is fairly difficult. They are unbalanced; their goals are always changing and unclear. If you want someone with a clear goal and is always working towards that goal (Like Scar), Lex Luthor is a good example.



> Correction: they had resolution on another show after B:TAS was canceled.



It wasn't cancelled. Stop being an idiot; Batman Beyond was always meant to be a continuation. Because they resolved it on this show doesn't mean they "went back" (as some characters, like Two-Face, had already been resolved) and fixed things. It was a natural continuation that started before the other even  ended. Stop being dishonest here.



> Anyone can go back after their show was canceled and end things when they know they'll only have that one episode to do it (Mr. Freeze wasn't really a recurring character on Batman Beyond, he was in one episode)



So? He'd already been established years beforehand. He only needed one episode. Why does he need a huge arc when his character has been around for years by this time, and people who were watching Batman directly segued into Batman Beyond? Again, you are putting on arbitrary guidelines for it to be ?good? based on your own preferences.



> , and one should not be expected to go watch another show to get resolution for a previous one;



Except when it's a continuation of the previous series. Which is what Batman Beyond is. This is like complaining about having to watch Naruto: Shippuden to get closure to Naruto; they are both time jumps in which ultimate closure is reached for both stories.



> that's what comics do.



Infinite Crisis ended. You could read that and be like "Okay, this is over". The ramifications went on, but you could read that and have closure to the characters for that story. Same with 52: Renee Montoya's story has closure, dealing with the Question's death and taking up his mantle. Ralph Dibney finally has closure with his wife, dying and existing side-by-side with them.



> But like I said, Bruce Timm is lucky in that regard he can retroactively do it in another series.



Especially when he knew beforehand he was. Seriously, this is a blatant manipulation of the facts: This isn't like the show was cancelled, then it got brought back like Futurama (which had a wonderful conclusion) or Family Guy. This show was always meant to be a direct continuation of the other; they were making the start of the episodes while finishing the final ones for the other series. It was always meant to be a continuation.

[DracoLogic]I guess Naruto is lucky that Naruto: Shippuden came along, so now we can all have closure to that series, right?[/DracoLogic]



> Other superhero shows do not get that luxury of multiple shows, so using non DCAU examples nullifies that point.



Like the two previous X-Men shows before Wolverine? The only recent shows which ended were not because of ratings, but because of legal problems with Disney buying the studio, which actually forced them to end prematurely.



> Also, there's characters like , Scarecrow, Two Face, and so forth who never even got that luxury; or heck, everyone in Justice League Unlimited the league let go in the end.  That was at least a hundred villains there.  It's not restricted to the villains either. What happened to the Flash? You can name hundreds of characters that just get left dangling.



What was left dangling? That he was alive? What plot arc hadn't come around yet? I mean, that's your whole point. The show ends, and says its ending, but because the characters are alive, it somehow doesn't have closure. The Justice League continues on, the fight goes on, but the major plots are closed. We know that these characters aren?t going to do anything major enough to matter in Batman Beyond, so where isn?t there closure?



> Yeah, those specific crossover events ended, but so what?



Because they had plots and closure, which you claimed they didn?t?



> My point is there's no overall plot to those comics;



There's no overall defining plot for all of Batman that everything builds to. Gotcha. That's fine to say. 

To say that there are no overarching plots ever in Batman, that there's no story, and that because of this they can't tell stories as deep as anime is retarded, though. You confuse the use of a style of storytelling with the quality of the story itself.



> and there's fine because there's not meant to be, I accepted they're not for me long ago when I stopped reading them.



And if you just said this rather than going into retarded rant about how your personal preferences are somehow an indicator of quality, we wouldn?t be having this problem.



> The thing is even if the Blue Beetle comic was canceled and ended, he's still in about four other books.  Wasn't e on the Teen Titans eventually? Someone who actively follows it could probably name many other titles he's in.



... And? The plots of the previous book were over. There was closure at the end. Despite appearing in other books, there was still a defined end and closure to all those stories. That's the point: While they might appear in other books, closure can still occur. 



> So yes, the books end for one reason or another, but it's not the same as when a manga ends, because the character end with that series.



Yes, but that doesn't mean that both don't have closure. They have different closure, but they both _have_ closure. Just because a show doesn?t have permanent closure doesn?t mean that it isn?t good: Look at Cowboy Bebop: A vague timeline, short run, and only permanent closure for Spike. And yet that?s probably one of the most beloved and highly rated series out there, despite going against all the conventions you talk about.



> Those books are just like 'windows' into their lives.  If one closes, there's still about four others we see, we just won't see that specific view.  (i.e. if Teen Titans is cancelled, we wont see Robin on the weekends hanging with the Titans and doing that stuff, but we'll see him all his other times as Batman's sidekick)



Yes, but the stories with the Titans will be over. There can be closure with the Titans ending and the stories of that book. My point has always been that Superhero stories can have just as much story as any anime, and they also have plenty of closure. It's different closure, but it's closure nonetheless.



> It's hard to take any of those events serious when Marvel and DC treat them as marketing gimmicks.  Death, crossover (Civil War hyping Captain America's death), it' just to boost sales because those crossover events are the only comics that sell over 100,000 because of collectors wanting them.  That's why there's one or two or more crossover events each year.



I'd address this, but it's purely made up of your own personal opinion. Sure, you can call Civil War a marketing gimmick, but it explores plots and stories which are very serious and previously couldn't be. Just because you think it was done for the wrong reasons doesn't mean that the stories are somehow lesser for that.



> And this is why I call your points weak.  That wasn't some other cartoon in the same continuity using the character in the past, it was a flashback of an important plot point.  You seem to not be able to comprehend the difference of two completely different storytelling formats.



... And what's the difference between using a character in the past and having a flashback? Isn't that the very definition of a flashback, especially around an event that we had never heard of previously? _Your_ points are weak because you're making an artificial distinct based on your own bias.

- They both go back to events after the future has occurred.
- They both establish plot points which will be developed later on.
- They both involve doing something with a character that's already dead.
- They both do things with events that were never mentioned previously.

While Justice League was on-going, this ended the Joker's story until "Return of the Joker". It sets up that, as well as advancing the John Stewart/Hawkgirl love plot and introducing us to the character Ace.

See, this whole thing comes about not because you are expressing an opinion. It?s because you are using your own preferences and opinion as objective fact to state something that is decidedly not true. You come up with completely arbitrary definitions of ?plot? and ?closure?, and use them to justify your own bias as being ?objective?. 

It?s clear you don?t like Superhero stuff, and that?s fine. I can completely understand that. I don?t like Magic Girl Animes. But I don?t completely disparage them by trying to pass my opinion off as a fact. I recognize that there is just not my type of story, and that it?s not for me. That?s how an _adult_ does things. There are plenty of Elseworlds stories out there that end, but I highly doubt that you would be able to admit their quality because you have an obvious bias towards Superhero stories.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Apr 16, 2011)

Lyra said:


> That's really the main problem I have with most comics... There's no actual structure to the storyline, creating an entirely episodic "plot" that has no defined beginning, middle or end. Sure, you could call the first issue the character shows up in their "beginning", but that's really about it. Different writers come in and create their own stories, ultimately giving birth to a character that will never get an ending as long as they're still popular.



I see what you are saying here, but you need to define your terms properly. There is no defined beginning, middle, or end to the _character_. All the plots they participate in have defined beginnings, middles, and ends. Infinite Crisis has a beginning, middle, and end. Characters change, and these character arcs have beginnings, middles and ends. Look at Tony Stark's evolution since Civil War, or Booster Gold's overall evolution. Or hell, look at my title: Guy Gardner has changed and developed a great deal since his character originally started.

Just because something is episodic does not meant that there is not any running storylines or such. They simply aren't the _focus_ at all times, as they generally are in manga. Manga, because it is one series to one author, tends to rigidly follow the character's story and progression, and has an ultimate end. That doesn't mean comics or cartoons don't tell stories, even overarching ones. The differences is that the characters move on _past_ the end of the challenge or the story. B:TAS had those. They had one-off episodes, but with his rogue's gallery there was a great many storylines going on.

What Draco is saying is that there is _*no*_ plot at all, no depth. That's an outright lie. It's okay to prefer stories with an ending; I can completely understand why you would. Some people find closure in finality. I don't, but some people do. But that doesn't indicate quality. And that's what is being argued: Draco argues you can't have something be good if it is finished in one episode. I pointed out Sherlock Holmes, and she has yet to address that he is a serialized character with little interlocking plot, but still has a great many excellent stories. That's a completely arbitrary measure of quality that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. This isn't an argument as to whether manga is better than comics or whatever. This is an argument about the basic definitions of things like plot, story, development, and character.


----------



## Taleran (Apr 16, 2011)

~Avant~ said:


> I understand Draco. Basically he's saying Comics dont have a final Endgame. We will never see Batman beat his last villain and retire. We will never see the end of Darkseid.
> 
> However Draco, if you want a comic with an Endgame, read Spawn. Every issue, continued into the next once, each  arc had an ending, and it had final Endgame. Spawn even had a Final Villain character with Mammon.



When do you ever have a final endgame in the story of a character? The plot ends but the stories of the characters continue after the ending THIS is true in everything.



Lyra said:


> That's really the main problem I have with most comics... There's no actual structure to the storyline, creating an entirely episodic "plot" that has no defined beginning, middle or end. Sure, you could call the first issue the character shows up in their "beginning", but that's really about it. Different writers come in and create their own stories, ultimately giving birth to a character that will never get an ending as long as they're still popular.
> 
> I like stories I know will actually end.



Then you have a flawed perception of comics. As I said and I may have gotten lost in the gigantic post up there, when writers come on to writer characters if they are good writers then their stories will 'end' and the writer will they leave the title. The story that writer was telling about the character will be over and there is closure. When you think of ending and think I want Batman to never be Batman at the end of this story again that is a foolish way to define endings.



~Avant~ said:


> And I can sympathize with that.
> 
> I mean there are a lot of Comics out there that do have definitive ends. 300, Watchmen, Sandman, and Spawn, just to name a few.
> 
> The only comics that perpetuate the open endedness and episodic trend, are really DC and Marvel.



Watchmen and Sandman are DC comics.....but that is beside the point. The stories continue because people want to read more stories about the characters and DC/MARVEL will continue to publish them. If people for whatever reason stopped buying title X they stop publishing it.



~Avant~ said:


> We've established that, and thats not what we're arguing.
> 
> What Draco's point is, When will it end? When will Captain America die, and actually die? And never be referenced except in Flashback form? When will the Joker finally stop getting away?
> 
> Thats the point. Its not the Comic's dont have plot per say, but that it seems like they're not leading to anything definitive. Even when facing opponents who can destroy galaxies with ease, there's just never a serious conclusion. There are serious ramifications, but nothing conclusive.



But how can you look at stories with the characters and say that BECAUSE they never have a conclusion the stories never have plot that is entirely  foolish because most stories do have conclusions. They just don't have a lasting conclusion because its not the last story of the character.



Lyra said:


> The major problem is that... Take Onslaught. An absolutely huge event, right? Which would've made a brilliant finale, the combination of Magneto and Xavier to create a hulking mass of total badassery that killed countless characters and took most of the remaining Marvel Universe just to bring down. But what happens? Three months later, everyone's moved on and its as if it never happened. Sure, it's referenced a couple of times here and there but any actual ramifications of the event itself are brushed aside for the sake of continuity.
> 
> Then there's that M-Day nonsense - Marvel has too many mutants, so what do they decide to do? "We don't have the resources to give them all a good ending, so just make anyone not popular enough lose their powers". That's a huge problem with a publication that goes on for decades without ever actually ending any particular character's story. They keep adding more and more new characters and before they know it, theyly've got to cut a load of them because nobody wants them any more.



Onslaught was a terrible story so its better it was forgotten. The other thing you are getting away from story and plot and into editorial decisions and those are 2 different things.


I leave you 2 with a quote.



The only stories where the end of them actually is the END you so like to throw around is the one where all the characters are dead at the end. 

