Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 4
Topic: Cliches I Would Not Miss (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Andy Meyers
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 August 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 567
Posted: 20 November 2014 at 7:28pm | IP Logged | 1  

Stephen,

Not sure how to contact you but I'd be interested in reading some of your work. Any chance you could point me in the right direction? I love to read.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Ray Brady
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3740
Posted: 20 November 2014 at 8:18pm | IP Logged | 2  

It's interesting that every one of those cliches is also deeply ingrained in soap operas. I guess they're the inevitable by-product of having the same characters passing through dozens of different hands throughout the decades.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132132
Posted: 21 November 2014 at 6:25am | IP Logged | 3  

Sandman busy not being a killer:

Who knew he was such a good shot!

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132132
Posted: 21 November 2014 at 6:32am | IP Logged | 4  

I agree with Stephen King when it comes to my own fiction. I like to give the antagonists in my stories admirable qualities and the protagonists very real flaws. However, I'm not writing superhero comics -- nor does Stephen King.

I "believe" the Luthor in GENERATIONS, for example, and he's a rat bastard. There is a shade of gray villain in that story, who Luthor manipulates, and we do feel sorry for him and his inability to make the right choices, which led to so much suffering. But that type of villain isn't Lex Luthor. It doesn't make a good counterpoint for Superman.

••

Precisely!

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132132
Posted: 21 November 2014 at 6:35am | IP Logged | 5  

Sandman isn't Galactus. He's not "beyond good and evil." He should spend the rest of his life behind bars -- even if he's "reformed" (there are a lot of reformed men in prison who are still serving the time for their crimes). And the fact that somehow a brutal murderer was able to say, "Whoops!" and wind up in The Avengers is just nuts.

••

You're beginning to make me think I have developed MPD and am posting under a different name! SO many times I have made this exact argument.

"Well, I WAS a bad guy, and robbed banks and killed people, but I have seen the error of my ways and want to be a good guy now!"

"Good for you! So turn yourself in and do the time in prison your crimes have earned you. THEN we'll talk!"

Back to Top profile | search
 
Vinny Valenti
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8009
Posted: 21 November 2014 at 11:57am | IP Logged | 6  

That's precisely what Kurt Busiek did when Hawkeye joined
the Thunderbolts, who were formerly members of the
Masters of Evil trying to reform. One member was formerly
the Beetle, who had been the only member to have actually
killed someone as a villain. Hawkeye made him return to
prison to finish his sentence as a requirement for his
reformation.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Kip Lewis
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 March 2011
Posts: 2880
Posted: 21 November 2014 at 4:59pm | IP Logged | 7  

Sandman isn't Galactus. He's not "beyond
good and evil." He should spend the rest
of his life behind bars -- even if he's
"reformed" (there are a lot of reformed
men in prison who are still serving the
time for their crimes). And the fact that
somehow a brutal murderer was able to say,
"Whoops!" and wind up in The Avengers is
just nuts.


••

I don't think this dilemma is limited to
comics but I agree. They should face
punishment. Of course, the way I see
them get around this is by making them go
to work for the government and get their
sentence commuted (is that the right
word?) or reduced to a silly level.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2160
Posted: 21 November 2014 at 7:03pm | IP Logged | 8  

Here's one I'm not fond of:  People going on dangerous missions (sometimes for years) and not knowing on why they are there after they get there.

They did this on Gravity (Clooney asking Bullock why she was there--which was the point of the mission) and Prometheus (whole crew, scientists included).  It's a fairly obvious way of to impart info to the audience, but it just makes the characters look severely under-prepared.

There are a whole slew of clumsy methods of explaining stuff to the audience which are often unnecessary.  I'd say trust the audience more.  A human mind can't help but try and fill in blank areas, and it doing so can help immersion much more than an explanation that's clearly aimed at the audience by characters who reasonably should already know stuff.

I note that stories (movies/comics/whatever) targeted at a younger audience often skate right by explaining much of anything past character motivations and the stories make perfect sense.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 

Sorry, you can NOT post a reply.
This topic is closed.

<< Prev Page of 4
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login