AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I didn't say boring, I said pointless. It may be a very exciting story, but so long as I know that it's ultimately not going to make a bit of difference to the hero in question it becomes a matter of "Why am I reading this then?"

It's the same reason I've never played the Mass Effect games. I know that the story is ultimately pointless in the end so I'm not even going to start it.

All fictional stories are ultimately pointless. What changes to the hero? The hero doesn't exist.

This is probably where my bias is strongest, I'll be the first to admit that. You know I'm a writer correct? In my eyes a fictional world can be just as real as this one, if you only believe in it: the suspension of disbelief. They operate under their own laws with tight restrictions, have their own people, and a good story expands that world while remaining focused on the characters. When the story is over I can still believe things continue after The End, even if there's nothing left to read.

However, not every world is equal. Those that break their own laws aren't worth my time to become invested in because the suspension of disbelief has been shattered. Brand-name superhero comics have that flaw. Heroes can return from the dead, making death cheap. Worlds can be destroyed and then remade; the consequences meant nothing. The history of every hero and villain can be erased and written again, their interactions; their stories, everything that makes them who they are is gone. The story is ultimately meaningless along with any lessons it may have taught. Retcon is anathema to the suspension of disbelief.

No its not. If you belive a kid can go to a magic school, or a man can fly and run faster than a speeding bullet, you can belive that the world can be destroyed and remade. Fiction is, by defintion, a fantasy, so rules dont really matter, there's always ways around it. Fiction ISNT REAL, thats why its called fiction. You can do anything at all with it, to no consequence, the only difference will be wether or not the story is any good.

Also, namedropping yourself as some kind of writer doesnt make you an expert on the values of storytelling, alright? It just makes you seem like even more of a douche

I said I was a writer to give some background on why I feel the way I feel.

The world can be destroyed and remade in the context of a story, but brand-name comics don't do that, they just pretend to do so. There are four types of retcons. The first is to fix errors from past mistakes in the story. The second is to erase some part of the story that may have been before it became fixed into its current incarnation, like a joke strip going into story arcs. The third is undoing events within the context of the story. These three can sometimes improve the overall story if applied carefully and after great though.

The fourth, however, is poison to any story. It's erasing the story's past because of outside context. Comics do not reboot for plot reasons, they get rebooted for cheddar reasons and a plot is shoehorned in to explain it in-universe. It's incredibly easy to see the reasons for a retcon, and the fourth sticks out like a sore thumb.

Also, the idea the fiction means rules don't matter is a grave storytelling sin. A story must be bound to rules both to limit it and set its boundaries, lest the scope become too big. By saying anything can happen you open the door to deus ex machina and asspulls. What you're thinking of is that anything can happen in fiction in the context of any story can be told, but said story must have rules and said rules must be abided by.

While I haven't any read comics, I have to agree that an ip that is too afraid to allow anything to happen to the main character is pretty weak.

The thing is that comics are written by different writers, all wanting to deliver their own take on the character. If Alan Moore didn't retcon the shit out of Swamp Thing, we never would have had one of the greatest, genre-defining comics of all time.

Same thing with Doom Patrol, and the Justice League, and Hellblazer, and Animal Man, and Stormwatch, and Daredevil, all of them have had writers who turned them into their own vision, which became genre defining. If you have to restrict a character to one UNT ONLY UNE version, THAT cripples their potential. The fact that you dont even read comics basically makes your argument invalid anyway, since you have no goddamn idea what youre talking about.

I don't want to see different takes on the same character. I want one single defined character. If someone thinks they can do better then they can make their own character. I don't think a character should have different takes, because then who's to say which is the "canon" version.

I'm giving my reasons why I don't read and don't like brand-name superhero comics. I don't need to read the comics to remark on the structure of the genre, which is easily understood by the most cursory of research. I'm not pointing out specific examples, I'm pointing out problematic archetypes which can be understood better through the knowledge of storytelling than actual names and plots.

Then what the hell are you arguing about? You have repetedly stated that you have no interest at all in understanding why the characters arent retired, and are perfectly content in clinging to your little cocoon of imagined literary superiority.

Storytelling, the number one thing I'm most passionate about, and how I think brand-name superhero comics do it wrong. That's about the basic theme of my arguments.

Well, your arguments are objectively wrong

Do you guys think that it would be better to take this to the comic book thread? You haven't been talking about movies very much.

Since that Laika trailer a couple of pages back was taken down,I'm going to link to another video of it. It looks pretty cute, and dang, it looked so good that I thought it was CG at first for a while.

I don't care about what fictional universe is the most fictional, I just want to read a good story.

Oh dog is that stop motion? Hot dang that is amazing.