Naruto will probabably not end in the way you want.
Hell all manga probably don't have that definitive end. The character walks off into sunset and CONTINUES HAVING FUCKING ADVENTURES.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Apr 16, 2011)

To go on with that quote, there was a Superman comic called "Superman Beyond". It was part of Final Crisis, and say what you will about it, I loved it. It was a Grant Morrison comic where multiple Supermen were brought together to fight off the ultimate enemy of reality; a multiversal vampire. The thing was the living (if you could call it that) embodiment of entropy and the end.

So Superman is called upon to fight this, using what a machine which was built long before that; essentially a suit of living armor which looks like Supes. Superman, being the embodiment of hope, fighting the end itself. There's a great bit where he directs Superman to a gravestone and asks him what he wants his last words to be.

So there's a fight, and it's great. It's a 3D comic, and it's kind of gimmicky... but I really, really loved it. It's Morrison at his best, and it's one of the best written parts of Final Crisis. But at the end of the fight, Superman wins and he writes what he wants on his gravestone before he has to go back. What did he write? What do you say when the living spirit of the end of the universe taunts you with your gravestone? How do you retort? Well, only the way that Superman, the original superhero, can.



And that's why Grant Morrison rocks.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 16, 2011)

man Taleran and Guy made this thread their bitch


----------



## Endless Mike (Apr 17, 2011)

Guy Gardner said:


> But I don?t completely disparage them by trying to pass my opinion off as a fact. I recognize that there is just not my type of story, and that it?s not for me. That?s how an _adult_ does things.



If only certain OBD posters would be so mature


----------



## Gallant (Apr 17, 2011)

Super hero shows/comics have plot, character development, direction etc. I think its silly to claim that they don't. The only problem I've ever really had is trying to get past all of the continuity issues, retcons, various authors and finding what events still apply to what iteration of a character etc. Though its easier to follow the shows/movies themselves imo.


----------



## Taleran (Apr 17, 2011)

Gallant said:


> Super hero shows/comics have plot, character development, direction etc. I think its silly to claim that they don't. The only problem I've ever really had is trying to get past all of the continuity issues, retcons, various authors and finding what events still apply to what iteration of a character etc. Though its easier to follow the shows/movies themselves imo.




Good comics are superior to continuity every single day of the week.


----------



## Mikaveli (Apr 17, 2011)

I think the main point being made here is that if you don't like comics because of their setups or ongoing issues then that is fine. But claiming because they don't end (which is silly. Stories end even if the character lives on) and have a rogue's gallery means they have no plots, themes, or substance is incredibly ignorant and quite frankly stupid. 

A story does not have to follow the prototypical shounen storyline (one protagonist who has one goal and that's it) in order to be a great story. Superheroes are more than just fighting one thing. Batman for example lives to fight crime. Sure, he could kill a villain and it'd be over, but that doesn't change the fact that crime goes on. As long as there is crime there will be Batman, or Superman, or some superhero. That is the purpose of those heroes. Arbitrarily ending a series just to end it would ruin them.

And your villain of the week argument is week. There aren't any villains of the week. Just because someone isn't killed and has the potential to return that means they're deserving of a title as lame and completely wrong as villain of the week? Now I know you're a joke.


----------



## Gallant (Apr 17, 2011)

Taleran said:


> Good comics are superior to continuity every single day of the week.



I never said or implied they weren't. I just said that makes them harder to follow for some people, not that they are inferior in quality because of it.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 17, 2011)

I think what Taleran means a good comic is a good comic is a good comic regardless of continuity

The continuity complaints kinda baffle me because I was out of the comic book loop for a couple of years which of course means an eternity and when I got back into it what I realized is that a well written story or "arc" even with continuity attached is pretty easy to follow.  It's only when I decided to look back and do my research did it add to the overall experience but never detracted from the initial read.

The best example of this is Secret Warriors, I didn't read Secret Invasion where they were introduced, I started in issue 11, and I knew next to nothing about what happened to Nick Fury over the years I didn't read comics.  I still enjoyed the arc and once I read older issues it only made me enjoy it more.


----------



## Ciupy (Apr 17, 2011)

Super Mike said:


> I think the main point being made here is that if you don't like comics because of their setups or ongoing issues then that is fine. But claiming because they don't end (which is silly. Stories end even if the character lives on) and have a rogue's gallery means they have no plots, themes, or substance is incredibly ignorant and quite frankly stupid.
> 
> A story does not have to follow the prototypical shounen storyline (one protagonist who has one goal and that's it) in order to be a great story. Superheroes are more than just fighting one thing. Batman for example lives to fight crime. Sure, he could kill a villain and it'd be over, but that doesn't change the fact that crime goes on. As long as there is crime there will be Batman, or Superman, or some superhero. That is the purpose of those heroes. Arbitrarily ending a series just to end it would ruin them.
> 
> And your villain of the week argument is week. There aren't any villains of the week. Just because someone isn't killed and has the potential to return that means they're deserving of a title as lame and completely wrong as villain of the week? Now I know you're a joke.



Mike,a definite end is a plus because in most cases it's one man's vision that creates something and sees it through until the end.

It's a unified vision and it doesn't leave place for abuses like OMD and Quesada did to Spidey.

On the other hand..you could have a number of stories and different takes on the same world and characters by different writers.

I always liked that about comics.


----------



## mastershark (Apr 17, 2011)

Remember what I said.

Marvel and DC comics are cooler because the superheroes can be interpreted in a multitude of ways and have complex writing with in-depth characterization. 

Shonen manga/anime heroes are a bunch of happy go lucky mary sue's that are lacking noteworthy flaws and are cardboard characters that are way too overpowered, They are not very human, shonon characters are so boring they have no limits.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 17, 2011)

That's a stupid generalization too and you're no better than Draco for it.


----------



## Mikaveli (Apr 17, 2011)

Ciupy said:


> Mike,*a definite end is a plus because in most cases it's one man's vision that creates something and sees it through until the end.*
> 
> It's a unified vision and it doesn't leave place for abuses like OMD and Quesada did to Spidey.
> 
> ...



Definite ending being a plus is an opinion. But, regardless of that, if you're looking for a story with a end then you probably wouldn't be reading a superhero story. The thing about most superheroes is that there will always be a need for them, so there isn't an end. A "as long as there is bad, there will be good to face it and vice versa" kind of thing.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Apr 17, 2011)

Parallax said:


> I think what Taleran means a good comic is a good comic is a good comic regardless of continuity
> 
> The continuity complaints kinda baffle me because I was out of the comic book loop for a couple of years which of course means an eternity and when I got back into it what I realized is that a well written story or "arc" even with continuity attached is pretty easy to follow.  It's only when I decided to look back and do my research did it add to the overall experience but never detracted from the initial read.
> 
> The best example of this is Secret Warriors, I didn't read Secret Invasion where they were introduced, I started in issue 11, and I knew next to nothing about what happened to Nick Fury over the years I didn't read comics.  I still enjoyed the arc and once I read older issues it only made me enjoy it more.



To add to this I was pretty mcuh the same. I only read comics sparingly in the 90's and only really started paying attention in the mid 2000's and even after that I didn't even start following any books until like 2 or 3 years ago. To me with comics as long as you have a general knowledge of what a character is and what he's about you'll be fine. 

Take Batman for example. Everybody and thier mother knows what his backstory is, so reading it from the beginning in Action comics (From the freaking 30's I think) is not really that necessary. Same with Superman or even Spiderman for that matter. 

Knowing everything about a character is not as essential as most people might think. If you want to later and go all the way back to the issues from the 30's and 40's that can be done much later on, and would make an interesting hobbie actually.



mastershark said:


> Remember what I said.
> 
> Marvel and DC comics are cooler because the superheroes can be interpreted in a multitude of ways and have complex writing with in-depth characterization.
> 
> Shonen manga/anime heroes are a bunch of happy go lucky mary sue's that are lacking noteworthy flaws and are cardboard characters that are way too overpowered, They are not very human, shonon characters are so boring they have no limits.



Your outright baiting...you know that right. And if you truely think that no manga or anime characters have flaws and are boring then you are now showing your ignorance.


----------



## The Potential (Apr 17, 2011)

To each his own. I enjoy them both.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Apr 17, 2011)

The Potential said:


> To each his own. I enjoy them both.



Same here. I personally don't favor one or the other...that doesn't mean I don't think certain manga/anime are better than certain comics or vice versa


----------



## Adonis (Apr 17, 2011)

What Draco's complaining about, while I agree he's painting in broad strokes, is the reason I prefer one-shot comic storylines like All-Star Superman to keeping up continuity issue by issue.

The issue-by-issue comics establish a core mythology that can then be distilled and honed by writers into more traditional storylines. Complaining comics lack structure is sort of like complaining that the ocean is "undrinkable." You're not meant to drink straight from the ocean; it's a collective pool of contradicting mythologies and interpretations. The ocean water has to be distilled and bottled so to speak. 

Yes, my metaphors suck.

I also agree that a lot of the major comic events are cynical cash-grabs. The Death of Superman and a phone poll deciding whether Jason Todd got beat to death with a crowbar are two examples.


----------



## DracoStorm (Apr 17, 2011)

Lyra said:


> The major problem is that... Take Onslaught. An absolutely huge event, right? Which would've made a brilliant finale, the combination of Magneto and Xavier to create a hulking mass of total badassery that killed countless characters and took most of the remaining Marvel Universe just to bring down. But what happens? Three months later, everyone's moved on and its as if it never happened. Sure, it's referenced a couple of times here and there but any actual ramifications of the event itself are brushed aside for the sake of continuity.
> 
> Then there's that M-Day nonsense - Marvel has too many mutants, so what do they decide to do? "We don't have the resources to give them all a good ending, so just make anyone not popular enough lose their powers". That's a huge problem with a publication that goes on for decades without ever actually ending any particular character's story. They keep adding more and more new characters and before they know it, they've got to cut a load of them because nobody wants them any more.


 This as well.  Yeah, these huge events involve everyone, but do they mean much ten to twenty years later? Only when a random writer feels like referencing it for a 3 issue storyline or something, but overall it won't be a main concern for the series anymore. Look at DC, they had the Crisis because continuity was so much as a mess they wanted to hit the reset button and say 'screw it'.  Generally that's not a good sign.



~Avant~ said:


> We've established that, and thats not what we're arguing.
> 
> What Draco's point is, When will it end? When will Captain America die, and actually die? And never be referenced except in Flashback form? When will the Joker finally stop getting away?
> 
> Thats the point. Its not the Comic's dont have plot per say, but that it seems like they're not leading to anything definitive. Even when facing opponents who can destroy galaxies with ease, there's just never a serious conclusion. There are serious ramifications, but nothing conclusive.


 Yes. There's no endgame to comics.  You can argue 'Crossover Event X' or '5 Issue Storyline Y' have endings to those specific things, but that doesn't mean much in the long run.  Even the long drawn out shounen stuff like Inuyasha have a clear goal and a definitive end eventually.  Batman and Spider-Man don't and never will.

As it stands, I read Marvel/DC comics for less than a year.  The only American comics I bother with anymore are rare ones like Y the Last Man which have an actual goal and (series) ending.  (I actually read Runaways because it had the same writer, but sadly it followed the same path in the end, especially after that writer left and new people took it over and turned it into a generic superhero book)  The first Runaways series would be my prime preference; it had a clear goal (stop the Pride) and it ended on that note (the Pride is now dead and they all ran away from the orphanage and living life as they wanted) Then Marvel saw the dollar signs and brought it back and now they're a superhero team doing generic superhero things and I lost complete interest.   The only flaw I had with it was they shoe-horned Captain America and Iron Man in an issue of it, and it really took me out of the experience and seems unnecessary.  



			
				Guy Gardner said:
			
		

> There was closure with Batman Beyond carrying on and finishing up the original Batman series. JL finished up some lines in Batman and Superman, and ultimately ended the universe with JLU.



I guess it depends what you feel closure is.  To me, there has to be something there to closure in the first place.  The Cadmus stuff in JLU was only a small part of the episodes.  Same with Darkseid's stint.  To me, BB never really had a real (series wide) story to me. It COULD have, if it was one season show where Terry gets revenge on Blight for killing his dad.  However, it wasn't the main focus, and Blight doesn't even stick around that long.  Seasons go by after Blight is gone and it was 'Terry fights Villain X' episodes.  I know you said the story is 'Terry takes on the mantle of Batman' but that's more of a theme than a story.  I mean, Naruto wants to take on the 'mantle of the Hokage' but there's an actual substance beyond that with the arcs and story and everything else.  Naruto's journey is going to mean more than Terry's to become a successor.



