|
Daredevil Message Board
The Board Without Fear!
|
The Message Board is currently in read-only mode, as the software is now out of date. Several features and pages have been removed. If/When I get time I intend to re-launch the board with updated software.
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jriddle
Playing to the Camera
Joined: 19 May 2011
Posts: 129
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:28 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Nightwing2001 wrote: | | jriddle wrote: | | Francesco wrote: | | giving the character new directions to help him stay fresh is a good thing. Problem is, Waid isn't executing it so good. |
And, to again state the painfully obvious, radically devolving the book back to its poor man's Spider-Man days when it had no unique voice isn't "giving the character new directions" or anything that should be mistaken for "fresh" or "exciting." |
Ya but when you say you want the book to go back to being "grim and gritty noir" ala Bendis again, how is that "fresh and exciting" either? |
Don't mistake me for some narrow dogmatist, mate. Waid fans (and fanboys) will try to portray me as such because it's easier than dealing with my criticism, but that ain't me. There are some facts of life in play here.
I don't care for the phrase "grim and gritty"; it brings on unpleasant 1990s flashbacks. "Pulp noir," as it's been called, is a tone. It is not, properly speaking, a limitation, it doesn't denote "rehash," and noting that it's a tone that best suits DD--an assertion supported by both a logical examination of the basic DD concept and by the history of the published canon--doesn't make one a narrow dogmatist. One could turn DD into a gay cyborg and send him into space to battle the Skrulls, but while that may be both fresh and exciting, the phrase "fresh and exciting" would not be the proper characterization of such a move.
It is a fact that, when dealing with these sorts of corporate serialized-into-infinity properties, there are certain broad limitations imposed upon them, parameters that form the architecture of fictional worlds. Established creations develop traditions, which fuels consumer loyalty; they're also mythologies that became successful and continue because of a certain power within their basic ideas, ideas not subject to a great deal of tampering; it's also the case that consumers have just found something comfortable about them. And, of course, yet another reason they persevere--maybe the most important one--is that talented creators are able to spin an almost infinite variety of tales within these broad parameters I'm describing. It's true that some of the best material (and, to be fair, some of the worst) pushes at those boundaries, but if one is going to take an established and ongoing property and radically alter it until it no longer bears any resemblance to itself, what' the point in even pretending it's a continuation?
This is, in a sense, what Waid has done to DD. More specifically, I've described his approach as a radical devolution of the book back to a time when it had no unique character and was merely a poor man's Spider-Man, but, of course, that's only part of the story, one that can, left alone by itself, be rather misleading. The level of silliness, absurdity, lightness of tone he's introduced have never been a feature of DD, even in those poor man's Spider-Man days. They're his generic, literalist (wrongheaded) take on "Silver Age Story." Not even "Silver Age Daredevil Story." For my part, the more I see of it, the more painful it is. Waid has assaulted the book's tradition, it's mythology, he's torn at the conceptual fabric of the character then of the character's world, chucking it in the trash and fashioning a new one to suit the all-new character he's created. All of that will have to be erased and eventually will be erased, and with the Netflix series coming, probably fairly soon. That's just the nature of such a property. So why inflict, in the first place, this harm that will require further infliction of harm to fix? Why not just write Daredevil? And if, like Waid, entirely uninterested in the prospect, why not just move on? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Nightwing2001
Flying Blind
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 94
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You know Daredevil is the only comic I have bought continuously since 1985 without really stopping, expect for a change from monthly to tpb in the middle of the Bendis run, then back to monthly again with vol. 3. I can say that about no other comic I have EVER collected, so I have suffered through some pretty bad (IMO) runs and interpretations of the Daredevil character. So my only advice to you is you're just going to have to wait out this version of the character as well since you hate it so much. You know it will change again sometime down the line. What else can you do? Because going on and on about how rotten it is and telling everyone how wrong they are for liking it isn't really the answer to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darkdevil
Humanity's Fathom
Joined: 04 Apr 2009
Posts: 331
Location: The Bright, Sunny South
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jriddle wrote: |
It's true that some of the best material (and, to be fair, some of the worst) pushes at those boundaries, but if one is going to take an established and ongoing property and radically alter it until it no longer bears any resemblance to itself, what' the point in even pretending it's a continuation?
|
Matt Murdock is still blind, still has hyper senses and his radar sense.
Matt Murdock still suits up as DD.
Matt Murdock has an ongoing relationship with a female who is still alive and sane.
Matt Murdock still has a best friend in Foggy Nelson.
