over on the Cinemaphile side of things, Terry Pratchett had the opposite perception - Adults knew how to suspend their disbelief, but kids were always the ones asking silly immersion-breaking questions like, "So, if Death rides a pale horse, who stables him? Who shoes him? Does he like sugar lumps?" and then he answered those questions, and it made the world feel alot more "alive" and like there were more people in it than just the protagonists.
TL:DR Suspension of disbelief is not an excuse for potemkin storycrafting.
Kids take it at face value, enjoy the ride, and walk away. Adults want to plunge head-first into every facet of the world you craft, and are disappointed when it turns out you didn't care as much as they did about your own story.
Every time this kind of thread comes up someone always says that and every time I ask "How?" and every time they fail to answer. I GUESS with the second one you could probably get a decent comedy story about Bruce struggling with the bureaucracy of his company while he desperately tries to get back to Batmaning, but they probably wouldn’t write that in the main continuity nowadays
You don’t need a whole-ass story to explain a simple plot detail >How does Superman fly?
Tactile telekinesis; it’s been explained multiple times by now >How does Batman have time to run his company?
He hires aides to do his work for him >Who pumps the Bat-Tires?
Alfred
The fact that a “professional writer” is unable to come up with a simple handwave explanation for these things, or remember explanations that already exist, really speaks to their lack of creativity .
Who cares who cares? It’s a simple question with a simple answer that anyone could come up with. No one cares what 2 + 2 equals, but you’d still be a moron if you didn’t know the answer.
If such pestering could be solved by a simple one-sentence explanation, then that’s more the writer’s fault for not including it than the audience’s fault for being curious. If kryptonite had no explained origin, and it was just some random green rock that hurt Superman for no reason, with zero direct connection to Superman’s past whatsoever, would you consider that better writing than what we have now?
7 months ago
Anonymous
If the answer is so simple then the viewers should be able to figure it out themselves. You'd have to be pretty dumb if you need the writers to spoon feed every little piece of information for you.
7 months ago
Anonymous
But the guy doesn’t want you to come up with the answer yourself. He wants you to stop thinking at all and just go, “It’s not real, so I should stop asking questions and consume the product.” If he wanted you to think up the answer yourself, he would’ve said “Make up your own answer.”
7 months ago
Anonymous
Well i don't really have a problem with that either.
It's called fiction for a reason. It's not like we need an explanation for how Bikini Bottom or Hogwarts functions.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I don't know that seems kind of out of character with a guy who has big dumb ideas about meta-fiction and it "living" in our heads. I think he just thinks the questions are dumb and missing the point.
>Who cares who care?
The writers who get pestered by the people who care, and the people who care about the writers not getting pestered.
Grant Morrison is just talking about people like pic related.
Explanations and "exposition dumps" are not devoid of "themes, character, tone, ideas". Quite the opposite; the setting explained within the story can enrich it by introducing additional context or nuance to the story.
""Worldbuilding"" and ""frivolous detailing"" has been a part of literary fiction since time immemorial. Ever read the Odyssey? >Writers make stories, not worlds
Insofar as perception is concerned, what is the difference? A story is a certain narrative describing the world as it appears. There is not only no dichotomy here but I'd go as far as to say that it'd be difficult to make a story without making some kind of "world".
The issue is entirely that it's an external demand for something that's not really petinent to the story. Grant isn't saying "NO YOU CAN'T EVER EXPLAIN ANYTHING EVER, EVER!" he's saying that sometimes shit just isn't important to the story at hand. Yeah you can use those things in ways that improve upon the themes and tones you're trying to build. But sometimes the background information isn't important to what you're trying to say, and Morrison is commenting on the type of people who get caught up in irrelevant details when they're not really important.
The point isn't "Nobody should explain who pumps the bat tires" it's that "Who pumps the bat tires has no bearing on him foiling Two Face's Bipolar Breakdown Scheme in this arc."
I don't care. Oda has been answering questions like this for 2 decades.
>The virgin Grant Morrison complaining when he's asked how Bruce Wayne has a giant structure under his house that has more weapons and vehicles than a modern military armory without anyone figuring out he's Batman
vs >The chad GODA answering the most pointless questions for years
7 months ago
Anonymous
People in the thread have already pointed out holes in this Oda "logic".
7 months ago
Anonymous
Where?
7 months ago
Anonymous
Here.
