|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on May 19, 2014 17:03:06 GMT -5
NOT buy a comic that has GREEN LANTERN in it? That's crazy talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxley on May 19, 2014 17:05:20 GMT -5
I wasn't saying that Ennis doesn't write non-superhero stuff. What I was saying is that if Ennis hates superheroes as much as he obviously does, and if his fans prefer his non-superhero work (which it sounds like they do), then perhaps he should stick to writing this and stop doing superhero-related books at all. He'd obviously be happier, and superhero fans wouldn't have to put up with him writing stories where Green Lantern gets raped.They could just not buy those stories. It's not hard. So Ennis gets a free pass to do whatever he wants to characters because he's Garth Ennis and is somehow immune from criticism? |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 19, 2014 17:06:47 GMT -5
He's not immune from criticism. But if the criticism amounts to "The mean old man did something I don't like with my imaginary friend" it's not so much criticism as it is whining.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanboystranger on May 19, 2014 17:29:12 GMT -5
I assume that the decision to include superhero type stuff is basically commercial. It's useful to remember that the "Local Heroes" arc was right after Final Night when DC was really pushing Kyle Raynor as the one true GL. There was some pressure to get Kyle in as many books as possible over that year. I'd imagine that Hitman was part of that plan, but Ennis and Tomasi subverted the intent, making Kyle pretty much an idiot.
Also, the Hitman issue of Final Night was the best individual issue of that crossover, a bunch of bar patrons waiting out the end of the world telling old stories and having some laughs. Left to his own devices, Ennis knew how to make lemonade in a superhero universes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2014 17:29:27 GMT -5
They could just not buy those stories. It's not hard. So Ennis gets a free pass to do whatever he wants to characters because he's Garth Ennis and is somehow immune from criticism? How many of us do things we don't necessarily like to do at work because it pays the bills. Something has to fund the start up costs of those creator owned books, so he does work for hire to pay for it. It's a free country, he can take those jobs if he chooses, even if he doesn't like them. And the consumer is free to buy and read it or not as they choose. He doesn't get a free pass form me, I choose not to support the work by not buying it, from him or other creators I don't like, and while I wish editors might give the assignment to someone else, it's their choice to offer it to a writer and the the writer's choice whether to take it. The consumer is free to comment, but they don't get to choose who does what work for a company they neither own nor work for. Their choice is in whether to consume the products or not, hence they are consumers.You are free to complain that you don't like the choices made by the editors or the creators, but that's not a decision you have any power over except with your wallet. If they keep giving assignments like that to Ennis though, someone is obviously buying them in enough numbers to make it profitable for the company to keep paying him to do it. Satisfied customers tend to make less noise verbally, but their money speaks louder than any post or complaint criticizing the choice does. -M |
|
|
|
Post by foxley on May 19, 2014 17:30:21 GMT -5
He's not immune from criticism. But if the criticism amounts to "The mean old man did something I don't like with my imaginary friend" it's not so much criticism as it is whining. Ultimately, isn't that what criticism of a comics writer is? A complainant that you did not like how they handled a fictional character/situation? But, for some reason, it is acceptable to complain about how Chuck Austen handled Nightcrawler in X-Men but not how Ennis handled Green Lantern in Hitman? |
|
|
|
Post by thebeastofyuccaflats on May 19, 2014 17:37:12 GMT -5
He didn't even get raped, for feck's sake. The joke about Kyle Rayner in Hitman was really essentially just how he really didn't get real people who usually deal with having very limited choices (also the joke with his Batman).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2014 17:43:57 GMT -5
He's not immune from criticism. But if the criticism amounts to "The mean old man did something I don't like with my imaginary friend" it's not so much criticism as it is whining. Ultimately, isn't that what criticism of a comics writer is? A complainant that you did not like how they handled a fictional character/situation? But, for some reason, it is acceptable to complain about how Chuck Austen handled Nightcrawler in X-Men but not how Ennis handled Green Lantern in Hitman? Well your criticism of a comic writer could be his dialogue is stilted, or his pacing was off, or his plot was unoriginal, or the payoff didn't live up to the set up, or any number of things beyond/other than how he/she handled a favorite character. All depends what your priorities are as a reader I guess, and how you set your expectations. -M PS and I say this as someone who is not a fan of Ennis' stuff outside of his war comics and someone who thinks Preacher doesn't live up to the hype, but he does what he does and he writes what he writes, and it's my call whether to read it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 19, 2014 17:46:01 GMT -5
