|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2021 12:20:37 GMT -5
People do expect some realistic sense out of superhero stories, whether on screen or on a page; some of the better stories had characters react in ways closer to reality (e.g. Spider-Man being so enraged at the Goblin that he nearly beat him to death until he realized what he was close to doing). If no real-world behavior or action were ever expected, superhero films and comics could have characters fall from a cliff, and when they hit the ground, their bodies take on the appearance of an accordion with appropriate sounds, before they "straighten" themselves out and walk way in Looney Tunes fashion. Even fantasy---the better fantasy--works due to having some realism as a touch-point for the viewers. I don't expect realism, I expect verisimilitude. There's a big difference . I know comics aren't going to reflect reality. That ends when lightning and chemicals give you superspeed not third degree burns, the radioactive spider-bite doesn't kill the kid and gives him powers instead, or when four civilians including a teen-ager can hijack a space flight; after that nothing they do is realistic. What I expect is that once the parameters and conceits of the fantasy are established, the creators stay consistent and believable in those parameters. Once you establish a world where super-heroes trip over each other at the drop of a hat, any kind of world-threatening crisis that doesn't bring everyone out of the woodwork kind of violates those parameters. -M
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 19, 2021 13:57:05 GMT -5
I will never accept that the Eternals were sitting around doing nothing while Thanos was decimating the universe in the MCU. There I said it. But you accept that nobody but the Fantastic Four get involved when Galactus first comes to eat Earth? It’s a completely common superhero funnybook trope. Brought to you by Slam Bradley's "Rules For Reading Superhero Funnybooks." Why do you lot call comics "funnybooks" when most of them aren't actually funny and aren't even supposed to be?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2021 14:00:22 GMT -5
But you accept that nobody but the Fantastic Four get involved when Galactus first comes to eat Earth? It’s a completely common superhero funnybook trope. Brought to you by Slam Bradley's "Rules For Reading Superhero Funnybooks." Why do you lot call comics "funnybooks" when most of them aren't actually funny and aren't even supposed to be? They're not comical either but they're still called comic books. Comic Book and funny book were interchangeable terms for these things up through at least the Silver Age, and my folks still used funny books to refer to them through the 70s and 80s. -M
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 19, 2021 14:04:59 GMT -5
Why do you lot call comics "funnybooks" when most of them aren't actually funny and aren't even supposed to be? They're not comical either but they're still called comic books. Comic Book and funny book were interchangeable terms for these things up through at least the Silver Age, and my folks still used funny books to refer to them through the 70s and 80s. -M I've never really understood the "comic book" qualifier, either. In Britain, comics were until recently just called comics, regardless of whether they were actual comic magazines or just newspaper strips. Anything that told a story with sequential art came under the general heading of comics.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 19, 2021 14:16:35 GMT -5
But you accept that nobody but the Fantastic Four get involved when Galactus first comes to eat Earth? It’s a completely common superhero funnybook trope. Brought to you by Slam Bradley's "Rules For Reading Superhero Funnybooks." Why do you lot call comics "funnybooks" when most of them aren't actually funny and aren't even supposed to be? It's what my Dad called them. But mostly it's because it tends to irritate people who take them far too seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2021 14:17:06 GMT -5
They're not comical either but they're still called comic books. Comic Book and funny book were interchangeable terms for these things up through at least the Silver Age, and my folks still used funny books to refer to them through the 70s and 80s. -M I've never really understood the "comic book" qualifier, either. In Britain, comics were until recently just called comics, regardless of whether they were actual comic magazines or just newspaper strips. Anything that told a story with sequential art came under the general heading of comics. When strips were first appearing in American newspapers, it was called the funny pages or the comic pages. One of the first comic pamphlets released, which contained strip reprints was Famous Funnies and then you had New Fun Comics from the publisher that would become DC to signify it was new material not reprints, but still the idea of funnies or comics was the basis for the titles and the modern appellations all stem from there. It no longer refers to the contents but to the origins of the form in the US market. -M and as to what Slam_Bradley said, yeah some folks like to split hairs and interpret funny books as pejorative but comic book as respectable for some unfathomable reason...
