|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 20, 2019 23:38:13 GMT -5
So as I ponder the crappy finish to Game of Thrones (no spoilers, just blah), and I just finish witnessing my wife watch the last 3 episodes of season 2 of a Handmaid's Tale at 1.5x speed because she just wanted to see the ending, then having her throw up her arms at it... I wonder.
I find that ALOT of books (especially things that end up longer than a trilogy) and authors have alot of trouble sticking a decent ending. I read alot, and I can say I think that's the hard thing for an author to do, and few do a good job.
Could part of the appear of Superhero comic be they never NEED an ending? Sure, there are time when a writer takes your guy in a direct you hate, but then things come back around again... is that why it works?
.. Or perhaps in today's Netflix 'I must have access to the whole series all at once' entertainment market, that's now a liability.. who wants to read 800 Spider-Man comics?
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on May 21, 2019 0:05:00 GMT -5
Could part of the appear of Superhero comic be they never NEED an ending That's one of the reasons why mainstream superhero comics have soured for me, actually. I like stories with clear-cut beginnings, middles, and endings. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,220 
Member is Online
|
Post by Confessor on May 21, 2019 3:41:43 GMT -5
Not really the question you're asking, I know, but I thought the GOT ending was absolutely fine (no spoilers!). Admittedly, most of the big excitement happened in the previous couple of episodes, and I think that left some people disappointed. But after eight seasons, it was important to get the tone of the finale right, and a large part of the last episode was concerned with doing just that, while bringing the principal characters' stories to a satisfying end, which I felt it did.
For me, the best book, film or tv series have endings that allow the story to live on in the audience's minds for years after the plot has ended. GOT achieved that I think; there wasn't a single main character who, at the end of the episode, I was thinking, "well, that didn't make sense", or "that was out of character", or "I wish that hadn't happened." The ending made sense thematically and brought the series to a satisfying close -- while leaving plenty of opportunity for a spin-off series or even a sequel, some years down the line (which I wholly expected it to do) -- and that was good enough for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on May 21, 2019 4:11:57 GMT -5
Not really the question you're asking, I know, but I thought the GOT ending was absolutely fine (no spoilers!). Admittedly, most of the big excitement happened in the previous couple of episodes, and I think that left some people disappointed. But after eight seasons, it was important to get the tone of the finale right, and a large part of the last episode was concerned with doing just that, while bringing the principal characters' stories to a satisfying end, which I felt it did. For me, the best book, film or tv series have endings that allow the story to live on in the audience's minds for years after the plot has ended. GOT achieved that I think; there wasn't a single main character who, at the end of the episode, I was thinking, "well, that didn't make sense", or "that was out of character", or "I wish that hadn't happened." The ending made sense thematically and brought the series to a satisfying close -- while leaving plenty of opportunity for a spin-off series or even a sequel, some years down the line (which I wholly expected it to do) -- and that was good enough for me. I tend to agree. I think a lot of people were expecting an explosive climax with lots of heroic action, deeds of derring-do and the obligatory happy ending with Jon and Dany hooking up and ushering in a new age of peace and prosperity for all, but that kind of thing basically wasn't what GoT was ever about. What we actually got made perfect sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 4:37:34 GMT -5
I have been reading comics for a long time. I like comics, particularly superhero comics. I am proud of the fact the characters have been around forever - and will exist until the end of time!
I like that I can read about a character, such as Superman or Batman, that my dad or stepdad may have read long before I was born. I am happy to hear that the current young generation are reading about such characters, too.
I'll always be a superhero fan.
But if there's one flaw, it's that the characters' stories will never end.
I do like stories that have a beginning, middle and end. In a way, it's sad we'll never see a final story for Superman, Batman, Hulk, etc. Sure, there have been "final tales", but they aren't canonical. Batman #300 (1978) featured a story called "The Last Batman Story". Wayne had retired and was considering running for governor. When it comes to canon, Superman, Spider-Man and Batman, to name three, won't ever have a final tale.
(I suppose Superman #423 is as close as we're ever gonna get to a definitive finale for the Man of Steel).
In a way, that seems sad. Imagine how they could wrap everything up definitively for a finale.
This isn't unique to superheroes, of course. The same applies to James Bond. Will The Fast and The Furious franchise ever end? I doubt it. Freddy Krueger will return in one form or another. Ditto Michael Myers. Soap operas will continue forever, but, of course, once an actor becomes too old or dies, their arc will end; the soap itself will exist, but characters won't. So everything continues forever in some form.
It's just that I think about film trilogies or books that had a definitive ending. Wasn't it nice that Back to the Future told its story in three films - and hasn't been revisited since? Wasn't it nice to see Marty McFly's arc come to a conclusion? Even the IDW Publishing comics are only exploring tales within the timeline of the original films; as far as I know, there's been no continuation as such. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, of course.