Doesn't Oda frequently say shit ike "I don't care and I felt like it"
Who the frick would even remember this info aside from autists like yourself?
he wrote himself into a corner here
>Luffy sleeps when he gets sleepy >Wakes up when he wakes up >Only sleeps 5 hours a day
Must be a self-insert.
Hey wait a minute, Luffy has been shown to have a normal sleep schedule, sleeping for entire nights.
This is contradictory and made up on the spot.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>All of the posts boil to either "Who cares" or "You're le autistic!"
None of these are arguments.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Ignoring the posts pointing out the contradictions the info provides in terms of both story and Oda's own philosophy
7 months ago
Anonymous
No they don't, you have no evidence that these posts contradict anything that Oda has ever said.
7 months ago
Anonymous
As mentioned here
Doesn't Oda frequently say shit ike "I don't care and I felt like it"
Also it's clear that the info shouldn't be taken seriously as Oda clearly never intended any of it and made it up on the spot to satisfy a question.
7 months ago
Anonymous
You have no evidence that Oda says anything like that.
7 months ago
Anonymous
OK, fair enough. But i still say that it was most likely made on the spot and never thought of again due to the way characters sleep in the anima/manga contradict what was said.
No sweaty this is the only good post in this thread and everyone and everything else should just be ignored
If such pestering could be solved by a simple one-sentence explanation, then that’s more the writer’s fault for not including it than the audience’s fault for being curious. If kryptonite had no explained origin, and it was just some random green rock that hurt Superman for no reason, with zero direct connection to Superman’s past whatsoever, would you consider that better writing than what we have now?
>tactile telekinesis
And why does he have that? >because he just does, he got it from krypton juice in his brain from the pod
And why does it do that? >because it just does
How can it exist? >because it's a story
Why does that matter? >Because it's not real
Grant is right. All these "explanations" are is a rewording that raises more questions than simply saying "because he just does". Imagine if I had to ask you why the sun burns and you spent half an hour explaining to me the intricate details of combusting gasses and fission.
There's a difference between having an in-universe explanation and forcing that in-universe explanation to conform to real world rules. Which is exactly what Grant was criticizing. You're missing the point, moron.
Read
[...]
[...]
Explanations and "exposition dumps" are not devoid of "themes, character, tone, ideas". Quite the opposite; the setting explained within the story can enrich it by introducing additional context or nuance to the story.
""Worldbuilding"" and ""frivolous detailing"" has been a part of literary fiction since time immemorial. Ever read the Odyssey? >Writers make stories, not worlds
Insofar as perception is concerned, what is the difference? A story is a certain narrative describing the world as it appears. There is not only no dichotomy here but I'd go as far as to say that it'd be difficult to make a story without making some kind of "world".
At this point, you're arguing against the concept of fiction itself. Info dumps and explanations are not a bad thing.
Okay, but there’s a limit to that. If Superman just came up with new powers every issue, and the answer for why that happened was “just turn your brain off, bro”, people would call that bad writing. You cannot just having literally anything happen for no reason, and still call yourself a good writer. This guy just sounds like he wants people to have zero standards.
Worldbuilding is not a bad thing. Hating on people who ask questions about your world is disrespectful to the writers that actually DO care about their worldbuilding, and actually DO take the time to explain what Wayne Enterprises actually does or how Superman’s powers work. If an author wants to leave those questions to someone else, then that’s fine. But the fans art not in the wrong for asking those questions in the first place, so long as those questions come from genuine curiosity, and not snide criticism of the writer’s ability.
>No good writer would ever write about something uninteresting
Like 99% of the good comic writer have 2-3 good stories and 10 shitty ones you fricking moron.
Some of the better Superman writers pay attention to the physics behind his incredible feats, and show it's actually harder than it looks since Supes has to be very exact to prevent his super strength and powers from making things worse. Corporate thrillers are their own genre and very popular despite being grounded in reality in most cases, you think they couldn't pull it off in a world with caped heroes, aliens, and magic?
https://i.imgur.com/eI1Ghma.jpg
He's right, y'know.
Grant Morrison makes the mistake of assuming because some kids are stupid spazes, every kid is. The makers of the animated film Over the Hedge made the same mistake, and worried that half the jokes they made were over the heads of the intended audience. They were completely shocked when they asked a test audience of children what their favorite joke/scene was, and more than a few talked about Hammy drinking the energy drink and getting so hyperactive that he perceived the world in slow motion. They didn't even consider children would understand the concept of time dilation. Because kids are dumb and need everything spelled out for them, right?