> Sort of like Two-Face, right?


 But he never went anywhere.  At least not after he became Two-Face.  His last episode ended with him thrown back in prison.  Not really closure of any kind since he'll break out again.  



> Except when it's a continuation of the previous series. Which is what Batman Beyond is. This is like complaining about having to watch Naruto: Shippuden to get closure to Naruto; they are both time jumps in which ultimate closure is reached for both stories.


 That's not really the same thing, it's like DBZ, there's no differentiation between the timeskips in the manga, it was just an anime thing.  BB was made not to timeskip the series and provide insight, but because networks wanted a teenage Batman to relate to the kids and Bruce Timm was originally unhappy with the idea but went along anyway.  The networks just wanted to copy BUffy and other popular teen shows at the time.  You comment on Bruce knowing before isn't true.  I doubt he knew how many series he would get.  He didn't even know JLU was going to last as long as it did (Epilogue was meant to be the end, but the network ordered another season.)



> Infinite Crisis ended. You could read that and be like "Okay, this is over". The ramifications went on, but you could read that and have closure to the characters for that story. Same with 52: Renee Montoya's story has closure, dealing with the Question's death and taking up his mantle. Ralph Dibney finally has closure with his wife, dying and existing side-by-side with them.


 BUt I wouldn't know anything about any of the characters in Infinite Crisis; and there were all those tie ins that needed to be read like OMAC Project and stuff.  In 52, I wouldn't know about Ralph's wife dying if I never read Identity Crisis so that storyline wouldn't make any sense to me.  Heck, her death meant nothing to me because I never read the old comics with him and her.  That mini series was the first time I even heard of those characters and was confused all the way through.



> It?s clear you don?t like Superhero stuff, and that?s fine. I can completely understand that. I don?t like Magic Girl Animes. But I don?t completely disparage them by trying to pass my opinion off as a fact. I recognize that there is just not my type of story, and that it?s not for me. That?s how an adult does things. There are plenty of Elseworlds stories out there that end, but I highly doubt that you would be able to admit their quality because you have an obvious bias towards Superhero stories.


 It depends why you dislike magical girl stuff.  I don't like superheroes because they're superheroes, just the way they're written.  As I've mentioned, Runaways had potential, but it was ruined by comic book writing.  Magical girl stuff can be written in a variety of ways so if you just don't like watching girl heroes or all the cutsy stuff that's different than disliking the way a genre is being written.  It'd be more accurate to say I hate DC and Marvel than superheroes, it's just they capitalize on the concept.


----------



## Glued (Apr 17, 2011)

DracoStorm said:


> l
> I guess it depends what you feel closure is.  To me, there has to be something there to closure in the first place.  The Cadmus stuff in JLU was only a small part of the episodes.  Same with Darkseid's stint.  To me, BB never really had a real (series wide) story to me. It COULD have, if it was one season show where Terry gets revenge on Blight for killing his dad.  However, it wasn't the main focus, and Blight doesn't even stick around that long.  Seasons go by after Blight is gone and it was 'Terry fights Villain X' episodes.  I know you said the story is 'Terry takes on the mantle of Batman' but that's more of a theme than a story.  I mean, Naruto wants to take on the 'mantle of the Hokage' but there's an actual substance beyond that with the arcs and story and everything else.  Naruto's journey is going to mean more than Terry's to become a successor.



There will be no meaning to Naruto becoming hokage. Long ago Naruto taught konohamaru that there is no short cuts to becoming Hokage, yet Naruto had mommy and daddy intervene when they needed him the most, even Itachi had to shove something down his throat in order to finally beat Sasuke. Naruto came back from timeskip with nothing really to show for himself. He jumped into a pool of oil and mastered senjutsu in a short amount of time. Naruto was given the Kage Bunshin training, a type of training that only he has in his universe. Naruto once told Neji that it is cowards way to accept destiny. Well Naruto himself is the child of destiny. Naruto has a special Uzumaki bloodline, he's Minato's son, he has the most powerful demon in his belly, he's had three years of training under a sannin, mastered TKB in a single day, has naturally high chakra levels. Naruto was destined to beat Neji any interpretation. Hell he was destined to beat Pein, because when Naruto had finally gone mad, daddy had to step in and save his ass. Hell Nagato was strapped to a wheel chair. The fates were so sided in Naruto's favor its not even funny. Naruto swore to his father that he would master kyuubi, yet when push came to shove, mommy had to save his ass. Naruto has stated that he would never give up, but when Pain pushed he did give up. Naruto has caved into pressure and hyperventilated because the world was too tough for him. He gave up again when he faced Kyuubi and mommy had to comfort him. He taught Inari not to whine and be a sissy. Naruto got down on his knees and begged before the Raikage. He even allowed Karui to beat him like a whipping boy.

The only theme that Kishimoto has not violated is bonds. When Naruto becomes hokage it will have no meaning.

Use One Piece, use Full Metal Alchemist, hell even use Dragonball, but don't say that Naruto will have meaning. It used to have meaning, but not anymore. If Naruto were to talk to Inari right now, he would be a hypocrite.


----------



## The Potential (Apr 17, 2011)

> I used to post about Naruto a lot when I started here, but I don't any more.



I rarely post anything Naruto anymore. Statement is so true.


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 17, 2011)

Hell, a comercial has a plot. Person X on event Y leads to Z. That's a plot.
Superhero shows have no plot? Silly me, then I guess TV tropes should be feeling really silly right about now.
Excuse me while I go return my hundreds of dollars I spent on these so called "comic *books*"
The cheek on them


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 17, 2011)

~Avant~ said:


> We've established that, and thats not what we're arguing.
> 
> What Draco's point is, When will it end? When will Captain America die, and actually die? And never be referenced except in Flashback form? When will the Joker finally stop getting away?
> 
> Thats the point. Its not the Comic's dont have plot per say, but that it seems like they're not leading to anything definitive. Even when facing opponents who can destroy galaxies with ease, there's just never a serious conclusion. There are serious ramifications, but nothing conclusive.



But there is no such thing as an ending. There's only the point where the story teller stops talking.
Hell, the Godfather didn't need any sequels. Nor did Star Wars.




Ben Grimm said:


> There w-snip -ocrite.



Do we really need to spend much effort justifying Naruto's overal and absolute terribleness?


----------



## Narcissus (Apr 17, 2011)

This business about using the fact that comic characters have no seeable end to their story is a very poor criticism. You're using a linear way of thinking rather than trying something different.

Ever hear of a short story? One could call the story arcs comic books go through or the episodes of the cartoons short stories featuring the comic hero. There are a lot of critically acclaimed short stories. Why? Because they are well-written. Batman doesn't have to permanently defeat his villains for his stories to be good.

Also, Batman has a moral code not to kill. He has had opportunities to kill the people in his rogue gallery, but he abstains from doing so, which is why they keep coming back. Furthermore, they are good villains. Look at anime like Naruto and Bleach, which have some pretty awful villains, despite being examples of what Draco wants to see.

Magneto - his actions are motivated by his ideals to protect his race and because he believes them to be superior to homo sapiens. He is a well-developed villain.

Galactus - on the cosmic scale, he has often struggled with the morality of his own nature, questioned his own existence and philosophy, and at the end of the day, is a great villain.

Same with anime. Fullmetal Alchemist has very touching moments, very well-developed characters, and a good story. Then we have masterpieces like Miyazaki's movies and Tokyo Godfathers.

Of course, when comic book series go on for so long, they are bound to have bad stories and retcons like One More Day, but you are also ignoring all of the good stories. 

To say there are no good stories in comics is just as ignorant as saying there are no good stories in anime and manga.


----------



## Taleran (Apr 18, 2011)

Adonis said:


> What Draco's complaining about, while I agree he's painting in broad strokes, is the reason I prefer one-shot comic storylines like All-Star Superman to keeping up continuity issue by issue.
> 
> The issue-by-issue comics establish a core mythology that can then be distilled and honed by writers into more traditional storylines. Complaining comics lack structure is sort of like complaining that the ocean is "undrinkable." You're not meant to drink straight from the ocean; it's a collective pool of contradicting mythologies and interpretations. The ocean water has to be distilled and bottled so to speak.
> 
> ...



I would compare your example to comics by the same writer being his run on Batman or New X-Men that use the extensive histories of the characters brilliantly to update and twist audience expectations. Also in the definition of ending All Star Superman ends on a cliffhanger to be continued moment.

Which keeps circling around to quality of the creators doing the work not the style in which the work is done.



I am kinda sad my big long post got ignored by the person I was quoting


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Apr 18, 2011)

Superhero shows don't need a plot as long as they have cool abilities and hot babes. :33


----------



## TSC (Apr 18, 2011)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Superhero shows don't need a plot as long as they have cool abilities and hot babes. :33



pretty much this LOL.



on serious note, I can see both sides of the argument here. I do agree that most superhero comics sometime tend to get bit hard to keep up or on track with the continuity storylines. But at same time I can see the aspect that superhero comics are more of a story arc based with character driven development.

One reason I tend to often read more manga than comic is because it's easier for me to get on to the story and follow it in more organized and linear fashion. With superhero comics, it's a lot more confusing and difficult for me to say where to start and which issues or GN to get. Some are small and actually organize linear like Witch blade which I have collected or DangerGirl. But the more Superhero ones I tend to find out what's going on by internet's wiki pages or so.

Another confusing thing that happen is the various crossovers marvel or DC does, this also add for me to ask myself where or which one to follow. Like Do i continue Uncanny X-Men or does X-factor or Cable continue after so and so issue?

Overall, I like them all the same. As the art and characters really what make me like superhero comics.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 18, 2011)

TSC said:


> pretty much this LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They're actually pretty good at letting you know if the MAIN story continues onto other titles.  For Events like Fear Itself or Final Crisis you're on your own but the main title usually is enough


----------



## Narcissus (Apr 18, 2011)

Taleran said:


> I am kinda sad my big long post got ignored by the person I was quoting



Don't worry, all that means is that she couldn't refute you.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Apr 18, 2011)

Fewer responses, fewer points needed to corner you...



DracoStorm said:


> This as well.  Yeah, these huge events involve everyone, but do they mean much ten to twenty years later? Only when a random writer feels like referencing it for a 3 issue storyline or something, but overall it won't be a main concern for the series anymore. Look at DC, they had the Crisis because continuity was so much as a mess they wanted to hit the reset button and say 'screw it'.  Generally that's not a good sign.



Every 20 years they hit a reset? That's happened... once? That's the only one that completely altered history and such. You got new starts for everything; after that, everything is just sort of tweaking history in different ways. Infinite Crisis wasn't a reset; it changed some aspects of the characters back from what they had been changed to. And Marvel never does that. "Resets" are exceedingly rare; again, the only real reset we've had was Crisis on Infinite Earths, and even that kept some things from the previous continuities. Most current big crossovers are not "reset buttons" as much as they are changes to the status quo; again, this is Marvel's thing. They didn't reset anything, they changed the universe in different ways.



> Yes. There's no endgame to comics.  You can argue 'Crossover Event X' or '5 Issue Storyline Y' have endings to those specific things, but that doesn't mean much in the long run.  Even the long drawn out shounen stuff like Inuyasha have a clear goal and a definitive end eventually.  Batman and Spider-Man don't and never will.



Why does there need to be an "endgame"? There's no _reachable_ endgame to most comics. What happens; do they change the world? Do they permanently stop crime? There's no satisfying end you can pitch; they keep going because they are good fighting against evil. That doesn't end.

The problem and difference with long, drawn-out Shounen stuff is that comics are far more likely to have a sooner resolution to whatever's happening at any given time than a Shounen ever will. There are endings to the stories and the plots; the characters can go on, but things change and it's not a long, long story waiting for a story's conclusion. That's one of the problems I have knowing there is an endgame for a whole universe; waiting for it.