The two of them still have a law practice of sorts.
Matt Murdock's identity is publicly known, confirming long-held suspicions. This falls in line with the modern Marvel Universe in which most, if not all, heroes identities are known publicly or by government agencies and SHIELD or both.
Matt Murdock has moved to San Francisco, a city in which he has lived in previously.
Matt Murdock has fought villains more traditional outside his own personal rogues gallery, enforcing the notion that DD operates in a larger, more cohesive shared universe.
Just how is all of that 'radically altering it until it no longer bears resemblance to itself'?
At the end of the day, you do not own the character of Daredevil. Marvel does. They are the first and last authority in what direction(s) to take any of their characters, including Daredevil. Grim and gritty or 'pulp noir' or whatever you wish to call it had apparently run it's course after the mess that was Shadowland. Marvel decided to go in another direction with Waid's help. So far, it seems that they are pleased with his work and the recognition the title and character have received, recognition that includes praise and awards from the comic industry itself that is on par with the similar praise both Bendis and Brubaker had received for their work which you claim is more 'true' (whatever that means).
As such, the best you can do is either enjoy the ride and try and find something meaningful in the current work or suck it up and wait for the next creative team to come aboard and see how you like their work.
Either way, coming here ad nausem to tear into Waid's work and approach (not to mention those of us who have and continue to enjoy his current run) over and over and over is getting boring and repetitive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daredevil24
Humanity's Fathom
Joined: 06 Apr 2011
Posts: 367
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I hate Waid's run.I think he's one of the worst creators on DD to ever write the series but this conversation is no longer going anywhere so I think we should probably ditch it.Too many people are sensitive about it. At the end of the day we're all fans and DD is in our best interest so I would think we would all respect each others opinions but it's not happening so I don't think we should continue this conversation anymore.Just my two cents |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james castle
Devil in Cell-Block D
Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 1999
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Darkdevil wrote: |
At the end of the day, you do not own the character of Daredevil. Marvel does. They are the first and last authority in what direction(s) to take any of their characters, including Daredevil. Grim and gritty or 'pulp noir' or whatever you wish to call it had apparently run it's course after the mess that was Shadowland. Marvel decided to go in another direction with Waid's help. So far, it seems that they are pleased with his work and the recognition the title and character have received, recognition that includes praise and awards from the comic industry itself that is on par with the similar praise both Bendis and Brubaker had received for their work which you claim is more 'true' (whatever that means). |
The best part about jriddle's "true Daredevil" theory is that it assumes that the early Silver Age stuff isn't "true Daredevil". Daredevil #1, the issue in which he came into being, didn't feature the "true Daredevil"! Well, I don't care what jriddle says: yellow costume forever!
_________________
JC
So why can't you see the funny side?
Why aren't you laughing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darkdevil
Humanity's Fathom
Joined: 04 Apr 2009
Posts: 331
Location: The Bright, Sunny South
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james castle wrote: | | Darkdevil wrote: |
At the end of the day, you do not own the character of Daredevil. Marvel does. They are the first and last authority in what direction(s) to take any of their characters, including Daredevil. Grim and gritty or 'pulp noir' or whatever you wish to call it had apparently run it's course after the mess that was Shadowland. Marvel decided to go in another direction with Waid's help. So far, it seems that they are pleased with his work and the recognition the title and character have received, recognition that includes praise and awards from the comic industry itself that is on par with the similar praise both Bendis and Brubaker had received for their work which you claim is more 'true' (whatever that means). |
The best part about jriddle's "true Daredevil" theory is that it assumes that the early Silver Age stuff isn't "true Daredevil". Daredevil #1, the issue in which he came into being, didn't feature the "true Daredevil"! Well, I don't care what jriddle says: yellow costume forever! |
There were 157 issues published before Frank Miller arrived in any capacity onto the book.
That's a helluva run for a 'poor man's Spider-Man'.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jriddle
Playing to the Camera
Joined: 19 May 2011
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darkdevil wrote: | | jriddle wrote: |
It's true that some of the best material (and, to be fair, some of the worst) pushes at those boundaries, but if one is going to take an established and ongoing property and radically alter it until it no longer bears any resemblance to itself, what' the point in even pretending it's a continuation?
|
Matt Murdock is still blind, still has hyper senses and his radar sense.
Matt Murdock still suits up as DD.
Matt Murdock has an ongoing relationship with a female who is still alive and sane.
Matt Murdock still has a best friend in Foggy Nelson.
The two of them still have a law practice of sorts.