If anything, I find it tends to be the opposite. Adults are far more likely to say "eh, it's just animation/hollywood" and give a free pass to shit writing. Children won't be writing angry letters to the editor or trolling the official forums online, they just stop reading/watching. While I understand writers may not be getting the feedback from kids and think most of the complainers are adult fans, it's ignorant to think kids are happy with whatever slop you throw out there.
>They were completely shocked when they asked a test audience of children what their favorite joke/scene was, and more than a few talked about Hammy drinking the energy drink and getting so hyperactive that he perceived the world in slow motion. They didn't even consider children would understand the concept of time dilation.
"Haha hyper squirrel go brrt like in X-Men."
This. I remember when i was a kid and watched that scene. Me and every other kid i watched it with loved that scene, not because of any "time dilation" BS, we didn't even know what that stuff was, we just knew that what we were watching was fun, entertaining and hilarious.
>How does Superman’s tactile telekinesis work? >Why does Batman get to stay on the board if he doesn’t actually do anything? >How can an old man like Alfred change the heavy bat-tires?
See, the problem is that people who ask inane shit like this are never satisfied with simple answers like that, instead they’ll just move on to nitpicking the simple answers you gave because they wanna look smart. The only way to get them actually shut up is to spend waste time in story to explain this pointless bullshit, which almost never actually adds to the story, after which they’ll move on to something else stupid like "Where does Superman get his clothes?" or "Who did the wiring for the Batcave?" Also tactile telekinesis isn’t how Superman flies, he does that by manipulating the earth’s electromagnetic field to push against gravity (or something like that I don’t remember exactly). Tactile telekinesis is what they use to explain how he’s able to hold entire buildings up or pick up cars by the roof to move them without just ripping them off. See, I’m not against explaining shit in comics (I like the idea of tactile telekinesis cuz they do cool shit with it sometimes), I just think 99% of the time it doesn’t add to the story beyond appeasing meaningless nerd nitpicks
Not to defend batwank but genuine no-talent (even stupidly idiotic) kids, grand kids, offsprings and nepo babies, etc. remain on boards of corporations for any number of reasons, many of which remain controlling stockholder interest, significant majority interest, controlling trusts, controlling voter shares. The Murdoch family, with Fox, is a perfect example of this but so are the Waltons of Wal-Mart and it's not a USA thing, as the Murdochs started in Australia, moved to the UK and Canada before branching to the USA, and you can find global business empires based in the EU, UK and elsewhere that also have the same situations. You can do your own research.
I know you didn't ask this question and the anon you are replying to deleted his shit, so I'm offering this to the whole thread even if I'm replying to you.
If such pestering could be solved by a simple one-sentence explanation, then that’s more the writer’s fault for not including it than the audience’s fault for being curious. If kryptonite had no explained origin, and it was just some random green rock that hurt Superman for no reason, with zero direct connection to Superman’s past whatsoever, would you consider that better writing than what we have now?
>simple one-sentence explanation
In a graphic novel, especially as a long-time reader, I don't want to read this every issue, because there are only so many panels we get. And I don't want a world-salad intro page the way Bendis shoved on nearly every issue he wrote for the short time DC wasted their money on their exclusive contract with him. It should be an an updated origin book, which the publishers should keep in print and even do so at discounted prices, so idiots like you can point casuals to it.
[...] >How does Superman’s tactile telekinesis work? >Why does Batman get to stay on the board if he doesn’t actually do anything? >How can an old man like Alfred change the heavy bat-tires?
See, the problem is that people who ask inane shit like this are never satisfied with simple answers like that, instead they’ll just move on to nitpicking the simple answers you gave because they wanna look smart. The only way to get them actually shut up is to spend waste time in story to explain this pointless bullshit, which almost never actually adds to the story, after which they’ll move on to something else stupid like "Where does Superman get his clothes?" or "Who did the wiring for the Batcave?" Also tactile telekinesis isn’t how Superman flies, he does that by manipulating the earth’s electromagnetic field to push against gravity (or something like that I don’t remember exactly). Tactile telekinesis is what they use to explain how he’s able to hold entire buildings up or pick up cars by the roof to move them without just ripping them off. See, I’m not against explaining shit in comics (I like the idea of tactile telekinesis cuz they do cool shit with it sometimes), I just think 99% of the time it doesn’t add to the story beyond appeasing meaningless nerd nitpicks
Comics and Shows frequently portray Bruce as playing stupid like a fox. This is the biggest issue with the complaint, it could also be due to them not reading a story where that throw away trivia is brought up.