> As it stands, I read Marvel/DC comics for less than a year.  The only American comics I bother with anymore are rare ones like Y the Last Man which have an actual goal and (series) ending.  (I actually read Runaways because it had the same writer, but sadly it followed the same path in the end, especially after that writer left and new people took it over and turned it into a generic superhero book)  The first Runaways series would be my prime preference; it had a clear goal (stop the Pride) and it ended on that note (the Pride is now dead and they all ran away from the orphanage and living life as they wanted) Then Marvel saw the dollar signs and brought it back and now they're a superhero team doing generic superhero things and I lost complete interest.   The only flaw I had with it was they shoe-horned Captain America and Iron Man in an issue of it, and it really took me out of the experience and seems unnecessary.



I am just boggled how you can hold such weird double standards about certain things. Seriously, I have no clue how to resolve any of this with what you've previously said.



> I guess it depends what you feel closure is.  To me, there has to be something there to closure in the first place.  The Cadmus stuff in JLU was only a small part of the episodes.



Like 13 of the 26 episodes in the first season. More if you want to go into even more tangential plots and character arcs.



> Same with Darkseid's stint.



Because overuse would ruin him in the same way it ruined villains like Orochimaru? I always loved the use of Darkseid, because his appearances were always big; invasions occurred, characters died. He didn't directly involve himself a lot (like his supplying of Intergang), but he made his presence known.



> To me, BB never really had a real (series wide) story to me. It COULD have, if it was one season show where Terry gets revenge on Blight for killing his dad.  However, it wasn't the main focus, and Blight doesn't even stick around that long.



He becomes Batman, gets revenge on Blight, and then the series would end? Doesn't that completely miss that Batman fights for people and against crime, not just to avenge his parents.

This actually goes to the point that Batman isn't about "vengeance": his parent's killer was apprehended. His point to try and prevent what happened to him not happen to anyone else. The Spectre is vengeance; Batman is about sacrifice.



> Seasons go by after Blight is gone and it was 'Terry fights Villain X' episodes.  I know you said the story is 'Terry takes on the mantle of Batman' but that's more of a theme than a story.  I mean, Naruto wants to take on the 'mantle of the Hokage' but there's an actual substance beyond that with the arcs and story and everything else.  Naruto's journey is going to mean more than Terry's to become a successor.



You can't make that criticism and then bring up Naruto's story to become Hokage. That hasn't been the focus of the manga since forever. It's more about bringing back Sasuke, which still pisses me off in a variety of ways. Not only that, but Batman Beyond is far more consistent in its story focus and development of both Terry and Bruce and their relationship.

And that's not a "theme". "Legacy" is a theme; it's broad and vague. You have to add things to it. Terry taking on the mantle of the Bat carries the theme of "legacy", but it is itself is the story. Same with Naruto: "saving Sasuke" is not a theme, "friendship" is a theme. "Saving Sasuke" is a story/plot point.



> But he never went anywhere.  At least not after he became Two-Face.  His last episode ended with him thrown back in prison.  Not really closure of any kind since he'll break out again.



Bullshit. He was continually struggling with his two sides, while others were trying to rehabilitate him. In the end he breaks so hard that he has a third personality which completely fractures him and puts him off the deep end. At the end he's basically comatose. You never see him again, so why assume that he did anything that mattered?



> That's not really the same thing, it's like DBZ, there's no differentiation between the timeskips in the manga, it was just an anime thing.





> BB was made not to timeskip the series and provide insight, but because networks wanted a teenage Batman to relate to the kids and Bruce Timm was originally unhappy with the idea but went along anyway.  The networks just wanted to copy BUffy and other popular teen shows at the time.  You comment on Bruce knowing before isn't true.  I doubt he knew how many series he would get.  He didn't even know JLU was going to last as long as it did (Epilogue was meant to be the end, but the network ordered another season.)



Oh, so many fun points destroy your argument with here.

- Nice job moving the goalposts: I never said he was completely pleased with it, but he knew it was coming while NBA was still in production. It would almost be impossible not to, considering how long it takes to produce an animated series and the fact that the series start overlapped the end of NBA. You still look stupid trying to talk about "how he got a chance" when he knew long before NBA ended that Batman Beyond was next.
- The irony in talking about the "Buffy" crowd is that Bruce Timm has outright stated that they took all their "wants" for the series and ignored it. He _made_ it into a continuation because he could, despite all the wants of the executives. Hell, he even laughs about it in interviews. Considering it used similar characters and continued the story of the original Batman, what's the difference? None, outside of outside of what you are trying to place it.
- In fact, I'd argue that Batman Beyond is more of a creator continuation than the Buu Saga ever was. Hey, an example of you completely not including the fact that the same thing happens in anime all the time.
- I'll point out that all the series which Bruce Timm new were going to end he put a conclusion on. I'd say listen to the commentaries, but you didn't watch the shows in the first place so I doubt you'll be able to pay attention. But you basically proved my point: For each series that he wasn't going to have an ending to, he created one. He created two endings to JLU, the first because he didn't know he was getting another season. Same with the original JL. If he didn't know about Batman Beyond, why wouldn't he make an ending like he did in the other series where he was actually _expecting_ the end?



> BUt I wouldn't know anything about any of the characters in Infinite Crisis; and there were all those tie ins that needed to be read like OMAC Project and stuff.



Again, I got back _into_ comics with Infinite Crisis. I don't know how you had this huge problem; for a manga reader, I felt it was rather easy. For someone who is completely willing to read 60 volumes of a story to catch up, you need all of 5 trades to get the full story of IC. How long did Bleach's rescue story go on? How many volumes? It's like the majority of the book's volumes.

An event comic is meant to be a bit special. I don't  have a problem reading a few more books if the books are quality. Infinite Crisis had great support books, great stories. Totally worth it. Civil War is more guilty of what you are talking about; Marvel in general has had a bit of problem with making their tie-ins mean something (Secret Invasion had better tie-ins as well).

But now I'm looking at specific cases. Event comics can suck, but there are plenty of them you can skip or get past without too many problems. Most books will recap and explain what happened with their characters in the first issue back, so you could skip things like FC and be perfectly fine. In fact, you could skip just about all the lead-in to FC (Which was, as you said before, a big money grab. Morrison's story, however, wasn't. It was just awesome).

You can't skip stuff in manga. It is absolutely tied to the issue-by-issue progression that you have to read it all. You don't in comics. You could probably get by in reading nothing before reading Sinestro Corps War and enjoy it quite a bit. Reading the series before it will make it that much more awesome, but you could easily get past it; they explain who the characters are at the beginning of the series and point out who everyone is for those jumping on.



> In 52, I wouldn't know about Ralph's wife dying if I never read Identity Crisis so that storyline wouldn't make any sense to me.  Heck, her death meant nothing to me because I never read the old comics with him and her.



Except they completely explain it. This is like your Red Tornado comment; they absolutely explain who these people are, but you just fail to pay attention or just don't want to because you feel you are missing something.

I didn't read any of the old comics before I read Identity Crisis. I could still understand who she was easily; for all its faults, Identity Crisis didn't have a problem in explaining who Sue Dibney was. I also didn't have a problem understanding and empathizing with Ralph, who was a man who had his wife murdered.



> That mini series was the first time I even heard of those characters and was confused all the way through.



... How? They explained who they were in the comics. I had just gotten back into comics and I didn't find any problem in following all the stories.



> It depends why you dislike magical girl stuff.



It just doesn't appeal to me. I've seen Madoka Magica by a person who has been pushing it on me, and the only real appeal I have to it is that it's definitely a deconstruction of the Magic Girl concept into something much darker. But still, it just doesn't appeal to me. It's something that is on me, and I understand that.



> I don't like superheroes because they're superheroes, just the way they're written.



... Because they are written like superheroes? I mean, this isn't a continuity thing when we are talking about the cartoons. Your whole beef seems to be with both superheroes and, I'd argue, American products in general. Their writing is fine, you just have a weird aversion to it. 



> As I've mentioned, Runaways had potential, but it was ruined by comic book writing.



Runaways was _classic_ comic book writing. The idea that their story just ends with them walking away when they have great and interesting characters is... foolish. You got closure from the first book, why can't they go on to do something more?



> Magical girl stuff can be written in a variety of ways so if you just don't like watching girl heroes or all the cutsy stuff that's different than disliking the way a genre is being written.



Again, the most recent thing I saw was Magica Madoka. That's definitely not cutesy. I just don't have an interest in the magic girl concept and the conventions it normally brings. Oddly, I still like Mary Marvel, but it's my own preferences and biases. I'm not going to claim that Magic Girl anime has no fucking story because it lacks appeal to me.



> It'd be more accurate to say I hate DC and Marvel than superheroes, it's just they capitalize on the concept.



Eh, plenty of reasons to hate Marvel and DC. Unfortunately, you have yet to really give me any of them (or at least properly explain them).


----------



## Guy Gardner (Apr 18, 2011)

Instead of editing, I'm just posting this additional part: There's a great Google Book right now you can get access to called Modern Masters: Bruce Timm. I was looking for it because I'd gone through it before, but I couldn't find it while writing this until just now. 

Your whole thing about Batman Beyond is not fully true; they did have the idea thrust upon them, but it was up to them how to make it. Basically the next day they realized what they had (Thank you, Glen Murakami) and hashed it out. They had a day of doubt, and in that meeting they came up with enough cool ideas to really sell them on things. In particular, they talk about how the original Batman retires (which is a great scene) and shows how the idea of an "end" doesn't work for Batman. Start around page 64 and go from there.


----------



## Endless Mike (Apr 18, 2011)

Narcissus said:


> Galactus - on the cosmic scale, he has often struggled with the morality of his own nature, questioned his own existence and philosophy, and at the end of the day, is a great villain.



Galactus is less a villain and more a force of nature


----------



## Glued (Apr 18, 2011)

Endless Mike said:


> Galactus is less a villain and more a force of nature



Galactus is a cosmic pimp and he has a whole stable heralds. If his heralds don't bring him his planets, he has to pimp smack that herald.


----------



## Narcissus (Apr 18, 2011)

Batman Beyond was a good show for developing its character the way it did. It provided closure for some like Mr. Freeze, and showed a lot of struggle Terry went through trying to live as a normal teenager while being the new Batman. And Joker Returns was an excellent movie. It just did a nice job showing Batman from another perspective. Trying to generalize it as an attempt to copy popular television of the time is another poor criticism (especially when one should know that being influenced by other works of fiction is not necessarily a bad thing).


Endless Mike said:


> Galactus is less a villain and more a force of nature



He's a villain in the sense that he puts the heroes of the Marvel world in danger whenever he tries to devour their planet, but his character is not villainous.


----------



## Endless Mike (Apr 18, 2011)

By that definition a hurricane or a volcano is a villain


----------



## Guy Gardner (Apr 18, 2011)

Galactus could be a "villain" in the sense that he is a sentient adversary for the Marvel Universe. Though I agree I wouldn't count him really as a villain, though. Like it has been said, he's a force of nature, literally an integral part in the reality of Marvel.


----------



## Adonis (Apr 18, 2011)

Endless Mike said:


> By that definition a hurricane or a volcano is a villain



Last time I checked, hurricanes don't gloat over their victims about how "YOU CAN NOT RESIST THE WILL OF A GOD."

Galactus is a villain. Whether he can help himself or has a sense of human morality is irrelevant. He's anthropomorphic, he speaks, and he holds grudges.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Apr 18, 2011)

Endless Mike said:


> By that definition a hurricane or a volcano is a villain



To be fair the villian or for that matter the antagonist can be whatever the story wants at that time. If the story wants the the antagonist to be the perils of old age for example, it can be so. Same goes for Galactus as he has been the antagonist many times in the past.


----------



## Taleran (Apr 19, 2011)

Adonis said:


> Last time I checked, hurricanes don't gloat over their victims about how "YOU CAN NOT RESIST THE WILL OF A GOD."
> 
> Galactus is a villain. Whether he can help himself or has a sense of human morality is irrelevant. He's anthropomorphic, he speaks, and he holds grudges.



If they could speak they probably would


----------



## Guy Gardner (Apr 19, 2011)

Let's face facts: Hurricanes are the douchebags of natural disasters. They just lack that Midwestern niceness that Tornadoes all have.


