Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,199 
|
Post by Confessor on Apr 19, 2016 19:33:05 GMT -5
Stephen Strange was an arrogant ass$%^& before the accident that robbed him of his surgical skills. Why doesn't that part of his personality resurface from time to time ? Because he learned his moral lesson well? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 19:34:13 GMT -5
Stephen Strange was an arrogant ass$%^& before the accident that robbed him of his surgical skills. Why doesn't that part of his personality resurface from time to time ? It does. Though he learned humilty, he has struggled with his arrogance at times throughout the Thomas, Englehart, Quinn, and other runs on the book and in how he was portrayed in the modern era as an Avenger and part of the Illuminati. It is also one of the character traited being explore dint he current Doc series by Jason Aaron. Rather than not being revisited, it's been at the core of how he has been portrayed throughout most of his publication history. He constantly struggles with overconfidence and has to recall the lessons of humility quite often. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 19, 2016 19:51:15 GMT -5
Stephen Strange was an arrogant ass$%^& before the accident that robbed him of his surgical skills. Why doesn't that part of his personality resurface from time to time ? It does. Though he learned humilty, he has struggled with his arrogance at times throughout the Thomas, Englehart, Quinn, and other runs on the book and in how he was portrayed in the modern era as an Avenger and part of the Illuminati. It is also one of the character traited being explore dint he current Doc series by Jason Aaron. Rather than not being revisited, it's been at the core of how he has been portrayed throughout most of his publication history. He constantly struggles with overconfidence and has to recall the lessons of humility quite often. -M I'll take your word for it, I've only ever read/collected his Englehart/Rogers run that started in #48. I read it until #74. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Apr 19, 2016 20:10:34 GMT -5
Spider-Man's from Forest Hills, Queens. That's were I lived during the Ditko/ Lee years and I was always looking around for the Parker home Isn't that also where Simon & Garfunkel are from, Ish? Edit: I think that's right. Anyway, I always thought it was cool that my favourite super-hero and my favourite musical duo were from the same neighbourhood. Thats right. Art was born in Forest Hills and Paul moved into the area as a young teen. Next door to Forest Hills is the area called Corona which Paul Simon mentioned in Me And Julio Down By The Schoolyard. The two bothers that formed The Ramones, who I mentioned in the past I used to hang out with at the park when they were known as Mitch and Jeff Hyman. Felix Papallardi-bass player and songwriter who with Leslie West was part of Mountain (Mississippi Queen). The original Captain Kangeroo from the descades long TV kiddie show. Ray Romano, Geraldine Fitzgerald, 1st female vice president candidate, actor David Caruso (who in an early interview when he starred on NYPD Blue claimed street cred by growing up in the tough neighborhood of Forest Hills...I then knew he was a real pussy because if there's one thing FH isn't, it's not a tough place. It's possible Stan Lee once had an apartment for a short time there as well |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 20:16:33 GMT -5
It does. Though he learned humilty, he has struggled with his arrogance at times throughout the Thomas, Englehart, Quinn, and other runs on the book and in how he was portrayed in the modern era as an Avenger and part of the Illuminati. It is also one of the character traited being explore dint he current Doc series by Jason Aaron. Rather than not being revisited, it's been at the core of how he has been portrayed throughout most of his publication history. He constantly struggles with overconfidence and has to recall the lessons of humility quite often. -M I'll take your word for it, I've only ever read/collected his Englehart/Rogers run that started in #48. I read it until #74. Englehart and Rogers never teamed on Doc-Detective and Surfer yes, but not Doc-Englehart was long gone by the time Rogrs came on as artist-which was I believe with Roger Stern as writer. When it cropped up it was usually along the lines of -I was to arrogant to see what I was doing was causing blank )everything from alienating Clea to blinding him to some solution to the plot, or his questioning if he had the right to do something even though he had the power to do so or was he once again letting his arrogance inform his decisions (usually leading to a flashback of sorts to his origins or something along those lines, etc. etc. and everytime one writer owuld resolve and you think Doc might grow, the next writer came along and opened up some variation on that can of worms for his own plot/character plans. -M |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Apr 19, 2016 21:45:02 GMT -5
Stephen Strange was an arrogant ass$%^& before the accident that robbed him of his surgical skills. Why doesn't that part of his personality resurface from time to time ? It does. Though he learned humilty, he has struggled with his arrogance at times throughout the Thomas, Englehart, Quinn, and other runs on the book and in how he was portrayed in the modern era as an Avenger and part of the Illuminati. It is also one of the character traited being explore dint he current Doc series by Jason Aaron. Rather than not being revisited, it's been at the core of how he has been portrayed throughout most of his publication history. He constantly struggles with overconfidence and has to recall the lessons of humility quite often. -M One of the problems I have with the current version of the character is that they've swung the pendulum too far in this direction and have forgotten that there's the side Confessor referred to as well: that in fact he never would have become Sorceror Supreme if he hadn't learnt his lesson well, if he hadn't faced his arrogance and learned to transcend it, not without a long and difficult process of training self-discipline. It's a weakness of many contemporary comics writers: they tend to like their characters to have an obvious personality flaw. Something that gets them into trouble, creates conflict, IWO that makes it easy to come up with stories. I think it's too cheap and easy a way out for the writer, myself. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Apr 20, 2016 1:36:20 GMT -5