Honestly Superman's powers feel more lame when they're explained like like and makes it too complicated.
It'd just be more fun and cool to say "He can fly because that's just what he does"
No need for all this deep lore mumbo jumbo.
Wanna know what we call a story that relies on the little details to explain everything that's going on? We call that Five Nights at Freddy's.
Thank you for admitting that you're a pretentious self absorbed stick in the mud who doesn't give a shit about fun.
7 months ago
Anonymous
If your fun requires me to be braindead, then I'd rather not have it, thank you.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Well then that just means you can't appreciate entertainment.
7 months ago
Anonymous
If your "entertainment" requires me to be brain-dead, then I'd rather not watch it.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Dude, what do you think comics and cartoons are for?
There's a lot of cartoons that're "braindead" such as SpongeBob and Looney Tunes but that doesn't make them any worse. Sounds like you just want everything to pander to your needs.
7 months ago
Anonymous
The superhero genre is objectively poor quality fiction. It is defined by a bundle of exceptions from the constraints which make for good fiction in other genres. It's like if you took professional wrestling and removed the athleticism, improvisation, and the pressure of a live audience.
You don't have to be psychologically insightful like general fiction, technically coherant like SF, you don't have to make skillful and consistent in your employment of myth and symbol like fantasy. In superhero fic, you just assert one thing after another for reasons. As you've just shown here.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah so? Everything you mentioned doesn't make the genre bad. The genre doesn't have to be anything more than it is to be fun and good. Why else do you think it became so popular in the first place?
7 months ago
Anonymous
If it is objectively poor quality, then by definition, it can't be good, by really any means at all. >Le popularity
Because people are mouth breathing morons with no standards?
7 months ago
Anonymous
Don't use the word "objective" when everything you have said has been subjective.
And yeah. the fact that it's so popular just goes to show how subjective your words really are.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I literally just listed off an objective writing flaw for superhero works which is internal consistency, moron. What it shows by being popular is that the majority of people have shit taste and don't care for writing quality. Whatever, you're arguing like a moron on purpose, so this will be my last response.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, like i said before, you're pretentious and self absorbed. That's the problem here, especially when you blame and mock the millions of people who enjoy whatever doesn't pander to you.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Popularity =/= mass appeal. The stories are easy to access but are also shallow and don't make lasting impact. You can call them fast food of entertainment.
>Unicorn walks on stage and fartz randumb rainbow on wafflez XD! >"Uhhh you see, it is just suspense of disbelief... clearly my reductionist approach is not just my insecurity of complex and mature writing"
I feel like the best way to approach something like this is in the same way the fans are: tongue in cheek. It's all in good fun. I think it's fun to answer their stupid question with an equally or more stupid answer.
>The virgin Grant Morrison complaining when he's asked how Bruce Wayne has a giant structure under his house that has more weapons and vehicles than a modern military armory without anyone figuring out he's Batman
vs >The chad GODA answering the most pointless questions for years
He is not right. Because the fiction that tries to realistic as possible is questioned. Noone is questioning how Batman can run a multibillion business, thats just some Trivia and for the lulz.
Dont take “What if in reality“ youtube channels for real.
I don't know why you people are fighting over this when Mr. Enter, the guy who i bet gave you all your ideologies, has already made the greatest videos on this subject.
This can also apply to social media's loud aversion to "problematic shipping". It's not real. Please focus on real life situations if you wish to make this your lifelong moral crusade.
Reminder that the Greek myths that were proto-super heroes did not go into the physics of how Pegasus could fly, why looking at Medus could turn you to stone, or how magic and divine beings worked.
*The Force vs Midi-chlorian.
Really, I encounter posts that absolutely hated when things were explained, like the lore and what not, saying that it ruined theories and the "mysticism" of the story, a big exemplar are "Midi-chlorians" and how they "ruined" the "mysticism" of The Force.
Sometimes I struggle with this in my writing, I ask myself should I answer every question or should i leave some things up to interpretation; will some hate that there are some unanswered questions or hate that all of the secrets and fan theories/interpretations are spoiled?