Books can be the same. Would anyone have wanted Willy Wonka to have several dozen books? Should Salem's Lot have become a franchise? It's good that they didn't.
I'll always enjoy superheroes, but there is a part of me that is curious about what it'd be like if their tales were ended conclusively and forever.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on May 21, 2019 8:35:01 GMT -5
Could part of the appear of Superhero comic be they never NEED an ending? Sure, there are time when a writer takes your guy in a direct you hate, but then things come back around again... is that why it works? When DC started doing "Limited Series," one of their stated goals was to allow creators to tell stories with a beginning, middle, and end without having to worry about established characters. Didn't seem too long, though, before limited series were just additional stories about established characters. This isn't unique to superheroes, of course. The same applies to James Bond. ...Freddy Krueger will return in one form or another. Ditto Michael Myers. Soap operas will continue forever, but, of course, once an actor becomes too old or dies, their arc will end; the soap itself will exist, but characters won't. So everything continues forever in some form. The difference with things like James Bond, Holmes, Doc Savage was that each story was self-contained, and continuity took a back seat to the work at hand. And, apart from mercenary drives, there was really no reason for Freddy Krueger or Michael Myers to appear more than once. It's just that I think about film trilogies or books that had a definitive ending. Wasn't it nice that Back to the Future told its story in three films - and hasn't been revisited since? Wasn't it nice to see Marty McFly's arc come to a conclusion?.... Similarly, Back to the Future didn't need any sequels.
But I've felt for year that everything was starting to become a soap opera.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on May 21, 2019 8:46:50 GMT -5
I find it rather odd that everybody wants an "ending" of some sort. Life isn't like that in reality. There is only one true ending and that is death itself (and the afterlife/heaven/etc is another discussion based on ones religious beliefs) for us. While one aspect or chapter or story may provide some type of an "ending" in actuality it is more like an intersection where you momentarily stop and then move forward, perhaps in a different direction or altering your perspective based on the past incidents. An end is just the beginning in most cases. You end one job to begin another. You end one project to begin another. So forth and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 8:56:32 GMT -5
That's definitely a very convincing argument. And although I am glad that certain franchises ended, one cannot help but wonder what the likes of Indiana Jones, Marty McFly and others are doing now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 10:39:49 GMT -5
I have been reading comics for a long time. I like comics, particularly superhero comics. I am proud of the fact the characters have been around forever - and will exist until the end of time! I like that I can read about a character, such as Superman or Batman, that my dad or stepdad may have read long before I was born. I am happy to hear that the current young generation are reading about such characters, too. I'll always be a superhero fan. But I can do that with say the Lord of the Rings, or Beowulf, or Le Morte d'Artur, or Casablanca etc. too. Classic stories will last and be shared by generations even if they are not neverending stories. In fact, never ending stories work against any particular story standing the test of time because the lack of an ending is a lack of a satisfactory payoff that makes an impression. When I talk about Lord of the Rings, most people know which story I am talking about, the characters involved, etc. and the complete thing is a shared experience. When I talk Superman, what story stands out-maybe the origin, the movies, people know Supes, Clark Lois, maybe Lex and Zod, but there are so many pieces of the Superman "story" that are lost because there is just so much of it, and so he is a classic character, but it's not a classic story that is shred by generations and that will reduce the appeal for the vast majority of people, not enhance it. Stories that go on too long lose audiences over time, they rarely gain them, until they fizzle out and disappear, oh where are thou Guiding Light? The lack of solid endings is a long term detriment to the storytelling experience. Even classic characters that have several different adventures told of them over time (say a Robin Hood or King Arthur), have a definite end to their story and that is part of their enduring legacy. Lord of the Rings without the Ring going into Mount Doom and the return to the Shire and Frodo going to the Gray Havens would be much less of a story. Arthur without his final battle against Mordred, his death and internment at Avalon would leave the story without a true climax and denouement, rendering it much less impactful, etc. Stories need endings or they are really stories, just a series of interconnected (or sometimes just random) events put together and related to someone. As the Warren Ellis quote in my signature sys, lots of stuff happens, story is how we put it together to make meaning of it, and without endings, it lacks meaning. -M |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 21, 2019 11:37:59 GMT -5
Not really the question you're asking, I know, but I thought the GOT ending was absolutely fine (no spoilers!). Admittedly, most of the big excitement happened in the previous couple of episodes, and I think that left some people disappointed. But after eight seasons, it was important to get the tone of the finale right, and a large part of the last episode was concerned with doing just that, while bringing the principal characters' stories to a satisfying end, which I felt it did. For me, the best book, film or tv series have endings that allow the story to live on in the audience's minds for years after the plot has ended. GOT achieved that I think; there wasn't a single main character who, at the end of the episode, I was thinking, "well, that didn't make sense", or "that was out of character", or "I wish that hadn't happened." The ending made sense thematically and brought the series to a satisfying close -- while leaving plenty of opportunity for a spin-off series or even a sequel, some years down the line (which I wholly expected it to do) -- and that was good enough for me. I felt the opposite... the 'winners' of the story felt totally wrong and forced to me, and other than the 2 'main' characters, the ends all felt off compared to the books. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on May 21, 2019 11:40:43 GMT -5
That's definitely a very convincing argument. And although I am glad that certain franchises ended, one cannot help but wonder what the likes of Indiana Jones, Marty McFly and others are doing now. I hear you there, but not everything has to be a 'franchise'. You can have a single good story about a single great character... and if you do, I'll be on board to read about the NEXT character you make... but don't endlessly tell the same story about the same characters or their descendants. I think that's why I've been less interested in the current Marvel and DC output lately.. so much of it feels done before. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on May 21, 2019 12:15:17 GMT -5
I like a story to come to a definite end; but, still enjoy serial characters, provided we get endings in the individual stories. Superman is an example. I enjoyed the Triangle era; but, after a while, it was feeding on itself. i liked it more when a storyline concluded and we could have a breather before doing something else. I still remember pre-Crisis stories better, since they usually came to an end at the end of the issue or the next. I don't want constant subplots.