Stephen Strange was an arrogant ass$%^& before the accident that robbed him of his surgical skills. Why doesn't that part of his personality resurface from time to time ? A number of the more recent writers to use the character have played up that aspect of him. He also now often seems to be portrayed as something pf a serial womanizer. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Apr 20, 2016 1:45:09 GMT -5
Stephen Strange was an arrogant ass$%^& before the accident that robbed him of his surgical skills. Why doesn't that part of his personality resurface from time to time ? A number of the more recent writers to use the character have played up that aspect of him. He also now often seems to be portrayed as something pf a serial womanizer. Whenever I see the current version I think "Tony Stark + magic". Not something I feel like reading about - or watching on the screen. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 20, 2016 4:37:08 GMT -5
I'll take your word for it, I've only ever read/collected his Englehart/Rogers run that started in #48. I read it until #74. Englehart and Rogers never teamed on Doc-Detective and Surfer yes, but not Doc-Englehart was long gone by the time Rogrs came on as artist-which was I believe with Roger Stern as writer. When it cropped up it was usually along the lines of -I was to arrogant to see what I was doing was causing blank )everything from alienating Clea to blinding him to some solution to the plot, or his questioning if he had the right to do something even though he had the power to do so or was he once again letting his arrogance inform his decisions (usually leading to a flashback of sorts to his origins or something along those lines, etc. etc. and everytime one writer owuld resolve and you think Doc might grow, the next writer came along and opened up some variation on that can of worms for his own plot/character plans. -M I stand corrected. It was Stern. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 20, 2016 7:34:41 GMT -5
It does. Though he learned humilty, he has struggled with his arrogance at times throughout the Thomas, Englehart, Quinn, and other runs on the book and in how he was portrayed in the modern era as an Avenger and part of the Illuminati. It is also one of the character traited being explore dint he current Doc series by Jason Aaron. Rather than not being revisited, it's been at the core of how he has been portrayed throughout most of his publication history. He constantly struggles with overconfidence and has to recall the lessons of humility quite often. -M One of the problems I have with the current version of the character is that they've swung the pendulum too far in this direction and have forgotten that there's the side Confessor referred to as well: that in fact he never would have become Sorceror Supreme if he hadn't learnt his lesson well, if he hadn't faced his arrogance and learned to transcend it, not without a long and difficult process of training self-discipline. It's a weakness of many contemporary comics writers: they tend to like their characters to have an obvious personality flaw. Something that gets them into trouble, creates conflict, IWO that makes it easy to come up with stories. I think it's too cheap and easy a way out for the writer, myself. I wholeheartedly agree, and that way the writer misrepresents the essence of the character. With Dr. Strange we are not dealing with an arrogant $#@ who amped his game when he learned magic; we are dealing with a once selfish individual who learned the value of humility and sacrifice, and emerged a better person. His tale is one of successful redemption, and for all that it is old-fashioned I find it more engaging than the deconstructionist approach that became all the rage in the '90s and persists to this day. |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Apr 21, 2016 1:45:04 GMT -5
One of the problems I have with the current version of the character is that they've swung the pendulum too far in this direction and have forgotten that there's the side Confessor referred to as well: that in fact he never would have become Sorceror Supreme if he hadn't learnt his lesson well, if he hadn't faced his arrogance and learned to transcend it, not without a long and difficult process of training self-discipline. It's a weakness of many contemporary comics writers: they tend to like their characters to have an obvious personality flaw. Something that gets them into trouble, creates conflict, IWO that makes it easy to come up with stories. I think it's too cheap and easy a way out for the writer, myself. I wholeheartedly agree, and that way the writer misrepresents the essence of the character. With Dr. Strange we are not dealing with an arrogant $#@ who amped his game when he learned magic; we are dealing with a once selfish individual who learned the value of humility and sacrifice, and emerged a better person. His tale is one of successful redemption, and for all that it is old-fashioned I find it more engaging than the deconstructionist approach that became all the rage in the '90s and persists to this day. I wouldn't honour this habit with the term deconstructionist, something which, when taken seriously and performed with skill and insight, is a legitimate approach. What they're doing is actually something very crude and lazy, from my POV: they're either unable or unwilling to come up with a story about the given character, so they make a new character, one that fits the story they want to tell, rather than making the effort to come up with a story that fits the character that was there before they came along. It happens time and again - I was saying almost exactly the same thing on the Modern Comics board about Kirby's Highfather not long ago. For all the claims that modern comics writers are more sophisticated than those of the 70s, when you look at their versions of characters that appeared in the more innovative series of that period, the record is quite damning. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 2:09:38 GMT -5