It shows a lack of imagination/creativity when you can't come up with answers to the "rules" of your story.
over on the Cinemaphile side of things, Terry Pratchett had the opposite perception - Adults knew how to suspend their disbelief, but kids were always the ones asking silly immersion-breaking questions like, "So, if Death rides a pale horse, who stables him? Who shoes him? Does he like sugar lumps?" and then he answered those questions, and it made the world feel alot more "alive" and like there were more people in it than just the protagonists.
TL:DR Suspension of disbelief is not an excuse for potemkin storycrafting.
Sounds to me like adults are the reals kids when it comes to cartoons.
Kids take it at face value, enjoy the ride, and walk away. Adults want to plunge head-first into every facet of the world you craft, and are disappointed when it turns out you didn't care as much as they did about your own story.
Then you're a shit writer.
Magic system gays btfo
This moron does the exact same fricking shit too, shut the frick up you Bald headed son of a b***h!
The idea of stories about the physical mechanics of Superman’s powers and how Wayne Enterprises is run sound really boring tho.
You could make them not-boring though.
Every time this kind of thread comes up someone always says that and every time I ask "How?" and every time they fail to answer. I GUESS with the second one you could probably get a decent comedy story about Bruce struggling with the bureaucracy of his company while he desperately tries to get back to Batmaning, but they probably wouldn’t write that in the main continuity nowadays
You don’t need a whole-ass story to explain a simple plot detail
>How does Superman fly?
Tactile telekinesis; it’s been explained multiple times by now
>How does Batman have time to run his company?
He hires aides to do his work for him
>Who pumps the Bat-Tires?
Alfred
The fact that a “professional writer” is unable to come up with a simple handwave explanation for these things, or remember explanations that already exist, really speaks to their lack of creativity .
It's not a matter of making explanations, it's a matter of "Who cares?"
Who cares who cares? It’s a simple question with a simple answer that anyone could come up with. No one cares what 2 + 2 equals, but you’d still be a moron if you didn’t know the answer.
>Who cares who care?
The writers who get pestered by the people who care, and the people who care about the writers not getting pestered.
If such pestering could be solved by a simple one-sentence explanation, then that’s more the writer’s fault for not including it than the audience’s fault for being curious. If kryptonite had no explained origin, and it was just some random green rock that hurt Superman for no reason, with zero direct connection to Superman’s past whatsoever, would you consider that better writing than what we have now?
If the answer is so simple then the viewers should be able to figure it out themselves. You'd have to be pretty dumb if you need the writers to spoon feed every little piece of information for you.
But the guy doesn’t want you to come up with the answer yourself. He wants you to stop thinking at all and just go, “It’s not real, so I should stop asking questions and consume the product.” If he wanted you to think up the answer yourself, he would’ve said “Make up your own answer.”
Well i don't really have a problem with that either.
It's called fiction for a reason. It's not like we need an explanation for how Bikini Bottom or Hogwarts functions.
I don't know that seems kind of out of character with a guy who has big dumb ideas about meta-fiction and it "living" in our heads. I think he just thinks the questions are dumb and missing the point.
Explanations and "exposition dumps" are not devoid of "themes, character, tone, ideas". Quite the opposite; the setting explained within the story can enrich it by introducing additional context or nuance to the story.
""Worldbuilding"" and ""frivolous detailing"" has been a part of literary fiction since time immemorial. Ever read the Odyssey?
>Writers make stories, not worlds
Insofar as perception is concerned, what is the difference? A story is a certain narrative describing the world as it appears. There is not only no dichotomy here but I'd go as far as to say that it'd be difficult to make a story without making some kind of "world".
The issue is entirely that it's an external demand for something that's not really petinent to the story. Grant isn't saying "NO YOU CAN'T EVER EXPLAIN ANYTHING EVER, EVER!" he's saying that sometimes shit just isn't important to the story at hand. Yeah you can use those things in ways that improve upon the themes and tones you're trying to build. But sometimes the background information isn't important to what you're trying to say, and Morrison is commenting on the type of people who get caught up in irrelevant details when they're not really important.
The point isn't "Nobody should explain who pumps the bat tires" it's that "Who pumps the bat tires has no bearing on him foiling Two Face's Bipolar Breakdown Scheme in this arc."
I don't care. Oda has been answering questions like this for 2 decades.
People in the thread have already pointed out holes in this Oda "logic".