Matt Murdock's identity is publicly known, confirming long-held suspicions. This falls in line with the modern Marvel Universe in which most, if not all, heroes identities are known publicly or by government agencies and SHIELD or both.
Matt Murdock has moved to San Francisco, a city in which he has lived in previously.
Matt Murdock has fought villains more traditional outside his own personal rogues gallery, enforcing the notion that DD operates in a larger, more cohesive shared universe. |
You left out the fact that DD is still human, still male, still heterosexual (well, you didn't really leave that one out), his costume is still red, and he still drinks water. These things are all on par with nearly all of what you just listed. When you actually hit on something more significant--his leaving New York and his fessing up to being DD and even describing his powers--you try to blame it on something else, which I take as a concession of your recognition of my point when it comes to those things.
DD is fundamentally of New York. He's the Devil of Hell's Kitchen, the Folk Hero of New York, and so on. The mythological trope of him as its protector, as well as his origin, his regular haunts, his supporting cast, and nearly his entire history are tied up with the city. To cut off the anticipated objections--because it turns out nothing of this sort can apparently be taken for granted here without pedantic explicitness--nothing about that means he can never leave New York. It does mean leaving seriously deducts from his mythology and probably shouldn't be done. The previous attempt to transplant him to SF is of the same character as the Mike Murdock rubbish--just the latest in a run of gimmicks that filled DD's pages before the book had found its unique niche (and something that happened because it hadn't yet found that unique niche).
Another powerful element of the basic DD myth is the lawyer--the sworn officer of the court and upholder of the law--who is secretly a vigilante himself. He has spent decades as a criminal who puts on a mask and, on a nightly basis, stalks and commits assault and battery on criminal suspects. Hundreds of assaults with battery. Matt can only fess up to being DD and still practice law in a world utterly divorced from our own in which neither the law nor basic logic have any meaning. Again, a radical departure from DD, where the best work has always been much more mature, thoughtful, and grounded. If he confesses to being DD, his time as a lawyer is over. Forever. And so is he. He doesn't get to move to a different town and keep right on practicing law--he gets to be ruined and to go to jail. The canon extensively reflects this, his knowledge of it, and the consequent extremities to which he'll go to avoid exposure. Anything less than what I've outlined is, in addition to being a radical departure, a thing being written at the level of a children's book. And, to hit the pedantic notes again (since I was slammed for failing to note the obvious the last time I pointed this out), there's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with a children's book. But DD hasn't been a children's book for a very long time, and exactly zero of its good-to-great moments come from a time when it was being written nearer that level.
The grinning, silly, constantly wisecracking DD--the Spider-Man clone--is directly at odds with the better part of more than 3 decades of the character's history, pre-Waid. It's a completely different character that shares little more than a name and various superficial elements with that long-established Daredevil. Even fans of Waid's treatment of the character concede this point with their constant use of various "breath of fresh air" cliches. They're only wrong in that this version of the character isn't an innovation but, instead, merely a radical devolution back to a time when DD had no unique voice and was just being written as that b-list Spider-Man.
I said DD has been altered to the point that it no longer bears any resemblance to itself. One can like or dislike Waid's take on DD, but to pretend as if that's an unfair characterization... there's simply no real case to be made for that.
| Darkdevil wrote: | | At the end of the day, you do not own the character of Daredevil. Marvel does. They are the first and last authority in what direction(s) to take any of their characters, including Daredevil. |
And as nothing in that makes their decisions the wise, correct or good ones--and even as you throw this at me, even you don't disagree with me on this--we can set that aside. You're trying too hard, mate.
| Darkdevil wrote: | | Grim and gritty or 'pulp noir' or whatever you wish to call it had apparently run it's course after the mess that was Shadowland. |
Everyone seems to agree that Shadowland was just as you say. The big, obvious fallacy in your comment there is that this has anything to do with DD's tone having "apparently run its course," or, indeed, with DD's tone at all. There's nothing about a given tone that either makes it immune to bad writing or dictates writing of any particular quality.
| Darkdevil wrote: | | Marvel decided to go in another direction with Waid's help. So far, it seems that they are pleased with his work and the recognition the title and character have received, recognition that includes praise and awards from the comic industry itself that is on par with the similar praise both Bendis and Brubaker had received for their work which you claim is more 'true' (whatever that means). |
But none of those fellows who rave about it on the review sites are writing this post. It's just me. And I don't like what Waid has done, and don't agree with those who do. I fail to see where my saying so presents such a serious threat to humanity.
