>Stan Lee came out with a kind of formula, where he would give a personal problem to his characters. To his bad guys and good guys. So they were now a good guy, but had problem finding a girlfriend. Or they were a good guy but had a bad leg, which, apparently, having a bad leg is considered a "character trait" in that kind of comic book. So this is a two dimensional character. There's nothing really to them. They don't resemble human beings. If you want a three-dimensional character, you need to take that further.
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
>I want to frick Alan Moore
Is he sure it's not the alcohol's fault
Does he look like that on purpose, because it's his brand or something?
>"good guy, but had problem finding a girlfriend"
>the most popular superhero on the planet that earns billions of dollars every year
>Moore' most popular and well known character
>flimsy Batman parody everyone missed the point of and Moore himself hates to this day
Yeah I think I'm going to go with Stan's approach
Stan didn't become a multi-millionare though writing he did it through marketing and licensing his shit at every possible opportunity
Spider-Man was an international hit partly because of the writing
If you're parameters for what make good writing are what sells and is popular, you are corporately brain rotted.
>If you're parameters for what make good writing are what sells and is popular, you are corporately brain rotted.
that is how real life works, grow up kid.
That's the capitalistic mindset. Not "real life". Moore's characters are better written.
so why he hates them? and his fans?
Because they took the wrong message from it, you tard.
So it's bad writing? Failing to communicate ideas to the audience is the amateur mistake #1.
There's a difference between bad writing and the audience having little to no literacy in the first place.
Dear boy. I hate to break this to you, but real life actually works based on how much money you make.
This also applies to socialistic cultures, or do you really still think all people are equals there?
Real life is that some of the greatest pieces of art ever made were made regardless of how much money they made or used. The Thing, Moby Dick, Vincent Van Gogh paintings
You only know about them and that they're good because they started making money for someone, how many similar artists never got the recognition and were forgotten to time because their work couldn't be monetized
This is such a moronic take. Do you not know the concept of target audiences? Do you genuinely believe every single arthouse movie is called arthouse because was made with mainstream audiences in mind and failed to garner their attention? Not everything is made for you to consoom with a bucket of popcorn, NPC.
>Not everything is made for you to consoom with a bucket of popcorn
kid seriously you need grow up. There are so many like you were I live, they never accomplish anything.
You are such a psued
You have an incredibly anti intellectualist view on writing.
You dont know jack shit about my views but I bet I got a frick ton more work published than you ever have, neeeegar
>You only know about them and that they're good because they started making money for someone
This is moronic, there are many famous works that didn't get recognition back in their day.
And the only reason they got recognition today is because people started making money on them after the fact
I wasn't aware Moore gives his work away for free, how noble of him
Actual well written stories and characters do both, see ASOIAF and Breaking Bad
It's not just that, its the fact that he was supposed to be le evil dumb rightwing chud but he turned out to be one of the more likeable and empathetic characters in the comic
You're supposed to look at a reasonably physically and competent detective and think hes le bad because he doesnt like the libs. He failed completely at what he was trying to do
Rorschach is a hero, a true high quality character
Zoomer please stop larping as someone who knows a damn thing because you're ashamed of just being a spoiled kid who knows Marvel characters and nothing else
"Socialistic cultures" lmao
Also you're not going to gain any attention at all when you write and think this bad.
>flimsy Batman parody everyone missed the point of
Yeah, because Moors "point" in his batman/ question mashup was kind of moronic and nihilistic
The narrative of Watchmen blatantly puts forth a sequence of events where everyone and nobody is in the absolute right. It very clearly rips the juvenile superhero mentality, as depicted by Rorschach's rigid black/white dual world view, to shreds because real world is more nuanced. There is a lot of grey and complicated things and even bad people might not be entirely horrible, and the good people might in fact be violent, mentally unhinged people who can only function by putting on a mask and maim people they deem to be "bad" through a very flawed, imperfect and biased ridden moral code. You know, like how Rorschach brutally murders a child killer but has him want to defend and make excuses fir an attempted rapist because his daddy issues make him idolize the Comedian.
Your inherent need to find a definite side onto which plant your flag and stand your ground on due to "likability" shows what a sheep you are.
I still like Rorschach.
>standing to your convictions to the end with the overt goal of fighting evil is bad because he lost
Lmao do you not understand how characters work? Writers do this shit all the time where a character is shown to be competent and is well loved by his own community, the writer finds out and decides 'NOOOO HES SUPPOSED TO BE LE EVIL CARICATURE OF WHAT I HATE NOOO' and then finds a arbitrary way to kill him to spite people who dislike him
Trying to argue with this by going 'Well the WORLD disagrees with him' doesnt work because the world was written by the writer and his hollow nihilism is just moronic and edgy garbage
this program was trash and moore just huffed his own farts the entire time
if your character seems two dimensional it is because the author has chosen to reveal little about them over the course of the plotline
a grand storytelling technique
Mega of the course so you can judge it for yourselves.
https://mega.nz/folder/tIFzDBCZ#G3Yh5QrUdwhHMcd2LXl-gA
I thought Moore hated doing this shit
He loves talking about himself and he needs the money.
Can this man say a single sentence without shit talking the comic industry.
I saw this stupid shit show hoping to learn something new only for him to ramble on about being a centrist and to make everyone relatable to someone. This stupid shit you learn in fricking grade school I'm convinced this moron got lucky.