Where?
Here.
>All of the posts boil to either "Who cares" or "You're le autistic!"
None of these are arguments.
>Ignoring the posts pointing out the contradictions the info provides in terms of both story and Oda's own philosophy
No they don't, you have no evidence that these posts contradict anything that Oda has ever said.
As mentioned here
Also it's clear that the info shouldn't be taken seriously as Oda clearly never intended any of it and made it up on the spot to satisfy a question.
You have no evidence that Oda says anything like that.
OK, fair enough. But i still say that it was most likely made on the spot and never thought of again due to the way characters sleep in the anima/manga contradict what was said.
This is the only good post in this thread. Everything and everyone else should just be ignored.
No sweaty this is the only good post in this thread and everyone and everything else should just be ignored
>tactile telekinesis
And why does he have that?
>because he just does, he got it from krypton juice in his brain from the pod
And why does it do that?
>because it just does
How can it exist?
>because it's a story
Why does that matter?
>Because it's not real
Grant is right. All these "explanations" are is a rewording that raises more questions than simply saying "because he just does". Imagine if I had to ask you why the sun burns and you spent half an hour explaining to me the intricate details of combusting gasses and fission.
It just does. It doesn't fricking matter.
There's a difference between having an in-universe explanation and forcing that in-universe explanation to conform to real world rules. Which is exactly what Grant was criticizing. You're missing the point, moron.
Read
At this point, you're arguing against the concept of fiction itself. Info dumps and explanations are not a bad thing.
None of those Anons but i'm confused.
Do you agree with Grant or not?
Disagree.
Ah. Kinda felt like you were on his side.
Okay, but there’s a limit to that. If Superman just came up with new powers every issue, and the answer for why that happened was “just turn your brain off, bro”, people would call that bad writing. You cannot just having literally anything happen for no reason, and still call yourself a good writer. This guy just sounds like he wants people to have zero standards.
Worldbuilding is not a bad thing. Hating on people who ask questions about your world is disrespectful to the writers that actually DO care about their worldbuilding, and actually DO take the time to explain what Wayne Enterprises actually does or how Superman’s powers work. If an author wants to leave those questions to someone else, then that’s fine. But the fans art not in the wrong for asking those questions in the first place, so long as those questions come from genuine curiosity, and not snide criticism of the writer’s ability.
The frick are you talking about? Stuff like that happens all the time and no one gives a shit.
If no one gave a shit, the guy in the OP wouldn’t be complaining about getting asked all the time.
I was speaking figuratively, not literally.
>I was pretending to be stupid.
If their written by a bad writer. A good writer can make anything entertaining
You can't polish a turd. An actual good writer wouldn't write about something uninteresting in the first place.
You absolutely can polish a turd, the point is why force someone to?
No, you definitely can. An actual good writer would make the uninteresting interesting
No good writer would ever write about something uninteresting. You're an idiot.
You're both idiots.
>No good writer would ever write about something uninteresting
Like 99% of the good comic writer have 2-3 good stories and 10 shitty ones you fricking moron.
Some of the better Superman writers pay attention to the physics behind his incredible feats, and show it's actually harder than it looks since Supes has to be very exact to prevent his super strength and powers from making things worse. Corporate thrillers are their own genre and very popular despite being grounded in reality in most cases, you think they couldn't pull it off in a world with caped heroes, aliens, and magic?
Grant Morrison makes the mistake of assuming because some kids are stupid spazes, every kid is. The makers of the animated film Over the Hedge made the same mistake, and worried that half the jokes they made were over the heads of the intended audience. They were completely shocked when they asked a test audience of children what their favorite joke/scene was, and more than a few talked about Hammy drinking the energy drink and getting so hyperactive that he perceived the world in slow motion. They didn't even consider children would understand the concept of time dilation. Because kids are dumb and need everything spelled out for them, right?
If anything, I find it tends to be the opposite. Adults are far more likely to say "eh, it's just animation/hollywood" and give a free pass to shit writing. Children won't be writing angry letters to the editor or trolling the official forums online, they just stop reading/watching. While I understand writers may not be getting the feedback from kids and think most of the complainers are adult fans, it's ignorant to think kids are happy with whatever slop you throw out there.
Ah yes, because Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th go out of their way to explain how everything works.