Search hard for the meaning of that "true" DD. Note, in the process, that it's a characterization that has mostly just been imposed upon me by those who disagree but who find it easier to duel with a straw-stuffed caricature of a narrow dogmatist rather than what I actually say. It's not, for the most part, something that comes from anything I've actually written (I tweak them at times on it, but that's all).
| Darkdevil wrote: | As such, the best you can do is either enjoy the ride and try and find something meaningful in the current work or suck it up and wait for the next creative team to come aboard and see how you like their work.
Either way, coming here ad nausem to tear into Waid's work and approach (not to mention those of us who have and continue to enjoy his current run) over and over and over is getting boring and repetitive. |
This is a little community where fans of Daredevil come to mingle and offer their thoughts on the subject. My expression of my own may be boring--my authorial powers aren't at my best at the moment and there's certainly never any guarantee one's thoughts will be engaging--and it may be repetitive--I don't like Waid any more today than last week, and that will be reflected in anything I have to say on that subject--but it seems to me as if I'm putting the place to exactly the use for which it was intended. Something that can't be said for those who, of late, constantly try to make these exchanges all about me. It isn't something you should let bother you so much. If you disagree, just say so and I'll deal with your objections (and you're one of the only ones who has written some things in disagreement to which I haven't properly responded, for which I apologize).
Last edited by jriddle on Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daredevil24
Humanity's Fathom
Joined: 06 Apr 2011
Posts: 367
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This place was pretty quiet before this debate started si I don't know what all the fuss is about.I enjoy conversations regarding DD.Nobody is forcing anybody to read Jriddles comments |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james castle
Devil in Cell-Block D
Joined: 30 Jul 2004
Posts: 1999
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daredevil24 wrote: | | This place was pretty quiet before this debate started si I don't know what all the fuss is about.I enjoy conversations regarding DD.Nobody is forcing anybody to read Jriddles comments |
And no one is forcing him to stop posting. We're just pointing out that he's wrong and rude.
_________________
JC
So why can't you see the funny side?
Why aren't you laughing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daredevil24
Humanity's Fathom
Joined: 06 Apr 2011
Posts: 367
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I see. Personally I love what he's writing but if he's so much of a burden to people I think people should just turn the other cheek.Just my two cents |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jriddle
Playing to the Camera
Joined: 19 May 2011
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darkdevil wrote: | There were 157 issues published before Frank Miller arrived in any capacity onto the book.
That's a helluva run for a 'poor man's Spider-Man'. |
As I've said in the past, Daredevil, before Miller arrived, was a book without a soul. The first issue is essentially an effort to recreate the origin of Spider-Man's. As the author of the Daredevil Companion puts it,
"Once again we have a hero who's picked on by his peers and considered an outcast with a father figure who is murdered by criminals. We have an accident involving radiation being the catalyst for the man's development of paranormal abilities. We even have the hero creating his costume by himself out of what he has on hand, and a romantic interest being introduced via the hero's work environment."
Both avenged the murder of their father figure at the end of their initial adventure and both realize that was only the beginning of what would become a war on crime. Both came to be written as wisecracking, masked crimebusters who swing through the city on wires. DD's powers, which should have been something that made him unique, were frequently just treated as a sort of spider-sense. Plots and plot elements were recycled. The first supervillain DD encounters (and not the last) is a Spider-Man villain. Matt's forever-frustrated romantic entanglement with Karen Page, which went on for years, was lifted straight from Spider-Man. As in Spider-Man, the Daredevil identity was always the thing that came between them (even a lot of the dialogue is virtually identical). Daredevil went through mini-"Spider-Man No More" crises at least twice (complete with "Spider-Man No More" dialogue). While Spider-Man Annual #1 featured the Sinister Six, a team of Spider-Man's old foes banded together to take down the hero, Daredevil Annual #1 featured the Emissaries of Evil, a team of DD's old foes banded together to take down the hero (and Electro was on both teams). And so on into infinity. This continued through multiple writers right up to the late '70s. Drawing out the seemingly infinite parallels between the books would make for an interesting essay in itself.