Gaiman did an excellent job with this in Sandman and James Robinson did in Starman, for examples. Each storyline had a beginning, middle and ending. Then, we usually had a few quiet moments, or singular tales, before the next epic. At the same time, there were hints planted about the future, that would lurk in the background; but, didn't overwhelm things. Who was the Starman of 1951? It was something Jack mentioned, about a hero who used the name briefly, for a few months, in 1951, and was never seen again. We had to wait until the end of the series to find out; but, it was a question that was out there, without interrupting anything. In the main series, Jack would fight the Mist and then meet up with David's ghost, read a few of the Shade's tales of Times Past, and then deal with the next big problem.
X-Men was once one that handled it well, then subplot took over from main plot and things never seemed to end. It's part of why I lost interest; it just felt like a treadmill.
As for Game of Thrones, I don't so much have a problem with the ending as much as how the show was structured to tell its story. I think they dragged it out too long and spent too much time on some elements and not enough setting up some of the things that fans are yelling about. Seasons 7 and 8 suffer from the same problems I felt were in the early Marvel films, where the third act seemed overly rushed to get to Avengers. With GOT, it felt like, "Oh, crap; we have to end this thing! (something GRRM still hasn't done) I think 5 seasons was more than enough time to tell the overall story, maybe 6, and cut out some of the filler in favor of servicing the story arc. Babylon 5, by contrast was structured as a novel and never felt like it was spinning its wheels or drawing things out, until the beginning of the 5th season, when they had ended the Earth War storyline early because they weren't going to get season 5. then, at the last minute, they were and had to pull the finale, cook up a placeholder, then create a few stories to stall for time, while they got their last story elements (which were held back for possible movies) into place, to lead to the conclusion. The first third (or so) of that season is messy; but, the latter part builds right to a satisfying end. Its finale is one of the few I felt didn't disappoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on May 21, 2019 12:55:03 GMT -5
I wonder how much of this is that writers are being forced to work within artificial and sometimes arbitrary constructs.
Take the trilogy...please. What is so magical about the trilogy? I really feel that this grows completely out of the Lord of the Rings. Except it is only a trilogy by happenstance. It was just a big-ass book that was broken into three parts for economic reasons. But now everyone has decided there's something magical about a trilogy so people pad out stories to hit that mystic three book/three film format.
HBO says you have five seasons at 10 episodes per season. Make your story fit. Unless the rating aren't good...then you have two or three seasons...fit it in. Unless the ratings are super good. Then you have eight. Stretch it out. Arc-driven television, like arc-driven comics is a completely different beast than when comics and TV shows were essentially one-and-dones.
I'm not really sure where I'm going here but it's a thought that I've had.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 13:06:03 GMT -5
Well, on Slam's point, I feel the first three Pirates of the Caribbean movies could have been "condensed" into two.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 21, 2019 14:58:29 GMT -5
I think Slam makes a good point. How much of what we have of a franchise is really the creator's initial intention? Obviously Star Wars is a perfect example of a movie (as I don't know any of the EU stuff) franchise that went well beyond what Lucas originally did (whether he argues he wanted more or not) and not much after his initial movies were all that good. Indiana Jones ended with a bad last movie. I can think of at least a handful of TV shows I've watched over the years that should have ended long before they did, because it felt it was just stretching the original concept because it became popular. But money talks. And lots of creators end up continuing to produce for a paycheck. Not something I can really blame them for.
All that aside, there's a reason Batman Legends of the Dark Knight if easily my favorite Batman title. An anthology that showcases a lot more writers and artists over it's life than even longer running Batman titles because of the shorter story arcs. Many of my favorites even being a story in a single issue.
|
|