----------



## Glued (Apr 19, 2011)

Galactas was once a man, Galan of Ta. He was able to relate to the hungry and poor of New York City. He was able to understand the pain of Beta Ray Bill. He could empathize with Ego the Living Planet. He has on occasion referred to Reed Richards as a friend.

We humans devour cows and chickens. Compared to Galactus we humans are nothing more than amoeba. In spite of the fact that we are merely amoeba, Reed Richards showed mercy upon Galactus and saved his life. Imagine if you were a near God-like being and you were saved by an amoeba. Or better yet, a lion who was saved by a little brown mouse.


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 19, 2011)

Gallactus at his introductory core was always meant to be nothing more than the unstoppable hopeless force of Nature he's always been. Not good, nor necessarily evil. Like a hurricane or an earthquake.
Everything else came layered on him


----------



## Narcissus (Apr 19, 2011)

Endless Mike said:


> By that definition a hurricane or a volcano is a villain



Wrong.

The others explained it pretty well already. As Adonis said, unlike hurricanes and volcanoes, Galactus is sentient, and like EJ said, _anything_ can be the villain of the story if the writer wants it to be at the time. There are sympathetic villains, and his roll as a force of nature makes him one whenever he tries to consume the planet. And like Adonis pointed out, he holds grudges, such as when he trapped the Silver Surfer on Earth out of spite for betraying him.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 19, 2011)

Still I wouldn't call him a villain, antagonist sounds better.  And yes of course there is a difference between the two


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 19, 2011)

specially since he's a benevolent force about as often as he is a destructive one.


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 19, 2011)

Case in point


----------



## Endless Mike (Apr 19, 2011)

Well trapping the Surfer could have also been a practical decision, to ensure that he couldn't interfere with his feeding


----------



## Violent by Design (Apr 19, 2011)

This is an interesting argument, but it seems to be a lot more about comic books than television shows.

Some things I'd like to touch upon.

- The argument that Superhero stories have no ending are not just silly, but entirely false. There are continuation series like "Action Comics", which are just an on-going serial so people can pick up a random book and be able to be sucked into the realm. That is what the Drago guy is saying, however there is an opposition to this in "One Shots". For instance, with in this month I've read "Green Arrow: Year One", "Superman: Birthright" & "Joker" - and I assure you they had a definitive start and a definitive ending. Many books published by Vertigo (a branch that is part of DC) and independent companies also have these arcs that are similar to manga, in that there is an ending. "Watchman" happens to be my favorite comic book of all time (including manga), and the entire thing was basically planned out from head to toe - no freeballing like you would see in something like "Bleach". So you cannot say that "Super Hero comics are bad because they have no ending", that is similar to saying Manga's are bad because they have no ending, for example "Detective Conan" is no different than "Detective Comics" in those regards. There are alternatives, for styles that fit your needs. Not to mention since the argument seems to be against Super Heroes in general, many cartoons have had closure. All of the DCAU were all ended together & Spider-man (1990s) had an ending. 

- The argument against huge plots and cross overs like "Civil War". Well for one, if you do not like them just do not read them. Plenty of American Comics to go around, personally I don't care for huge story arc things - but it's nice that they have a universal problem and how you see multiple characters deal with said issue. But again, you could always just read something else - it's not like anyone would force you to read Sinestro Corps and what not.

- "There is no plot". Obviously in the most literal sense, yes there are indeed plots - they are just more episodic (again though, this is only if you're reading say "The Amazing Spider-man" where it is continuously on-going in till cancellation). However, I don't see how this is a con. In manga, the central plot often over bears anything, making side plots seem pointless and shallow in depth. In on-going series, the central plot is always relevant but it is more subtle and everything is always chaining into something else. It may not be ones fancy, but there is certainly a central plot in every super hero comic book. It is not like "Family Guy" if that is what people are thinking. There are consequences and chain reactions, perhaps in the long term they may not matter - but who cares about what happens if in 6 years they reboot something? If one doesn't like it, don't read it they'll be other stuff.

- "There are no explanations of things I may have missed". From my experience, a lot of people who do don't like comic books, never really gave it a try. I believe there are a lot of people who like super heroes, but what they know is only 2nd hand knowledge often taken from things like Wikipedia, source books & other media adaptions. The biggest reason for that, are because people are intimidated by comic books. They're scared that if they start, they won't know what's going on - and if they won't know what's going on they won't enjoy it to its fullest. But really, all of that is arbitrary. There is a reason why American comic books are written the way they are, they are designed so you can jump in. For one, there are tradepaper backs - which are basically arcs put into one volume, so essentially all you need to know for that one story is of course in that book. Two, everything is explained if not at that instant than sooner than later - they also give you cites on the spot so you can check it out for yourself. Three, as I mentioned before one can merely read one shots if they don't like reading arc by arc. But I assure you, I have read arcs like "Daredevil: Reborn Again" with out reading any other Daredevil story, and it was just as riveting. You really do not need to read every single issue that has ever had Batman in it to actually understand his stories, and I think that is a problem that a lot of manga fans cannot grasp or fathom since Japanese comics are very different in those regards, so they tend to blow statements like those off.

- Manga sells more than Comic books because Manga are designed for the Japanese audience, and in Japan it is still popular to read shit like that. In the US, it is not the same due to a slew of different reasons. There are analysis on why comic books are no longer popular, and a lot of it has to do with an over saturation of them in the 90s which caused a bit of a crash. Not to mention in American society, reading is not considered trendy.  Manga "outselling" comic books is only something that has happened with in the past decade, despite the fact that Manga has been prominent for at least 50-60 years. 

- All I have to say, is that you're truly selling yourself short (if this is a reason why you do not read comics) if you don't think super hero plots are not worth your time because central plots are conceived differently. One was mention how it affects the characters and some how devalues them. That is totally false. Super hero stories are very character driven, perhaps even more so than a lot of well known manga (especially manga that falls under Shounen). You really understand the characters and they come off as very human. Not to mention they are usually easy to relate too, and you're constantly reading their thoughts so you understand them very well even though they have many dimensions. Of course this differs depending on the comic.


----------



## DracoStorm (Apr 19, 2011)

Guy Gardner said:


> Every 20 years they hit a reset? That's happened... once? That's the only one that completely altered history and such. You got new starts for everything; after that, everything is just sort of tweaking history in different ways. Infinite Crisis wasn't a reset; it changed some aspects of the characters back from what they had been changed to. And Marvel never does that. "Resets" are exceedingly rare; again, the only real reset we've had was Crisis on Infinite Earths, and even that kept some things from the previous continuities. Most current big crossovers are not "reset buttons" as much as they are changes to the status quo; again, this is Marvel's thing. They didn't reset anything, they changed the universe in different ways.


 Superboy Prime punching reality so Jason Todd and tons of other people come back to life and there's only 52 dimensions now or whatever isn't a reset? Retcons and dumb stuff like that is just as bad.



> Why does there need to be an "endgame"? There's no _reachable_ endgame to most comics. What happens; do they change the world? Do they permanently stop crime? There's no satisfying end you can pitch; they keep going because they are good fighting against evil. That doesn't end.


 That's my point, they'll never end like all the best stories have.  That's why you write stories in a way for them to end from the get go.



> The problem and difference with long, drawn-out Shounen stuff is that comics are far more likely to have a sooner resolution to whatever's happening at any given time than a Shounen ever will. There are endings to the stories and the plots; the characters can go on, but things change and it's not a long, long story waiting for a story's conclusion. That's one of the problems I have knowing there is an endgame for a whole universe; waiting for it.


 Is it really resolution when  you stop Joker's latest scheme and throw him in jail when you know he'll just break out relatively soon? 



> I am just boggled how you can hold such weird double standards about certain things. Seriously, I have no clue how to resolve any of this with what you've previously said.


 I like comics that end (Y's), don't like ones that don't (Superheroes).  Seems pretty self-explanatory



> Like 13 of the 26 episodes in the first season. More if you want to go into even more tangential plots and character arcs.


 So over half of the episodes have nothing to do with it and it's not even relevant after the first season, is what you're saying.



> Because overuse would ruin him in the same way it ruined villains like Orochimaru? I always loved the use of Darkseid, because his appearances were always big; invasions occurred, characters died. He didn't directly involve himself a lot (like his supplying of Intergang), but he made his presence known.


 You can't say this then use a comic book villain who's been around for half a century as your example.  Each time Oro appeared it was relevant from the story, to invading Konoha, to attacking Jiraiya and Tsunade, to training Sasuke, and Sasuke killing him.  



> He becomes Batman, gets revenge on Blight, and then the series would end? Doesn't that completely miss that Batman fights for people and against crime, not just to avenge his parents.


 Yes, that's how regular series with a story work.  



> This actually goes to the point that Batman isn't about "vengeance": his parent's killer was apprehended. His point to try and prevent what happened to him not happen to anyone else. The Spectre is vengeance; Batman is about sacrifice.


 And he does this by not killing the Joker, and instead lets him mass murder every-time he escape.  Nice job Batman, I feel safer already.



> You can't make that criticism and then bring up Naruto's story to become Hokage. That hasn't been the focus of the manga since forever. It's more about bringing back Sasuke, which still pisses me off in a variety of ways. Not only that, but Batman Beyond is far more consistent in its story focus and development of both Terry and Bruce and their relationship.


 That's my point.  'Overtaking the mantle' is vague and not really a story and can't be the meat of a show.  



> Bullshit. He was continually struggling with his two sides, while others were trying to rehabilitate him. In the end he breaks so hard that he has a third personality which completely fractures him and puts him off the deep end. At the end he's basically comatose. You never see him again, so why assume that he did anything that mattered?


 We never saw him again because the show ended. And please, Mr. Freeze was a robot head who got blown up and he came back just fine.  Darkseid was dead last we saw him before he came back.  Locked in a cell is hardly the most finite of those choices.



> - Nice job moving the goalposts: I never said he was completely pleased with it, but he knew it was coming while NBA was still in production. It would almost be impossible not to, considering how long it takes to produce an animated series and the fact that the series start overlapped the end of NBA. You still look stupid trying to talk about "how he got a chance" when he knew long before NBA ended that Batman Beyond was next.


 So he ends B:TAS stuff in BB, and ends BB stuff in JLU.  On purpose.  Right.  Why not in the series they're introduced in? It would be too obvious? 



> - In fact, I'd argue that Batman Beyond is more of a creator continuation than the Buu Saga ever was. Hey, an example of you completely not including the fact that the same thing happens in anime all the time.


 You mean the saga that actually ended the manga compared to the cartoon that kept going and was canceled? Timm purposely ended the show with a random filler on Terry unmasking himself to a little boy? Hard buy.  Sounds like he was forced to end it just like NBA to work on a new show since the network got tired of the current one.



> I'll point out that all the series which Bruce Timm new were going to end he put a conclusion on. I'd say listen to the commentaries, but you didn't watch the shows in the first place so I doubt you'll be able to pay attention. But you basically proved my point: For each series that he wasn't going to have an ending to, he created one. He created two endings to JLU, the first because he didn't know he was getting another season. Same with the original JL. If he didn't know about Batman Beyond, why wouldn't he make an ending like he did in the other series where he was actually _expecting_ the end?


 Why didn't he end BB with BB and not in JLU? If he didn't know JLU existed before JL ended, then how could he have planned to end BB in JLU and not the original JL? Unless ending BB was a last minute change, then it's not something he had planned on a long.  Which is it?



> Again, I got back _into_ comics with Infinite Crisis. I don't know how you had this huge problem; for a manga reader, I felt it was rather easy. For someone who is completely willing to read 60 volumes of a story to catch up, you need all of 5 trades to get the full story of IC. How long did Bleach's rescue story go on? How many volumes? It's like the majority of the book's volumes.


 5 trades? Really? I learn all I need to about Deathstroke in those volumes? No, he goes back to the old Teen Titans days; and I only know of the Terra stuff from Wikipedia, apparently they were lovers? But even then I never read any of the issues with her on the team so I have no idea his relationship with her or the team, or his kids, or anything else about him.  That's why people find it hard to get into comics; companies can claim a first issue is accessible, but the non-fanboy consumer knows it's bull, because there was multiple first issues and its a marketing gimmick to get people to read it.