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 19, 2021 14:21:58 GMT -5
I've never really understood the "comic book" qualifier, either. In Britain, comics were until recently just called comics, regardless of whether they were actual comic magazines or just newspaper strips. Anything that told a story with sequential art came under the general heading of comics. and as to what Slam_Bradley said, yeah some folks like to split hairs and interpret funny books as pejorative but comic book as respectable for some unfathomable reason... It was honestly a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to those who insisted on calling every floppy a "graphic novel." And it just kind of stuck. At this point it's really less about being iconoclastic and more about the fact that I like the sound look of the word funnybook.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 19, 2021 15:29:09 GMT -5
Why do you lot call comics "funnybooks" when most of them aren't actually funny and aren't even supposed to be? It's what my Dad called them. But mostly it's because it tends to irritate people who take them far too seriously. Who are you to say how seriously people should take them? Comics are as legitimate a storytelling medium as any other and can be used to tell any kind of story. Are we not supposed to take Maus seriously?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2021 15:40:06 GMT -5
and as to what Slam_Bradley said, yeah some folks like to split hairs and interpret funny books as pejorative but comic book as respectable for some unfathomable reason... It was honestly a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to those who insisted on calling every floppy a "graphic novel." And it just kind of stuck. At this point it's really less about being iconoclastic and more about the fact that I like the sound look of the word funnybook. It makes about as much sense as people who try to split hairs between films and movies with one being "serious art" and the other being popcorn fare. They're the same thing and any difference in the terms is in account of the pretensions of the person making it, not in the terms themselves. Both movies and film can be serious or frivolous, just as both comic books and funny books can refer to the gamut of things that used words and pictures in panels and/or pages to tell stories or a joke. And I find it's not how seriously or not someone takes it where people find offense in which term is used, but when people link how seriously others take it to their own self-esteem and validation of what they like it and take seriously where people get bothered by which term is used and take offense. -M
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Oct 19, 2021 15:40:30 GMT -5
Personally, I think spending energy on splitting hairs over which old timey term to call them is taking them too seriously.
Respecting the comics medium as a legitimate artform is not.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 19, 2021 15:53:39 GMT -5
It was honestly a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to those who insisted on calling every floppy a "graphic novel." And it just kind of stuck. At this point it's really less about being iconoclastic and more about the fact that I like the sound look of the word funnybook. It makes about as much sense as people who try to split hairs between films and movies with one being "serious art" and the other being popcorn fare. They're the same thing and any difference in the terms is in account of the pretensions of the person making it, not in the terms themselves. Both movies and film can be serious or frivolous, just as both comic books and funny books can refer to the gamut of things that used words and pictures in panels and/or pages to tell stories or a joke. And I find it's not how seriously or not someone takes it where people find offense in which term is used, but when people link how seriously others take it to their own self-esteem and validation of what they like it and take seriously where people get bothered by which term is used and take offense. -M I wasn't aware that there was any difference between the meaning of the words film and movie.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 19, 2021 15:54:20 GMT -5
It's what my Dad called them. But mostly it's because it tends to irritate people who take them far too seriously. Who are you to say how seriously people should take them? Comics are as legitimate a storytelling medium as any other and can be used to tell any kind of story. Are we not supposed to take Maus seriously? The prosecution rests.
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Oct 19, 2021 15:58:41 GMT -5
Who are you to say how seriously people should take them? Comics are as legitimate a storytelling medium as any other and can be used to tell any kind of story. Are we not supposed to take Maus seriously? The prosecution rests. what a closed minded view. I've been reading, collecting and dealing in comics for most of my life, but for the last twenty odd years I've also been writing about them, either just for myself or semi professionally, and trying to champion them as both a serious art form and genuine literature, both of which they are. Attitudes like yours are the reason they are frequently not appreciated as such.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Oct 19, 2021 16:03:26 GMT -5
Dude, look where you are. We've all been reading them and writing about them for decades. No one here is saying they are not a real medium.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 19, 2021 16:13:00 GMT -5
Which explains a lot about why Slam_Bradley has been hanging around here for years. He constantly champions MAD magazine and exults about the efffect it had on his life growing up as a young spud. He did like a ten-hour discussion of Sandman Mystery Theatre with crimebuster. And he particiaptes in the Cover Contest every week. Clearly, Slam Bradley hates comics.
|
|