I wholeheartedly agree, and that way the writer misrepresents the essence of the character. With Dr. Strange we are not dealing with an arrogant $#@ who amped his game when he learned magic; we are dealing with a once selfish individual who learned the value of humility and sacrifice, and emerged a better person. His tale is one of successful redemption, and for all that it is old-fashioned I find it more engaging than the deconstructionist approach that became all the rage in the '90s and persists to this day. I wouldn't honour this habit with the term deconstructionist, something which, when taken seriously and performed with skill and insight, is a legitimate approach. What they're doing is actually something very crude and lazy, from my POV: they're either unable or unwilling to come up with a story about the given character, so they make a new character, one that fits the story they want to tell, rather than making the effort to come up with a story that fits the character that was there before they came along. It happens time and again - I was saying almost exactly the same thing on the Modern Comics board about Kirby's Highfather not long ago. For all the claims that modern comics writers are more sophisticated than those of the 70s, when you look at their versions of characters that appeared in the more innovative series of that period, the record is quite damning. A lot of this stems from the cult of he idea that was popularized by Morrison and regarded as the epitome of storytelling in comics-the big idea trumps all and the characters are nothing more than plot puppets in service to the idea. The comic writers who are held in the highest regard by the current crop of fans are not those who can tell stories about characters but those who can can come up with the biggest idea whether or not they can craft it into an effective story that shows the effects of plot on characters which is the core of storytelling. Morrison, Millar, Hickman et. al. are all about the big idea and everything is subservient to the idea. This has been embraced by the current editorial regime at both Marvel and DC, so we get this "big" "bold" "earth shattering" "stories" based on these big ideas but are ultimately about nothing and forgettable because they don't craft a story that shows the effects of plot on characters thus have no consequences, and everyone is off chasing the next big idea. There's nothing wrong with big ideas, but ultimately you have to craft a story out of them, not just a sequences of plot beats with the characters being manipulated by the writer like puppets serving the idea and plots. So while some of this stuff can be interesting, it is rarely good and almost never memorable because it can have no lasting impact on how it changed and caused the characters to grow. It's not about anyone it's about a thing and ultimately no one cares about those ephemeral things, people attach to characters. Sometimes these big ideas do translate into memorable stories, but often they don't because they were never intended to deal with characters, characters were necessary evils to carry out the idea. It's not just comics though, it is a trend in a lot of modern storytelling, and I may just be the old man yelling at the kids to get off my lawn, but if you look at the most memorable stories-whether it's novels. films, short stories, television, comics, etc. the ones that have legs, the ones that endure, the ones that resonate with audiences and have a lasting impact are the ones who give us strong characters at their core where the big plot ideas can have an impact on them, not the ones that have the big ideas and the characters are an afterthought simply used to serve the idea. Big ideas are great, but the best writers tell stories about characters. Kirby, Gerber, and their ilk all had big ideas, but they also crafted memorable characters that anchored those ideas. Some of the big idea writers of the modern period either haven't mastered that skill, or don't think it's important, and I think a lot of the stories are poorer for it. But then again, I 'm just a curmudgeon and a semi-Luddite. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 21, 2016 6:01:13 GMT -5
I'd add that the "big ideas" that justify riding roughshod over established characterization are often very small ideas. I have been awed at times by the vision of certain writers, but not very often by those of the few modern ones whose names are usually associated with terms like "high concept" or "big ideas".
I'm oversimplifying, of course, but it looks as if taking any character, dressing them up in a long overcoat, having them smoke and make cynical wisecracks goes a long way for a writer to be lauded as visionary. Have characters make terrible choices and succumb to plot-induced stupidity is also very trendy (and so easy, too)!
The recent "Original sin" event at Marvel seems to have been full of continuity-clashing and character-murdering bad ideas. Did I read it right in a CBR article? Professor Xavier altered Wolverine's personality when he joined the X-Men? Who the hell thought that made any sense or was in any way a good idea???
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 9:13:23 GMT -5
Oops. Never mind, nothing to see here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on Apr 21, 2016 18:39:36 GMT -5
Thats right. Art was born in Forest Hills and Paul moved into the area as a young teen. Next door to Forest Hills is the area called Corona which Paul Simon mentioned in Me And Julio Down By The Schoolyard. The two bothers that formed The Ramones, who I mentioned in the past I used to hang out with at the park when they were known as Mitch and Jeff Hyman. Felix Papallardi-bass player and songwriter who with Leslie West was part of Mountain (Mississippi Queen). The original Captain Kangeroo from the descades long TV kiddie show. Ray Romano, Geraldine Fitzgerald, 1st female vice president candidate, actor David Caruso (who in an early interview when he starred on NYPD Blue claimed street cred by growing up in the tough neighborhood of Forest Hills...I then knew he was a real pussy because if there's one thing FH isn't, it's not a tough place. It's possible Stan Lee once had an apartment for a short time there as well Interesting rundown. Of course the candidate you're referring to here is Geraldine Ferraro. When she married John Zaccaro, they lived in his hometown neighborhood of Forest Hills. Fwiw, the Irish-born actress Geraldine Fitzgerald did spend her last years in NYC, on the Upper East Side. |
|