> You can't skip stuff in manga. It is absolutely tied to the issue-by-issue progression that you have to read it all. You don't in comics. You could probably get by in reading nothing before reading Sinestro Corps War and enjoy it quite a bit. Reading the series before it will make it that much more awesome, but you could easily get past it; they explain who the characters are at the beginning of the series and point out who everyone is for those jumping on.


 That's why I prefer manga, that stuff with Terra and Deathstroke, for example, would still have lasting consequences if it was a manga, and be relevant.  I doubt a small paragraph of 'Sinestro was a GL but betrayed them and is now bad' is enough to supplement all the issues he was in; or the other Green Lanterns.  I remember reading the Rebirth mini (my first comic, actually) and apparently Guy was some monstrous beast or something? No idea what was going on. 



> Except they completely explain it. This is like your Red Tornado comment; they absolutely explain who these people are, but you just fail to pay attention or just don't want to because you feel you are missing something.


 "Thank god your here, <superhero name>. Side Note: <superhero name> is <civilian name> who got his powers via <plot>, now he seeks to fight crime to <motive>" is not an acceptable introduction to a character.



> ... How? They explained who they were in the comics. I had just gotten back into comics and I didn't find any problem in following all the stories.


 Like I said "Sue Dibney is Ralph Dibney's wife" isn't a good introduction to the character.  You're missing a ton of backstory.  Like jumping into Naruto now via Kage Summit and saying "Ok, that's Gaara, he had a railed beast in him, now it's gone, and he's Kazekage now".  You miss _a ton_ relating to his character compared to reading from the beginning.




> Runaways was _classic_ comic book writing. The idea that their story just ends with them walking away when they have great and interesting characters is... foolish. You got closure from the first book, why can't they go on to do something more?


 It's not really closure if they're still doing things and killing the core members off, is it?



Narcissus said:


> Ever hear of a short story? One could call the story arcs comic books go through or the episodes of the cartoons short stories featuring the comic hero. There are a lot of critically acclaimed short stories. Why? Because they are well-written. Batman doesn't have to permanently defeat his villains for his stories to be good.


 If you have to alter and change definition, then you probably shouldn't use the term.  Short stories tend to be short.  Hansel and Gretel kill the witch then go on their merry way.  



> Also, Batman has a moral code not to kill. He has had opportunities to kill the people in his rogue gallery, but he abstains from doing so, which is why they keep coming back.


 Let's not kid ourselves; that's a marketing gimmick to keep bringing them back.  Vash doesn't kill (unless forced to), Kenshin doesn't kill (anymore), and it's explored why and their stories end without milking the villains out for fifty years.  



> Furthermore, they are good villains. Look at anime like Naruto and Bleach, which have some pretty awful villains, despite being examples of what Draco wants to see.


 Yes, I loved the part where Dr. Doom cries over 9/11 yet has no problem killing people himself, truly the mark of a wonderful villain.

Just because they have one good story in thousands of bad ones doesn't mean you can say they're good villains.  In terms of grading, anything below 60% is an F.  That's the problem, people say 'when there's a good writer, it's good' well, good for them, but what about the other times? We ignore everything bad? Seems very fanboyish to do that.



Ben Grimm said:


> Use One Piece, use Full Metal Alchemist, hell even use Dragonball, but don't say that Naruto will have meaning. It used to have meaning, but not anymore. If Naruto were to talk to Inari right now, he would be a hypocrite.


 That didn't really address the point of 'there's the whole story aspect of the show', but thanks anyway I guess.  

I have to admit, it's funny one person will complain about something like this, then another will say 'Yeah, One More Day sucks, Dr. Doom gets some terrible stories, but you'll miss all awesome parts if you give up after those'.



Violent By Design said:


> - The argument against huge plots and cross overs like "Civil War". Well for one, if you do not like them just do not read them. Plenty of American Comics to go around, personally I don't care for huge story arc things - but it's nice that they have a universal problem and how you see multiple characters deal with said issue. But again, you could always just read something else - it's not like anyone would force you to read Sinestro Corps and what not.


 Kind of hard to ignore it when it's constantly referenced in other books.  All the titles skipped ahead one year for the One Year Later crossover thing in DC.  Also I was reading New X-Men at the time of House of M.  Haha.  That series got screwed so bad from that event suddenly half the characters were dead and everything changed.  I was mad, to say the least, and dropped it. Ignoring events is easier said than done.



> All I have to say, is that you're truly selling yourself short (if this is a reason why you do not read comics) if you don't think super hero plots are not worth your time because central plots are conceived differently. One was mention how it affects the characters and some how devalues them. That is totally false. Super hero stories are very character driven, perhaps even more so than a lot of well known manga (especially manga that falls under Shounen). You really understand the characters and they come off as very human. Not to mention they are usually easy to relate too, and you're constantly reading their thoughts so you understand them very well even though they have many dimensions. Of course this differs depending on the comic.


 See, I can't buy they're 'character driven' when each writer has their own distinct version of how the character should be and they change depending on the issue, things are retconned everytime new writers come on board, and general stuff like that.  With all the fanboys raging about stuff like "Iron Man would never do this ___, Civil War ruined him" or something or "Magneto is supposed to be sympathetic, not this crap <writer> did to him for his run".  Character driven to me is something more like Planetes; or maybe even Cowboy Bebop.  One writer, doing their thing, with a set defined bunch of characters and their traits.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 19, 2011)

Wait what about manga where you don't find out everything about the character and actually never do.  What about series like those?


----------



## Parallax (Apr 19, 2011)

and you know I was wondering why the fuck do you feel the need for some long background information on character every time they show up, read the old issues if you really wanna know.  It's like that old Garth Ennis quote about Ultron "It's an evil robot, get on with it"


----------



## Violent by Design (Apr 19, 2011)

> Kind of hard to ignore it when it's constantly referenced in other books. All the titles skipped ahead one year for the One Year Later crossover thing in DC. Also I was reading New X-Men at the time of House of M. Haha. That series got screwed so bad from that event suddenly half the characters were dead and everything changed. I was mad, to say the least, and dropped it. Ignoring events is easier said than done.


I haven't read "House of M" so I can't comment. But I have 3 or 4 friends who have read the entire series, and they are not comic book fans. They don't know much about the universe, most of their knowledge stems from the show and pop culture reference and what not. But they all said they liked House of M. Now I'm not questioning your taste, but my main point is if they can get it - why is it so hard for you to? Perhaps you're just stressing yourself of not knowing 100% of everything. 

EDIT: Actually, I misinterpreted. You were reading New X-men. 




DracoStorm said:


> Kind of hard to ignore it when it's constantly referenced in other books.  All the titles skipped ahead one year for the One Year Later crossover thing in DC.  Also I was reading New X-Men at the time of House of M.  Haha.  That series got screwed so bad from that event suddenly half the characters were dead and everything changed.  I was mad, to say the least, and dropped it. Ignoring events is easier said than done.





> See, I can't buy they're 'character driven' when each writer has their own distinct version of how the character should be and they change depending on the issue, things are retconned everytime new writers come on board, and general stuff like that.


I don't see why it would be a big deal, it is just a different adaption. 



> With all the fanboys raging about stuff like "Iron Man would never do this ___, Civil War ruined him" or something or "Magneto is supposed to be sympathetic, not this crap <writer> did to him for his run".


People do that with everything. People complain about a lot of stuff, and characters doing something that is unconventional and unpopular is not rare in any form of media (for instance, Naruto's personality has changed and there is negative criticism toward that decision).



> Character driven to me is something more like Planetes; or maybe even Cowboy Bebop.  One writer, doing their thing, with a set defined bunch of characters and their traits.



But what makes Planetes so different from Watchman in those regards?

When the Cowboy Bebop movie comes out, and the main cast aren't exactly what you want them to be - will Cowboy Bebop have the same character development? There is no reason why one cannot be able to distinct between different adaptions of a character. 

Take this for example. Dragonball was suppose to end multiple times, and the reader can tell that the Frieza arc and Cell arc were both suppose to be closing moments. However, it kept getting extended - so in those regards it was really no different than American based comics. The only difference is Akira Toyrima decided to stop when he didn't want to work anymore. The Buu saga is often cited as the worst arc, and a clear attempt at the Dragonball franchise trying to cash in. Yet people can still love Dragonball and not think highly of the Buu saga. Does one arc really spoil an entire series? Perhaps if one thinks too much about it it could - but why not just think about the times you enjoyed?

Another example, Dragonball Z had a definitive ending. But then the producers at Toei or Bandai or whatever decided to create Dragonball GT. GT has very bad reviews, even more so than the Buu Saga. However, this is seen as a blemish on the franchise, and it does not taint the franchise. People who love Dragonball did not stop loving it just because of one horrible interpretation/retcon or what ever you want to call to call it of that universe.

 GT is so bad, that people who never even read Dragonball will always cite how it is non canon - to further establish why one should ignore it. To add in extra tackiness, you could also use Dragonball Evolution or the Dragonball movies - it's the same thing just different interpretations, only difference is the story telling is not done through a comic book (but even then in regards to Dragonball there is Neko Majin and Dr.Slump which also feature Dragonball characters or are featured in Dragonball). If GT was written well and actually exciting and all that - no one would have stressed too much that it was an extension. Really, the only difference between certain comic book arcs that you're talking about is that there is no change in the title like there was for Dragonball. Why is this train of thought so hard to use for other comics? 

In fact, I was talking to my friend about DBZ coincidentally. Most people who have watched DBZ, have never even seen or read the original Dragonball. I was talking to my friend how Piccolo kidnapped Gohan after the Radditz fight, and there was nothing anyone could do. And I had to remind him that Piccolo was pure evil, and he would have killed anyone who tried to stop him in cold blood. People who watched DBZ got the entire idea behind Piccolo, but just not the full picture so to speak. Needless to say, many people who don't know anything about Dragonball still enjoy DBZ just as much - you can find even the most rabid fans who don't know anything before Radditz landed. Jumping into something really isn't a big deal especially if it is between arcs. 

Now, I can't say what comics you have read personally and I don't read X-men or Green Lantern (and X-men in general is very messy), so I can't comment on your experience. But it is a similar mind set really, and in general one should just ignore any arc/story that has bad reviews (like someone brought up [I believe Lyra] Onslaught, why read it if it is cited as being bad?).


----------



## Taleran (Apr 20, 2011)

Parallax said:


> and you know I was wondering why the fuck do you feel the need for some long background information on character every time they show up, read the old issues if you really wanna know.  It's like that old Garth Ennis quote about Ultron "It's an evil robot, get on with it"



Basically this.

Fantastic quote I read from a Fan of *Final Crisis* on the first 3 or 4 issues of the main book.



> Let me get a few things clear: I don?t have a bloody clue who Talky Tawny is. I?ve never encountered an Atomik Knight before (either in the DCU or during a afternoon of live roleplay). Christ, I even know fuck all about the New Gods.
> 
> AND I DON?T CARE.
> 
> ...


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Apr 20, 2011)

Parallax said:


> and you know I was wondering why the fuck do you feel the need for some long background information on character every time they show up, read the old issues if you really wanna know.  It's like that old Garth Ennis quote about Ultron "It's an evil robot, get on with it"



So much this, and so much what Taleran just said. For someone who NEEDS to know all the background and stuff, most comics probably won't be your thing, but if you have the ability to just (for lack of a better phrase) "go with it" you'll no doubt have a lot of fun.

Most comic storylines don't require you to know every last detail about the characters involved. 

The first DC comics my girlfriend ever read were Morrison's Bat comics, and she loved them. She didn't see the man bat ninja commandos and go "Who's langstrom and what's his backstory and how did Talia get her hands on this", instead, she saw the man bat ninja commandos, understood the basics of how it happened, and went on to enjoying watching Batman beat the crap out of fucking man bat ninja commandos! The only time continuity ever came into play was when she would go on wikipedia and look into the backstory of characters she wasn't familiar with, but all that did was add more "Oh! That's neat" kind of moments. It didn't drastically change what she thought of the overall arc.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 20, 2011)

that's why I like writers like Morrison

If you think about it most of his works are ridiculously dense with continuity, from the re introduction of all the wacky Batman stories, to Weapon X and Shiiar happenings in New X-men, or Silver age shenanigans in All Star Superman.  The reason why he succeeds in pulling it off is because if you don't know any of the backstory (which when I read most of his work I did not at all) you still have this great enjoyable story and if you wanna go back and look into the history it only enhances his stories upon revisitation.  