He's not immune from criticism. But if the criticism amounts to "The mean old man did something I don't like with my imaginary friend" it's not so much criticism as it is whining. Ultimately, isn't that what criticism of a comics writer is? A complainant that you did not like how they handled a fictional character/situation? But, for some reason, it is acceptable to complain about how Chuck Austen handled Nightcrawler in X-Men but not how Ennis handled Green Lantern in Hitman? Not for me it's not. The criticism should be as to whether the book is good or not. If the story and the book are good I could care less how the character is handled. I have no idea how Chuck Austen handled Nightcrawler. Honestly I wouldn't care if I did. Either the story is good or it isn't. Given Chuck Austen's history of being a lousy writer that's probably more the issue. I read Hitman twice. I have no idea if Green Lantern was out of character in that comic. It worked for the purposes of that story, so that's what matters. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2014 17:46:38 GMT -5
But, for some reason, it is acceptable to complain about how Chuck Austen handled Nightcrawler in X-Men but not how Ennis handled Green Lantern in Hitman? Nope, you won't be the first to be unappreciative of it. When the Kyle-man got 'raped' the Green Lantern Corps board was on fire. www.thegreenlanterncorps.com/forum/showthread.php?t=821But then a lot of people simply reasoned it was Ennis  |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 19, 2014 17:47:17 GMT -5
He didn't even get raped, for feck's sake. The joke about Kyle Rayner in Hitman was really essentially just how he really didn't get real people who usually deal with having very limited choices (also the joke with his Batman). Thank you. I sure as heck didn't remember an rape in there. Glad I don't need to go back and re-re-read Hitman...at least not right now. |
|
|
|
Post by crazyoldhermit on May 19, 2014 20:37:08 GMT -5
He's not immune from criticism. But if the criticism amounts to "The mean old man did something I don't like with my imaginary friend" it's not so much criticism as it is whining. Ultimately, isn't that what criticism of a comics writer is? A complainant that you did not like how they handled a fictional character/situation? But, for some reason, it is acceptable to complain about how Chuck Austen handled Nightcrawler in X-Men but not how Ennis handled Green Lantern in Hitman? The difference is Chuck Austen was writing the book Nightcrawler starred in, while aside from a few limited forays (the Thor MAX mini comes to mind, and I quite liked that one) Ennis has only worked with guest stars. Criticizing someone for not taking the characters seriously is a legitimate complaint when the writer in question is writing their series and has a responsibility. But when it's just a guest appearance that doesn't matter because it's just a throwaway. It's possible to look at the treatment of Daredevil, Wolverine and Spider-Man in The Confederacy of Dunces as some sort of grave injustice of the upmost seriousness, but it's really just a harmless gag and a bit of fun being poked at the silly superheroes. But maybe I'm biased, since the Punisher gets treated so crappily when he shows up in other people's books and it's fun to see some poo get tossed the other way. |
|
|
|
Post by foxley on May 20, 2014 1:55:00 GMT -5
So characterization has no bearing on whether a story is good? Sorry, but I have to disagree with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2014 2:12:16 GMT -5
So characterization has no bearing on whether a story is good? Sorry, but I have to disagree with that. So for example, Connery's Bond characterization is different than Moore's is different than Craig's etc. Since they don't match, does that mean only Bond movies featuring one of those characterizations can be good? If Connery's is good, that makes any other actor's characterization automatically bad since his was first and theirs doesn't match? Or can there be different interpretations of a character that are good? If Ennis' characterization is bad just because it is different than the norm, then O'Neil's characterization of Hal Jordan can't be good because it is different than those early Broome stories, and Geoff Johns can't be good, etc. etc. Characterization has some bearing on whether a story is good sure, but it may not be the defining characteristic in evaluations. For you it might be, but other people may have different criteria. Personally I always found Kyle by Marz a bit of a wanker and didn't like him, so I have no problem if someone portrayed him differently. I don't necessarily like Ennis' take (haven't read Hitman so I don't know), but if we are to take the idea that super-heroes are modern myths with any veracity, then these characters should be strong enough to withstand a variety of interpretations and characterizations and still be used to tell good stories. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on May 20, 2014 2:21:34 GMT -5
Characterization is one of the strengths of Garth Ennis.Green Lantern would beg to be written by such an outstanding writer,to the point of willingly submitting to rape.But no-he is not worthy,just another foolish superhero who is way past his expiration date.Off you go GL,go join the 19 other variations of yourself.The great Garth has better things to write  |
|