>They were completely shocked when they asked a test audience of children what their favorite joke/scene was, and more than a few talked about Hammy drinking the energy drink and getting so hyperactive that he perceived the world in slow motion. They didn't even consider children would understand the concept of time dilation.
"Haha hyper squirrel go brrt like in X-Men."
This. I remember when i was a kid and watched that scene. Me and every other kid i watched it with loved that scene, not because of any "time dilation" BS, we didn't even know what that stuff was, we just knew that what we were watching was fun, entertaining and hilarious.
Morrison isn’t calling kids stupid, he saying that kids recognize that the "how" isn’t usually that important.
Actually it is.
We have multiple posts in the very thread suggestion otherwise.
I don't see those posts.
It's technically correct, but still a cop out of the highest order.
Gee I wonder how many times this thread would show up in the archives now
Nah.
>How does Superman’s tactile telekinesis work?
>Why does Batman get to stay on the board if he doesn’t actually do anything?
>How can an old man like Alfred change the heavy bat-tires?
See, the problem is that people who ask inane shit like this are never satisfied with simple answers like that, instead they’ll just move on to nitpicking the simple answers you gave because they wanna look smart. The only way to get them actually shut up is to spend waste time in story to explain this pointless bullshit, which almost never actually adds to the story, after which they’ll move on to something else stupid like "Where does Superman get his clothes?" or "Who did the wiring for the Batcave?" Also tactile telekinesis isn’t how Superman flies, he does that by manipulating the earth’s electromagnetic field to push against gravity (or something like that I don’t remember exactly). Tactile telekinesis is what they use to explain how he’s able to hold entire buildings up or pick up cars by the roof to move them without just ripping them off. See, I’m not against explaining shit in comics (I like the idea of tactile telekinesis cuz they do cool shit with it sometimes), I just think 99% of the time it doesn’t add to the story beyond appeasing meaningless nerd nitpicks
Not to defend batwank but genuine no-talent (even stupidly idiotic) kids, grand kids, offsprings and nepo babies, etc. remain on boards of corporations for any number of reasons, many of which remain controlling stockholder interest, significant majority interest, controlling trusts, controlling voter shares. The Murdoch family, with Fox, is a perfect example of this but so are the Waltons of Wal-Mart and it's not a USA thing, as the Murdochs started in Australia, moved to the UK and Canada before branching to the USA, and you can find global business empires based in the EU, UK and elsewhere that also have the same situations. You can do your own research.
I know you didn't ask this question and the anon you are replying to deleted his shit, so I'm offering this to the whole thread even if I'm replying to you.
>simple one-sentence explanation
In a graphic novel, especially as a long-time reader, I don't want to read this every issue, because there are only so many panels we get. And I don't want a world-salad intro page the way Bendis shoved on nearly every issue he wrote for the short time DC wasted their money on their exclusive contract with him. It should be an an updated origin book, which the publishers should keep in print and even do so at discounted prices, so idiots like you can point casuals to it.
Comics and Shows frequently portray Bruce as playing stupid like a fox. This is the biggest issue with the complaint, it could also be due to them not reading a story where that throw away trivia is brought up.
Honestly Superman's powers feel more lame when they're explained like like and makes it too complicated.
It'd just be more fun and cool to say "He can fly because that's just what he does"
No need for all this deep lore mumbo jumbo.
Wanna know what we call a story that relies on the little details to explain everything that's going on? We call that Five Nights at Freddy's.
>"ITS JUST KEWL WHEN ITS MORE BRAINDEAD!!"
Unironically yes.
Thank you for admitting that you're the lowest common denominator that doesn't give a shit about writing then.
Thank you for admitting that you're a pretentious self absorbed stick in the mud who doesn't give a shit about fun.
If your fun requires me to be braindead, then I'd rather not have it, thank you.
Well then that just means you can't appreciate entertainment.
If your "entertainment" requires me to be brain-dead, then I'd rather not watch it.
Dude, what do you think comics and cartoons are for?
There's a lot of cartoons that're "braindead" such as SpongeBob and Looney Tunes but that doesn't make them any worse. Sounds like you just want everything to pander to your needs.
The superhero genre is objectively poor quality fiction. It is defined by a bundle of exceptions from the constraints which make for good fiction in other genres. It's like if you took professional wrestling and removed the athleticism, improvisation, and the pressure of a live audience.
