| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133715
|
| Posted: 25 August 2006 at 7:20pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Does Blazing Saddles reveal Mel Brooks's contempt for westerns? Is it possible to be a fan of westerns and still enjoy Blazing Saddles?+++ Poor analogy... **** Or, perhaps, a perfect analogy, since it underscores, inadvertently, the extent to which some of the audience don't get it. Or did I miss the announcement from DC that Morrison's run with Batman was to be considered a parody?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Patrick Drury
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 December 2005
Posts: 695
|
| Posted: 25 August 2006 at 7:20pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Morrison likes superheroes, no doubt about it. The thing is, he's
embarassed that he likes them, and that's where you get the little digs
and jabs that crop up in his work.
======================
Mind reading.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133715
|
| Posted: 25 August 2006 at 7:21pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
In any event, I have noticed Morrison toss little asides into his superhero work over the years, not always about costumes but in the same vein as the Batman panel reproduced here. I don't see that as disrespectful; it just tells me that Morrison has a sense of humor about his work. I guess I can see how it would be off-putting to some, and of course to each his own, but having never met the man I'd have a big problem presuming to know what he thinks. Seems a lot like mind-reading to me.*** Couple of instances = mindreading. Constant repetition = recognizable pathology. Don't make me bring in the dog again.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133715
|
| Posted: 25 August 2006 at 7:25pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
It's not that I can't see the dog. It's that it's actually a cat but you keep insisting it's a dog because it has four legs.*** No, it's a dog. If you think it's a cat, that's a whole 'nother problem. (And for the microbrains in attendance, the "debate" has not now shifted to whether or not I can draw a dog.)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4079
|
| Posted: 25 August 2006 at 7:32pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Or, perhaps, a perfect analogy, since it underscores, inadvertently, the extent to which some of the audience don't get it.
Or did I miss the announcement from DC that Morrison's run with Batman was to be considered a parody?
No direct comparison between Morrison's work and Brooks's was intended. The point that I was making is that it's possible to poke a bit of fun at a subject without having outright contempt, hatred or even dislike of the subject. It's possible for creators to crack wise every now and then without taking it as proof that they hate the subject matter, and it's possible for fans to enjoy straight-up, straight-faced superhero stories and superhero stories that occasionally poke a little fun at the superhero concept.
All-Star Batman's a lot closer to deliberate parody than anything we've seen Morrison write so far, but I wouldn't take that as evidence that Frank Miller's angry that he's writing Batman comics again.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36134
|
| Posted: 25 August 2006 at 7:42pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Andrew W. Farago wrote:
If he's enjoying
it but doesn't care for that description of the
characters or that dialogue coming out of the Beast's
mouth, then he can ignore it. |
|
|
It's not that simple, Andrew. That dialogue informed his entire NEW X-MEN run. It's not well written. It's terribly out-of-character. It has no place coming out of the mouth of the Beast, as the dialogue that Morrison wrote for Wolverine has no place coming out of his mouth. They would never say what he had them say. Ever. If you want to enjoy Morrison's run on the X-Men, then you not only have to ignore that dialogue, but you also have to ignore everything that came after it because that's how Morrison saw those characters. It's not a poorly rendered panel or a line that sounds like it's being too hip for the room, it's a line that goes to the heart of who those characters are: not superheroes, thinking costumes are silly. If you think that's just a throw away line that has nothing to do with the rest of Morrison's run on the title, then you're intentionally missing the forest for the trees in order to enjoy his run.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36134
|
| Posted: 25 August 2006 at 7:47pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Andrew W. Farago wrote:
| No direct comparison between Morrison's work and Brooks's was intended. The point that I was making is that it's possible to poke a bit of fun at a subject without having outright contempt, hatred or even dislike of the subject. It's possible for creators to crack wise every now and then without taking it as proof that they hate the subject matter, and it's possible for fans to enjoy straight-up, straight-faced superhero stories and superhero stories that occasionally poke a little fun at the superhero concept. |
|
|
Apples and oranges, Andrew. If Morrison was writing for NOT BRAND ECHH or CRACKED (boy does that age me or what?), then he'd be writing parody. Mel Brooke's BLAZING SADDLES is parody. Apples to apples. But to use BLAZING SADDLES in defense of people who may love Westerns but are making fun of them isn't in the same league, at all, with Morrison tossing off a quip about the conceits of the genre in just about everything he writes because he's not writing parody. Apples to oranges.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Patrick Drury
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 December 2005
Posts: 695
|
| Posted: 25 August 2006 at 7:49pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
No, it's a dog. If you think it's a cat, that's a whole 'nother problem. (And for the microbrains in attendance, the "debate" has not now shifted to whether or not I can draw a dog.)
===========================
If that's what you think I was debating then that's a whole 'nother problem.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4079
|
| Posted: 25 August 2006 at 7:56pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
If you think that's just a throw away line that has
nothing to do with the rest of Morrison's run on the
title, then you're intentionally missing the forest for
the trees in order to enjoy his run.
It worked in context of the story, though. He played
up on Wolverine's badass nature and the Beast's
logical and overanalytical nature and...well, it either
worked for you or it didn't. The whole run, like I
mentioned before, was neatly self-contained,
approved by Marvel's editors when it ran and was
promptly swept under the carpet by them once it was
finished.
***
And I explained the whole Blazing Saddles thing
already.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Mark McKay
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2265
|
| Posted: 25 August 2006 at 8:29pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Rob Spalding wrote:
| I thought Morrison's comments about Miller were a bit tounge-in-cheek. Having read a couple of interviews with Morrison recently, I think it would be a mistake to take everything he says too seriously, especially when he talks about other creators. |
|
|
See, I have no knowledge of whether Morrison is being tongue-in-cheeck or not, and when I read that article, I read it as a straight dig against Miller.
I have to be "in-the-know" as to the fact that Morrison's making jokes in his interviews?
Ultimately, I think it's a bit of mind-reading to say he's kidding around, or being tongue-in-cheek. How do you know?
- Mark
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
|
| Posted: 25 August 2006 at 8:45pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
"Tongue-in-cheek" is not the anatomical permutation that describes Morrison's comments. Close, but not quite.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Roger Jackson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 October 2005
Posts: 260
|
| Posted: 25 August 2006 at 8:52pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I can say with 100% certainty that he is not "the
best superhero comic writer working right now." At
all. Not even close.
Oh, I'd say he (Morrison) definitely is! Geoff Johns is a close second but he took a big hit because of the awfullness of Infinite Crisis. I've been a Supes/Bats fan since the early-mid 60s, and those characters haven't been this fun or interesting (with Morrison writing them) in a decade or so! Great stuff!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