Honestly it's little things like that, since I always re read stories or books I enjoy, that I like certain aspects about comics over manga.

Though I like both about the same for what they each pull off so well.


----------



## Whip Whirlwind (Apr 20, 2011)

Parallax said:


> that's why I like writers like Morrison
> 
> If you think about it most of his works are ridiculously dense with continuity, from the re introduction of all the wacky Batman stories, to Weapon X and Shiiar happenings in New X-men, or Silver age shenanigans in All Star Superman.  The reason why he succeeds in pulling it off is because if you don't know any of the backstory (which when I read most of his work I did not at all) you still have this great enjoyable story and if you wanna go back and look into the history it only enhances his stories upon revisitation.
> 
> ...



Exactly, I've always felt that people overrate how much trouble continuity is. When you have a good writer they can make it work. When I first read his run I pretty much had only read post-COIE Batman stories. Then I got a hold of a collection that had all the silver age stories that featured various things from his run. Dr. Hurt, the Club of heroes/villains, and so on. So re reading it with my gf was just as interesting for me as it was for her, who was reading it for the first time.

Heck, the allusions and foreshadowing to his own future batwork make it an awesome re read.

Another example is Brubaker's work with Steve/Bucky. Everything you need to know is right there. You can come onto the start of his run knowing absolutely nothing about Captain America and you'll be fine.

The only time I've ever felt out of the loop is when I come into a writer's arc in the middle, but that's like starting a book at chapter 7.

Overall, the only "continuity" people really NEED to know for a good comic book is the basics of the basics. Which is either inherent knowledge (everybody knows Superman/Batman/etc.) or it can be summed up in one quick paragraph (Average nerd peter parker gets spider powers, decides to fight crime after the unjust death of his uncle, because with great power comes great responsibility).


----------



## Mikaveli (Apr 20, 2011)

Besides, manga do the exact same thing. The characters will often reference something that happened in the past, and that may or may not get a flashback. If it does then good. If it doesn't then is it a big deal? No. If you really want to know then read back. Just think of it as a flashback because it really is.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Apr 20, 2011)

DracoStorm said:


> Superboy Prime punching reality so Jason Todd and tons of other people come back to life and there's only 52 dimensions now or whatever isn't a reset? Retcons and dumb stuff like that is just as bad.



What's being reset? People come back to life? Jason Todd still _died_, it's not like that never happened. All it does it change how you look at certain events. Hell, there was enough explanation for that to happen long before Infinite Crisis, as mentioned by Hush. 

(As an aside, wouldn't Hush have been a great comic if Jason Todd had actually been the villain? Wasn't Batman facing one of his great failures, a thing which is a constant fixture in the cave, an interesting story? For all the flaws of Hush, if DC had pulled the trigger on that, it would have been rather awesome.)

And what the hell does having 52 universes really change about the DC Universe, other than most of the Elseworlds have their own little continuity? Overall, a lot of little changes, and nothing actually being reset. Wonder Woman actually was around for the start of the JLA, Superman had a period when he was Superboy, Joe Chill got caught, etc. Again, little continuity and character changes which don't change much if anything in their overall motivation.



> That's my point, they'll never end like all the best stories have. That's why you write stories in a way for them to end from the get go.



*Sigh*

The _stories *end*_. Stop saying they don't. Just because the characters can go on afterwards doesn't mean that these stories never end. It's really, _really_ stupid to claim otherwise.



> Is it really resolution when  you stop Joker's latest scheme and throw him in jail when you know he'll just break out relatively soon?



So what? Killing the Joker does all of what to add to the DC universe? Not be able to tell Joker stories does absolutely nothing to improve it. But hey, you're a person who judges things on such superficial levels as to put an "episode minimum" for a proper plot to be told.



> I like comics that end (Y's), don't like ones that don't (Superheroes).  Seems pretty self-explanatory



Except there are superhero stories that end, as well as animated adaptations that end as well, and you still harp on those for the same reasons. _That's_ the baffling double-standard.



> So over half of the episodes have nothing to do with it and it's not even relevant after the first season, is what you're saying.



Are you really criticizing JLU for not having every plot relate to Cadmus in some way? Do they always have to be involved? Doesn't that seem rather retarded to you that a US Government organization is going to be the _only_ enemy of the Justice League? 

And hell, compare this to the uselessness of 100 Naruto fillers which did all of nothing. The Bount Arc in Bleach which did nothing. At the very least, the individual episodes which did not do anything either told a character story (Booster Gold) or end something (Kid Stuff providing resolution to Morgain).



> You can't say this then use a comic book villain who's been around for half a century as your example.  Each time Oro appeared it was relevant from the story, to invading Konoha, to attacking Jiraiya and Tsunade, to training Sasuke, and Sasuke killing him.



Or inspiring half the filler villains in Naruto? Fuck you, I _absolutely_ can bring this sort of thing up. Your entire concept that the big enemy has to be in the story is why fillers suck so much...



> Yes, that's how regular series with a story work.



It does? Goku went on to train Ubu. He didn't stop after Buu. What did Faye and Jet do after Cowboy Bebop? Whoops, we don't know!

Hell, Batman Beyond ended long before most animes did. Just because it moved beyond the original idea and actually attempted to be more than someone on a revenge-fantasy should not be ripped on, but should be applauded.



> And he does this by not killing the Joker, and instead lets him mass murder every-time he escape.  Nice job Batman, I feel safer already.



Funny, Luffy leaves his villains alive, too. But hey, you once again miss the entire point of the character; he can't kill the Joker because he's already one step away from the Joker by being a vigilante. The law has to do that; you can't rip on Batman for something the law refuses. 



> That's my point.  'Overtaking the mantle' is vague and not really a story and can't be the meat of a show.



You say this while watching _Naruto_. Seriously, what about Bleach? What the hell is that about?

The "taking on the mantle" isn't vague: It's blatantly obvious. Bruce constantly reminds him of how he would do things. They argue on how to do things, with Bruce talking about his own experience. Compared to "becoming the Hokage" or "Insert Bleach Plot Here", I don't see how that is vague at all. It's a constant fixture, and well done.



> We never saw him again because the show ended. And please, Mr. Freeze was a robot head who got blown up and he came back just fine.  Darkseid was dead last we saw him before he came back.  Locked in a cell is hardly the most finite of those choices.



Two-Face was left in a cell repeating "Guilty, Guilty..." over and over. He was broken and done after he had developed a third personality. Stop being a fucking idiot and find a real example. I'm getting tired of fucking repeating the simplest of points to you because you didn't take time out of your manga-reading to watch a 22-minute episode.

Freeze is noted to be an immortal. There's a reason he would be cloned; to figure out his secret. Darkseid is a God. If you yourself can think of a reason of bringing back Two-Face outside of trying to prove a stupid, irrelevant point, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise his arc was pretty much done.



> So he ends B:TAS stuff in BB, and ends BB stuff in JLU.  On purpose.  Right.  Why not in the series they're introduced in? It would be too obvious?



Because he felt he wanted to? I was refuting your lie that he got to "go back" and get closure from a bunch of Batman villains when he couldn't, which was an obvious misrepresentation. I'm not saying that Batman didn't end before he wanted to, but he had ample time to change his plans. You were making a point about executive meddling and I was completely destroying it with facts.



> You mean the saga that actually ended the manga compared to the cartoon that kept going and was canceled?



No, I meant the fact that he had to write the Buu Saga. He'd been building up to an ending where Gohan took over, but that just didn't work out. Instead, we got the Buu Saga.



> Timm purposely ended the show with a random filler on Terry unmasking himself to a little boy?



Okay, I know you're a little anime kid, but you can't use the term "filler" in an American cartoon. Or at least, one that doesn't have a fixed story beforehand. That's generally an anime term, one used when they are doing adaptations of manga. "Filler" is something that didn't happen in the manga, and thus is to fill space while the manga writer writes more. It's not canon, and the term 

There's no filler in Batman Beyond. Stop calling anything in any of the superheroes you've discussed filler. There's no such thing, because it's all "canon".

Batman Beyond ended before JL ended. The idea had been around, and Timm had always been looking for a movie to use for it. It seems he wanted to use it, but ended up doing a JLU episode on an adaptation of it.



> Hard buy.  Sounds like he was forced to end it just like NBA to work on a new show since the network got tired of the current one.



It's great that you didn't read any of the book I told you about which is easily accessed online. They would have let make Batman episodes for as long as he wanted, the guy just told him they were set on this so they should perhaps work something out themselves.



> Why didn't he end BB with BB and not in JLU? If he didn't know JLU existed before JL ended, then how could he have planned to end BB in JLU and not the original JL? Unless ending BB was a last minute change, then it's not something he had planned on a long.  Which is it?



He felt he wanted to go back and give final closure to BB. What's the problem here? You were making the point that 



> 5 trades? Really? I learn all I need to about Deathstroke in those volumes?



That he's a mercenary with a healing factor? That he was the enemy of the Titans? Yeah, pretty much. What more do you really need to know? Tell me. Do you need to know his birthday? Favorite food? Perhaps the song he's most likely to sing if asked to at a Karaoke Bar? 



> No, he goes back to the old Teen Titans days; and I only know of the Terra stuff from Wikipedia, apparently they were lovers?



How is any of that relevant to his actions in Villain United, or Infinite Crisis?



> But even then I never read any of the issues with her on the team so I have no idea his relationship with her or the team, or his kids, or anything else about him.



And you don't really need to know anything about him. Again, your problem with using Infinite Crisis is that it's the comic that _I_ got back into; I didn't know about Deathstroke. And knowing what I know now, none of that has made me think about his actions differently?



> That's why people find it hard to get into comics;



Unrealistic demands? Not actually reading them, but making horrible presumptions about them? Needing to know the character's entire history before being able to accept them as a character?



> companies can claim a first issue is accessible, but the non-fanboy consumer knows it's bull,



You aren't a "non-fanboy", you're a "manga-fangirl". Saying you read "Y" doesn't mean anything. It's like Stephen Colbert talking about his "black friend".



> because there was multiple first issues and its a marketing gimmick to get people to read it.



Then how the hell did I get into it? I wasn't a comics fanboy: I had watched Batman, Superman, and JL. 



> That's why I prefer manga, that stuff with Terra and Deathstroke, for example, would still have lasting consequences if it was a manga, and be relevant.



But it doesn't need to be relevant in every plot. It's stupid to think so. It doesn't have any relevance in Infinite Crisis because it doesn't need to; Infinite Crisis deals with something else. Had he been dealing with the Titans, they probably would have explained it (like most comics do, either through the comic itself or an editor's note).



> I doubt a small paragraph of 'Sinestro was a GL but betrayed them and is now bad' is enough to supplement all the issues he was in;



Why not? You could read the story and be just fine with that. If you wanted to go deeper, it's up to you. But you don't _need_ to.



> or the other Green Lanterns.



Do I really need to know that Kilowog designed the Red Rocket Brigade to enjoy him as a GL?



> I remember reading the Rebirth mini (my first comic, actually) and apparently Guy was some monstrous beast or something? No idea what was going on.



They explained he had alien (Vuldarian) DNA in him and that it was having some sort of adverse interaction with his human DNA. They basically said that in the comics itself.



> "Thank god your here, <superhero name>. Side Note: <superhero name> is <civilian name> who got his powers via <plot>, now he seeks to fight crime to <motive>" is not an acceptable introduction to a character.



Except half of the Konoha ninjas did none of this. You wouldn't know what their powers were unless you went through the better part of the fucking manga. Hell, when did we learn that Asuma's father was the 3rd Hokage? 

- Tornado was commented on to be an android multiple times by the characters in passing conversation.
- He was shown to have tornado powers.

What more do you need? 



> Like I said "Sue Dibney is Ralph Dibney's wife" isn't a good introduction to the character.  You're missing a ton of backstory.



... Like? What more do you need? What would that backstory do?