Beyond this, there's the "poor man's" part of the "poor man's Spider-Man" equation. Though the character was, conceptually speaking, very strong and would have been capable of standing on his own if anyone had recognized his potential, the book itself was all over the board in its first 13 or 14 years. Stan used it to goof off and set the precedent for those who followed. In one issue, DD would be battling very recognizable street-level hoods; in the next, he was rocketing into space; in one, he'd be in some vaguely Germanic nation battling a dictator who dressed as a Medieval knight; in another, he'd be tackling the Ani-Men; in one, he'd be battling alien invaders, in another, he'd be entertaining U.S. troops abroad as part of a USO show (no kidding). He'd decide he was going to give up being Daredevil then, a few issues later, he'd decide he wanted to give up being Matt Murdock. The book had no unique character. It was painfully obvious from the beginning that no one involved really had any idea what to do with it, and when it comes to the creative juice, DD was mostly just getting the leftovers after the better books had been put to bed. It was always treated by Marvel as a b-list book. Steve Gerber, who authored 20 issues of Daredevil through those years, has noted how it became one of the books to which new writers at Marvel were assigned because no one cared about it and thus wouldn't care if the new guy screwed it up. As Gerber, in an interview on this site, put it:
"To be honest, it really wasn't until Miller came along and stood the entire series on its head that DD completely left all those problems behind."
Marv Wolfman, author of 19 issues of DD through those years, has described his effort to cope with the aimlessness of the strip:
"I felt DD needed something more than I was giving him. I was never very happy with my DD--I never found the thing that made him mine the way Frank Miller did a year or two later. So I was trying to find things to do that interested me and therefore, I hoped, the readers. Ultimately, I couldn't find anything that made DD unique to me and asked off the title. Fortunately, Frank Miller came in after me and rejuvenated the title."
Gene Colan sold the book practically single-handedly for years. After he left as the regular artist, sales went into decline.Ailing, it was eventually cut to only six issues/year (no doubt why Marvel kept trying to get Gene back on it). When Miller joined the team and began the process of chucking both the "poor man's" and the "Spider-Man", the book was on its way out. He didn't entirely reinvent the wheel; he did take the "pulp noir" elements that emerged naturally from the character's premise and had been a recurring element of the book and made them the status quo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daredevil24
Humanity's Fathom
Joined: 06 Apr 2011
Posts: 367
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Miller himself has called DD a poor man's Spider Man before his arrival |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
humanaccident
Flying Blind
Joined: 10 Jul 2014
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not sure I see it, even reading the early issues, here would be my summary of Spiderman/Peter Parker - geeky, struggles with women, has money troubles, a bit of a joker as a superhero to hide his insecurity. None of this applied to DD/Matt Murdock, he is successful, confident to the point of arogance, too good with women and can be a bit of a joker as a superhero.
Or is it just me that sees past the swinging around New York thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nightwing2001
Flying Blind
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 94
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you want to make a generalization that the pre Miller DD was "poor man's Spider man" I think it's safe to say you could also make a generalization that everything since Miller (maybe not Kesel and Waid) has been "poor man's Batman"
Whether or not this is true I don't know (personally I don't believe either) but even if it is, it doesn't change the fact that in either version Daredevil is still a damn good and cool character who stands on his own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jriddle
Playing to the Camera
Joined: 19 May 2011
Posts: 129
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 1:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nightwing2001 wrote: | | If you want to make a generalization that the pre Miller DD was "poor man's Spider man" I think it's safe to say you could also make a generalization that everything since Miller (maybe not Kesel and Waid) has been "poor man's Batman" |
....except there's no case to be made for that, and, in fact, trying to make one turns comic history on its head. The first big, glaring problem is that Daredevil at its best has been an A-list book featuring top-shelf talent, many of whom do the best work of their careers on it--it's no "poor man's" anything. The next is that our modern notion of the Batman, the one with which you'd be making that comparison, is actually the 7th general version of the character, and the version of DD to which you're comparing it predates it by many years. Frank Miller reinvented Daredevil; his success at this is why, years later, he was able to reinvent the Batman. "The Dark Knight Returns" and "Year One" are Ground Zero for the modern Batman (version 7.0)--a near-complete reimagining of the character that led to a Batman renaissance that built upon it. To the extent that one influenced the other, DD influenced the Batman, not vice-versa (in the early '80s, while modern DD was being born at Marvel, the Batman titles were being done by Gerry Conway and Gene Colan--DD creators from the '70s).
| Nightwing2001 wrote: | | Whether or not this is true I don't know (personally I don't believe either) but even if it is, it doesn't change the fact that in either version Daredevil is still a damn good and cool character who stands on his own. |
I wouldn't go so far as to say the earlier DDs--then or now--can stand on their own (I don't hate the poor man's Spider-Man, just don't have much overall use for it), but it is true that nearly every incarnation of DD has its charms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