> you need to take that further.
Is this where the rape comes in?
No he says the character needs a political compass to make them interesting and using that will propel the actions of the characters down the line. The rape has always been there if you look at it long enough.
He's not wrong.
Of course even Moore has pretty much admitted that two-dimensional is about all you can get with mainstream superheroes and he's criticized his own attempts to make them darker/edgier (like The Killing Joke).
Now I'm wondering if there would be a way to write kids' superhero comics and make the characters fully three-dimensional.
Easy, all more has to do is put in a few rape scenes and call it a day.
>make the characters fully three-dimensional.
this has become a big meme
I don't see why you couldn't have a three demintional superhero characters.
I think the biggest detriment to Marvel and DC characters isn't that they can fly and fight crime in tights. It's that their continuities are a constantly spinning hamster wheel that never lets the characters go anywhere or change in a meaningful way.
this is why I stick to adaptations and never read comics
Why do people think that superheroes have to be realistic? Superman isn't realistic or complex but he's one of the most popular heroes in the world. He's just a guy who always does the right thing and inspires others to do so too. Same as Spiderman and Batman. Superheroes don't have to be realistic to be good. You don't need to know everything that goes in their head all the time. They just have to be fun and leave a lasting impact in those who read them. Stan Lee understood that. He created characters people can look up to and that's why he's considered one of the greatest comic book creators of all time.
>They just have fun and leave a lasting impact
Okay but you're wrong. You’re just very simple minded and can’t handle flawed characters. An iconic character is often just that, an icon. Sure they’re memorable but they’re not interesting: they’re more like a brand. They’re like Santa and Coca Cola. It’s great if your goal is just to be memorable but not if you wanna do anything beyond the bare minimum
>An iconic character is often just that, an icon.
yes, that is the point
Yeah but they're not well written characters.
>Yeah but they're not well written characters.
nobody cares anon, those "well written characters" are so fricking boring that only pseudointellectuals like them
People care about good writing.
>People care about good writing.
anon, not even you believe this.
I can understand complexity and I'm not simple minded just because I like heroes saving people. Adding pages worth of backstory and tragedy does not mean a character is well-written. Look at Spider-Man. He's not particularly deep, beyond making a tragic mistake. He's just a normal guy trying to make it through life and do the best he can do. His strength as a character comes from his ability to rise up and do the right thing. His steadfastness to being a hero isn't realistic, but he's well written regardless because it's his struggle to do good despite all that happens to him is the selling point of the character, not how realistic he is.
None of this is equitable to depth. If you want a character with depth, you need to make them three dimensional
Why does he need to be deep? Not every character needs to be deep to be good.
Every good character has depth. A character gives a superficial first impression of a flawed individual, then you learn their backstory and their reasons for being such a flawed individual, able to empathize with them and understand a little better just how complex the world really is. Of course, it doesn't work if your automatic response it so always be a cynical out-of-touch idealist ("I don't care what happens to people, they should always be able to pull themselves together and act in one single way I deem worthy").
Depth of character doesn't mean that the character themselves are deep. The characters are a vessel for the story to move forward. If the story is about a normal guy rising up to do the right thing, then the depth and quality of his character is measured by how he lives up to that, not on how flawed he is. If the story requires the character to be flawed then he should be based on his flaws. But if the story doesn't need complexity like that, then adding it doesn't improve the quality of the work.
I am not a cynical out-of-touch idealist who gets off on people pulling themselves together. Stop assuming who I am.
Because life is deep.
He's not even particularly well written either.
>Spider-Man
>just a normal guy
Really wish people would stop pushing this shit.
>Really wish people would stop pushing this shit.
he was
>Superman isn't realistic or complex
what bullshit is this? was the cartoon the only place that understood superman?
Does he actually talk about Stan Lee is a fricking writing class? Jesus.
Comic book grifters, man. They are something.
Yeah Black person, they were two-dimensional because they were comic books made for children. The whole point was that they had simple, understandable flaws that could sometimes be brought up in a 4 or 5-panel strip, but otherwise didn't get in the way of them SOCK BIFF POW'ing bad guys, or could sometimes be brought up in the middle of a big situation so they can just say HOW WILL BAD-LEGMAN GET OUT OF THIS ONE?
Because kids don't care about the fact that this character doesn't agree with Nixon's economic ideas or that there is a brutal war going on in Vietnam. Those things aren't important to a fricking superhero for kids. They want Spider-Man do to Spider-Man things like shoot webs and punch bad guys in the face.
So what is this third dimension according to Moore? I'm not watching all that shit since his writing doesn't inspire confidence in me that he knows what the frick he's talking about
You know everything about the character. Their backstory and how they came to be. They can also change their motivations.
that sounds 2D
Sounds like a character sheet not a story.
>99.9999999% of all real people and stories ever were motivated by primal instincts and base addictions
>writing needs to be deeper than that because.. it just does okay????
The idea that the majority of human actions are based on instinct and gut reactions is a interesting idea. You could probably make a good story where you could explain this concept more deeply. Maybe one about a characters who constantly has to make split second decision in a dangerous situations. Like some kind of hero perhaps? An maybe this character and later think about the reasons he did what he did, internally debating his choices until eventually arriving at your thesis.
What would an alan Moore manga be like
Dog homie
why does alan moore look like a gay wizard