AMEN!

Another lightning round question: If you could give one character a wacky Doiby Dickles-esque Golden Age sidekick, who would it be? And what would the sidekick be like? More heroes need wacky sidekicks.

1. The true meaning of the word ‘overkill’. In the 90s, any idea a creator had was milked for more than the idea’s worth. Here are some examples:
A. The X-Men had become one of Marvel’s best selling titles by the early 90s; by 1995 there were 5 regular X-books (Uncanny X-Men, X-Men, X-Factor, X-Force, Wolverine) that crossed over annually and numerous X-related mini-series and specials. I left most of these titles on the shelf because the main books were enough to handle. The X-franchise fell apart with Onslaught and I don’t think it has recovered. I hope Messiah Complex will change that.
B. Marvel and DC tried to capitalize on the X-Men’s success by simply copying it instead of understanding it. DC hires an editor who thinks what works for X-Men will work for the New Titans (i.e. creating a family of books with New Titans, Deathstroke the Terminator, and Team Titans). Marvel and DC duke it out over who has the most books: Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man.
C. Marvel’s most popular characters (Spider-Man, Wolverine, and the Punisher) pop up all over the Marvel Universe for no reason except to increase sales.
D. Marvel flooded comics with gimmick covers

2. Changing a character’s costume or changing who’s in the costume should have a purpose other than, “sales are down, so ruffling feathers will increase them.” The Death/Return of Superman were great stories, but in reflecting on last decade, almost every major character was replaced (e.g. Batman, Spider-Man, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern) or their costume/names was changed (e.g. Legion of Super-Heroes, X-Men, New Warriors, Daredevil) for no good reason.

3. It takes more than one creator to make a good comic book. Wizard Magazine and some of the Image Comics founders helped create an atmoshpere where people debate whether the writer or the artist is more important to a comic book. As a result, all creators got better at their craft, and I think all creators realized even more that a good story plus good art equals a good comic book.

On that last point, it’s something I’ve noticed on tv shows like The West Wing and Gilmore Girls– where you have this very particular or quirky type of dialogue, everyone ends up speaking exactly the same. Drives me nuts.

Here’s what I think of as a typical Bendis scene: two characters, say for example Spider-Man and Luke Cage, in a room talking. Cage has just came in from outdoors, where it’s raining. The Bendis dialogue would go:

Spider-Man: In from the rain, hunhh?
Cage: Yep, in from the rain.
Spider-Man: So, it’s raining?
Cage: Yep, it’s raining.
Spider-Man: And you’re in from it?
Cage: I’m in from it.
Spider-Man: So, you’re out of the rain?
Cage: Looks that way.

Makes me want to break something.

I cried I laughed so hard. Seriously, someone had to come check on me. And he heard me from two floors away.

Another great show, guys.

Secondly, is there any way you guys could fiddle with the volume? Ben’s coming in (very) loud and clear, but Devon and Jon sound like they’re sitting at a different table. I even missed Scipio’s “quote of the week” on this one.

Sorry if I’m complaining about something you can’t do anything about. I just thought I should say something.

On the issue of DC comics and soap opera, let me start by saying I’ve watched soap operas since the 80s. I watched the 90s daytime soap Generations (feat. Vivica Fox and Kritoff St. John) from beginning to end; the 80s nighttime soaps (Dallas, Dynasty, Falcon Crest, Knots Landing, Hotel), and the current nighttime soaps (Desperate Housewives, Grey’s Anatomy, Brothers and Sisters). I often thought soap operas are characterized by notions such as:
1. A rich person struggling to maintain a professional empire while trying to control their immediate family, especially children and/or grandchildren;
2. the members of the matriarch/patriarch family struggling to gain power and/or love and admiration of the family clan head.
3. marriages, divorces, pregnancies, mistaken identity, or identity revelation being a mainstay of plots over years of continuity.
Comics have similar characterizations, but I draw the line of teenage superheroes having sex, nudity and profanity in comics becoming almost commonplace, and soap opera drama replacing superhero action. I think DC is now struggling to differentiate between characterization, drama, and soap opera-style storytelling. Perhaps it should look back at its stories told from 30s-80s to really see this difference and how it should just loosen up in terms of continuity, soaps, and such.

I’m cutting my comments short here and I’ll come back with my opinions about the 90s ’cause I’ve got to make sure I keep make them shorter than this response (LOL).

On the subject of retcons, I like them as long as they don’t take away from the basic elements of character’s history or personality. Jim Keller expresses many of my opinions about retcons on seqart.org in his article Too Many Retcons (http://www.sequart.com/articles/?article=1328). In addition to the retcons he mentions (Spider-Man’s Origin, Hank Pym, Scarlet Witch), I add my dislike of all retcons by John Byrne (except his re-imagination of Superman), Ed Brubaker (esp. X-Men: Deadly Genesis), and Brian Bendis (esp. Illuminati). Geoff Johns is a shining example of a writer who makes retcons good; unlike the previously mentioned writers who seem to go for shock value or shakeup with retcons, Johns goes for making sense out of confusion. He’s done this successfully in Hawkman and Infinite Crisis. I hope creators will make good stories without having to turn characters into what they think they should be via retcons. Then again, perhaps the same writers believe a retcon is necessary to free oneself of any continuity the writer finds restrictive or confusing.

Thanks for all the work you put into it!