You don't have to be psychologically insightful like general fiction, technically coherant like SF, you don't have to make skillful and consistent in your employment of myth and symbol like fantasy. In superhero fic, you just assert one thing after another for reasons. As you've just shown here.
Yeah so? Everything you mentioned doesn't make the genre bad. The genre doesn't have to be anything more than it is to be fun and good. Why else do you think it became so popular in the first place?
If it is objectively poor quality, then by definition, it can't be good, by really any means at all.
>Le popularity
Because people are mouth breathing morons with no standards?
Don't use the word "objective" when everything you have said has been subjective.
And yeah. the fact that it's so popular just goes to show how subjective your words really are.
I literally just listed off an objective writing flaw for superhero works which is internal consistency, moron. What it shows by being popular is that the majority of people have shit taste and don't care for writing quality. Whatever, you're arguing like a moron on purpose, so this will be my last response.
Yeah, like i said before, you're pretentious and self absorbed. That's the problem here, especially when you blame and mock the millions of people who enjoy whatever doesn't pander to you.
Popularity =/= mass appeal. The stories are easy to access but are also shallow and don't make lasting impact. You can call them fast food of entertainment.
>However many years later people are still relitigating the fundamental storytelling concept of Suspension of Disbelief
>Unicorn walks on stage and fartz randumb rainbow on wafflez XD!
>"Uhhh you see, it is just suspense of disbelief... clearly my reductionist approach is not just my insecurity of complex and mature writing"
So exactly why does a unicorn need any explanation?
It's just a unicorn in a fictional tale. There's no need to delve deep into the lore behind it.
Grant Morrison is just talking about people like pic related.
Creators whining about their audience is never a good look.
The audience isn't always right.
They are right, Itchy broke the rules.
I feel like the best way to approach something like this is in the same way the fans are: tongue in cheek. It's all in good fun. I think it's fun to answer their stupid question with an equally or more stupid answer.
But unironically
>The virgin Grant Morrison complaining when he's asked how Bruce Wayne has a giant structure under his house that has more weapons and vehicles than a modern military armory without anyone figuring out he's Batman
vs
>The chad GODA answering the most pointless questions for years
Doesn't Oda frequently say shit ike "I don't care and I felt like it"
Who the frick would even remember this info aside from autists like yourself?
he wrote himself into a corner here
>Luffy sleeps when he gets sleepy
>Wakes up when he wakes up
>Only sleeps 5 hours a day
Must be a self-insert.
Hey wait a minute, Luffy has been shown to have a normal sleep schedule, sleeping for entire nights.
This is contradictory and made up on the spot.
Am I moronic or is that quote an genuine example of irony?
Regardless of the second part, you're moronic.
Pretender to the Throne of the Midwits. Moore is the King.
You realize this means alan moore *is* the true king of the midwits, right, satan? (Not that I think you're wrong.)
Grant Morrison is really not a very good writer.
Holy based, this.
Stories are portals to fictional worlds that aren’t real. Enjoy the unreality, that’s the fricking point. Frick tropegays.
He is not right. Because the fiction that tries to realistic as possible is questioned. Noone is questioning how Batman can run a multibillion business, thats just some Trivia and for the lulz.
Dont take “What if in reality“ youtube channels for real.
People really have forgotten the point of comics and cartoons
To be able to do whatever you want without restriction or limitations
I don't know why you people are fighting over this when Mr. Enter, the guy who i bet gave you all your ideologies, has already made the greatest videos on this subject.
I'd be fine with this statement if he considered himself an author of kiddie books like Eric Hill instead of an actual writer.
This can also apply to social media's loud aversion to "problematic shipping". It's not real. Please focus on real life situations if you wish to make this your lifelong moral crusade.
Reminder that the Greek myths that were proto-super heroes did not go into the physics of how Pegasus could fly, why looking at Medus could turn you to stone, or how magic and divine beings worked.
They were not superheroes. They were worshiped as true and honest divinity.
this feels like a "mysticism or midiclorians." type of argument.
*The Force vs Midi-chlorian.
Really, I encounter posts that absolutely hated when things were explained, like the lore and what not, saying that it ruined theories and the "mysticism" of the story, a big exemplar are "Midi-chlorians" and how they "ruined" the "mysticism" of The Force.
Sometimes I struggle with this in my writing, I ask myself should I answer every question or should i leave some things up to interpretation; will some hate that there are some unanswered questions or hate that all of the secrets and fan theories/interpretations are spoiled?