It's the story about a man who loved his wife and is trying to bring her back. You can look up her backstory, but it's not nearly as extensive as mentioned (If you read Identity Crisis you can basically get everything about her) and it's not really important to the story. It's not like they are going to places that are ridiculously relevant to her when she was alive, since she's dead. We barely knew anything about Sasuke's family when we met him, but it's not like you didn't buy that his quest for vengeance.



> Like jumping into Naruto now via Kage Summit and saying "Ok, that's Gaara, he had a railed beast in him, now it's gone, and he's Kazekage now".  You miss _a ton_ relating to his character compared to reading from the beginning.



That's because of the way that manga's are built. They avoid closure and resolution until the end. Comic books can get away with this because you only need a basic idea of who a character is to understand the story. If you want depth, you can dig deeper, but you don't _need_ to. If I wanted to jump in at Naruto and get a basic understanding, I can't.

That's not a story flaw; that's how mangas are built. It doesn't say anything to the quality, it just means that they are relatively inaccessible because they depend far more on past continuity... which is understandable. Unlike most comic book characters, they live in a world which lives and dies with one author. You rip on having multiple authors, but having multiple authors allows a universe to live for a long time and have even casual fans get an understanding. Hell, my _mom_ knows who Green Arrow is, despite being a B-lister.



> It's not really closure if they're still doing things and killing the core members off, is it?



So what? You didn't care what they did after that, what do you care now? They are fantastic people living in a fantastic universe; did you think they'd just settle down at the rip old age of 15 and do nothing?



> If you have to alter and change definition, then you probably shouldn't use the term.



What did he change about the term? You're 18: how did you pass an English class without understanding what a fucking "short story" is?

Can you still explain to me how Sherlock Holmes has no stories because he has dozens of unrelated mysteries?



> Short stories tend to be short.  Hansel and Gretel kill the witch then go on their merry way.



What constitutes short? Does it have to be less than a Harry Potter novel, or a Tom Clancy novel? What constitutes it for a television show? 22 minutes? 21 minutes? 15 minutes? 8 minutes?

You have these hilariously arbitrary definitions without any concept of what the words actually denote.



> Let's not kid ourselves; that's a marketing gimmick to keep bringing them back.



That's like saying "The 9-tailed Fox thing is something to keep Naruto Fans  coming back". It's not a marketing gimmick, it's an integral part of the character. And to think you are calling _me_ a fanboy...



> Vash doesn't kill (unless forced to), Kenshin doesn't kill (anymore), and it's explored why and their stories end without milking the villains out for fifty years.



Because Kenshin just arbitrarily gave up after killing his successor? He wa s great protector of Japan until he suddenly decided "Hey, I'm out, yo." 

Vash stopped Knives, but we don't know what he's going to do with a violent genocidal sociopath. Neither of those have any sort of closure that you've been asking for.



> Yes, I loved the part where Dr. Doom cries over 9/11 yet has no problem killing people himself, truly the mark of a wonderful villain.



It's 9/11.  Unlike most mangas, superheroes exist in this world and sometimes deal with real-world events. Yes, it's stupid, but it's part of that "9/11 reactionary" period. I doubt if you asked anyone who wrote that if it was to mean anything other than a metaphor for "This is something that detestable", they'd probably agree. To define Doom by one quote despite all his other stories is remarkably stupid. It's like defining Tsunade by her boobs, or Ichigo by his complete lack of personality.



> Just because they have one good story in thousands of bad ones doesn't mean you can say they're good villains.



You realize that the reverse is just as true if not more?



> In terms of grading, anything below 60% is an F.  That's the problem, people say 'when there's a good writer, it's good' well, good for them, but what about the other times? We ignore everything bad? Seems very fanboyish to do that.



... Says the person who dismisses all Superheroes and their stories as plotless and shallow, while defending the same things done by manga. Yeaaaaaaah.

I, for one, actually enjoy having a few different authors. Not only do you get a different spin and different stories, but if you have a bad one, you know they won't be permanent! Sadly, I can't say the same for many mangas. Oh, Naruto...



> That didn't really address the point of 'there's the whole story aspect of the show', but thanks anyway I guess.



He's pointing out your a hypocrite as an obvious fan of Naruto, but recognizing that Naruto barely has what you talk about. You don't practice what you preach. Jesus, I feel like I'm arguing with a toddler...



> I have to admit, it's funny one person will complain about something like this, then another will say 'Yeah, One More Day sucks, Dr. Doom gets some terrible stories, but you'll miss all awesome parts if you give up after those'.



Because you do. Unlike mangas, if a story turns terrible you at least know that another author can come around and turn things around. I've read Naruto for a long time, and the only reason I'm still reading it is because I've invested too much to _not_ read it. It's not about enjoyability, but rather I've wasted so much time that I'm going to at least be able to be disappointed when it comes out.



> Kind of hard to ignore it when it's constantly referenced in other books.



When is Terra's relationship with Slade referenced in Infinite Crisis? It's not hard to ignore, you just tend to bring things up because you read it up on the wiki despite not caring. You bring up past history more than the comics ever do, or more than most mangas do, even. It's not like all the storylines in any given manga are referenced constantly; hell, how often has Ace's death been referenced by Luffy since the timeskip? Does that negate it happening?



> All the titles skipped ahead one year for the One Year Later crossover thing in DC.  Also I was reading New X-Men at the time of House of M.  Haha.  That series got screwed so bad from that event suddenly half the characters were dead and everything changed.  I was mad, to say the least, and dropped it. Ignoring events is easier said than done.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Narcissus (Apr 21, 2011)

DracoStorm said:


> If you have to alter and change definition, then you probably shouldn't use the term.  Short stories tend to be short.  Hansel and Gretel kill the witch then go on their merry way.



Except I didn't change the definition of short story. I explained that one could basically consider story arcs or episodes of animated series to be short stories in the overall bigger story, all of them showing different struggles the main character has to face, in addition to portraying the theme that evil is never permanently defeated.


> Let's not kid ourselves; that's a marketing gimmick to keep bringing them back.  Vash doesn't kill (unless forced to), Kenshin doesn't kill (anymore), and it's explored why and their stories end without milking the villains out for fifty years.



Guy already explained this pretty well. The most important part being the fact that you're trying to shrug off important character traits as a "gimmick." What ridiculous drivel. 


> Yes, I loved the part where Dr. Doom cries over 9/11 yet has no problem killing people himself, truly the mark of a wonderful villain.



In terms of character consistency, yes that scene was silly. But you're ignoring how powerful of an impact 9/11 had on America and what the writer was trying to portray to the readers. That scene alone hardly makes Doom a bad villain.


> Just because they have one good story in thousands of bad ones doesn't mean you can say they're good villains.  In terms of grading, anything below 60% is an F.  That's the problem, people say 'when there's a good writer, it's good' well, good for them, but what about the other times? We ignore everything bad? Seems very fanboyish to do that.



It's more along the lines of the good stories are better than the bad stories are bad. Quality > Quantity and all that jazz, and there is nothing fanboyish about that at all.


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 21, 2011)

Doom would find  an attack on new york like nine eleven mostly irrelevant. I mean plane crash sucks for us, but for them, GODJIRA invades times square every two months


----------



## Adonis (Apr 21, 2011)

Narcissus/Guy, it's accepted fact that the "no-kill" rule became superhero tradition because fans liked the villains and writers didn't want to create a new villain every few weeks.

The fact strong rationalized were made after the fact doesn't change that initial reason. 

Not taking sides, just pointing that out.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Apr 21, 2011)

Adonis said:


> Narcissus/Guy, it's accepted fact that the "no-kill" rule became superhero tradition because fans liked the villains and writers didn't want to create a new villain every few weeks.



Eh... if we are going for external sources, it's more likely to be because of the Comic Code Authority. The Comic Code Authority's guidelines are a far more likely reason as to why the "No Killing" came into being than that, considering a lot of heroes fought against faceless villains such as gangsters and other societal enemies. I mean, hell, Superman used to toss mad bombers into volcanoes and put gangsters in the path of their own bullets.

So I understand and partially agree with your conclusion (No Killing comes from external factors), I think the factors are different. I also don't think that the argument dilutes how firmly entrenched it is within the character and that it's very much a part of who they are.



> The fact strong rationalized were made after the fact doesn't change that initial reason.



So does that mean it's okay to point out that most Shonen protagonists share the same traits not for the purpose of story, but for the purpose of making money and mass appeal? Frankly, I'd like to examine the characters beyond the obvious "Well, this is what he needs to look like to appeal to people."



> Not taking sides, just pointing that out.



No, it's cool. I like thought out responses.


----------



## Adonis (Apr 21, 2011)

Guy Gardner said:


> Eh... if we are going for external sources, it's more likely to be because of the Comic Code Authority. The Comic Code Authority's guidelines are a far more likely reason as to why the "No Killing" came into being than that, considering a lot of heroes fought against faceless villains such as gangsters and other societal enemies. I mean, hell, Superman used to toss mad bombers into volcanoes and put gangsters in the path of their own bullets.



Okay, it's a combination of practical considerations (heroes like Superman and Batman fight arch-nemeses who have to be recycled) and the moral authorities of the time deeming comic books be G-rated.



> So I understand and partially agree with your conclusion (No Killing comes from external factors), I think the factors are different. I also don't think that the argument dilutes how firmly entrenched it is within the character and that it's very much a part of who they are.



I don't think it dilutes how firmly entrenched it is, either, considering that all fiction makes concessions for convenience's sake. It'd be like complaining Firefly was made smaller in scope than something like Star Wars due to the restraints of a TV budget. It could have been a grandiose space opera, man!

The background politics and minutiae of a work of fiction don't really matter in terms of story as long as the results have in-story justifications. 

I was merely pointing out that you can't necessarily say that the great character development stemming from the "no killing" rule came before the external factors that imposed the rule.



> So does that mean it's okay to point out that most Shonen protagonists share the same traits not for the purpose of story, but for the purpose of making money and mass appeal? Frankly, I'd like to examine the characters beyond the obvious "Well, this is what he needs to look like to appeal to people."



Yes, it's okay to point that out, but meaningless for the same reasons. Unless the influence of business is gratuitous and impedes upon the viewer's suspension of disbelief (like, say, including a hero fueled by Mountain Dew), bitching because companies make decisions based on economic concerns is petty. I could probably point out minority characters that were added to ensemble casts due to outside pressure, but unless it's something jarring like a black viking, does it matter?

In the end, if what you do with something works, how and why it came to be is trivia.


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 21, 2011)

The No-Kill rule? Old bullshit. Ever heard of a little something called the Punisher? X-Force? Hell, super man kills. Fuck, all comics have deaths, it comes to the point where Batman's adamnt *NEVER * kill actually becomes a scary plot point.
Luthor contemplates killing the joker once. The joker replies "you could, but you won't, because you know that if you do, then bat will come for you"
And why does the "characteristic" use of death determines wether or not superhero shoes have a good plot. Death is only one of a miriad of elements.


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 21, 2011)

Irredemable explores this very heavily with Qubit.
Qubit does not kill.
A comicbook that explores the apocalipse of an evil superman analogue and Qubit *does not* kill.

Someone explain the non-savants what this means.


----------



## Narcissus (Apr 22, 2011)

The "no-killing" rule may have been the result of outside influences, but it became part of the character's moral codes. In other news:


----------



## Parallax (Apr 22, 2011)

The great part about that scene is how intentional Grant Morrison made it to be a gun as a way of "closing" the character and coming full circle.


----------



## Endless Mike (Apr 22, 2011)

The Spectre had such a great way to get around the no killing rule: He would transmute villains into inanimate objects and then destroy them.


----------



## Taleran (Apr 22, 2011)

It is amazing to me how many people miss the significance of the scene its not about killing because Darkseid doesn't die there, its about the Gun.


----------



## Parallax (Apr 23, 2011)

I agree

although I can see why people don't make the connection.


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 23, 2011)

For those unaware, batman *never* uses guns that don't have a grapling hook, glue or a flare on the chamber.


*Ever.*


Plastique is fine though.


----------



## Narcissus (Apr 24, 2011)

Taleran said:


> It is amazing to me how many people miss the significance of the scene its not about killing because Darkseid doesn't die there, its about the Gun.



Probably because a lot of them don't know that particular fact.


----------

