Matt Goldberg draws this conclusion from Fincher’s almost traumatic experience filming Alien 3: “The lesson from Alien 3 was that ‘it’s always going to be your fault,’ so why not take full credit whether people go for it or not?”  (“The Film of David Fincher: SE7EN,” collider.com, September 23, 2014).

This could be slogan of DIY. But we think you must already have those tendencies if you go that route.  On that subject, we found this analysis of the work of Chris Claremont on the X-Men (Chris Sims, “Ask Chris # 186: The Strange Rise of the X-Men,” www.comicsalliance.com, March 7, 2014) and an interview with Rick Remender (David Dissanayake, “Rick Remender on Creator Owned Work, Creative Process & More (Part 1),” comicbook.com, September 22, 2014). Both cover a lot of ground, but they also point out the qualities an author has to have. For Remender, those are passion and quality. The idea of quality can be subjective, while passion can have various implications. But Chris Sims, in talking about Claremont’s work, mentions investment and devotion. In short, you have to be ready to dedicate time to the project because, in any case, no one else is going to do it for you.

When we started to put together the trilogy of confrontation, explosion and counter-offensive, we saw the opportunity to get Benson out of the Bunker to increase the tension between him and Wood. However, we felt there was a story missing between the time of Benson’s departure and the positioning of the assault team. So we developed “The Chasm.” We already had this story in the back of our minds, but decided this was the right time to flesh it out.

In his critique, Film Crit Hulk Smash provides a terse diagnostic of  Amazing Spider-Man 2 (“Hulk’s Burning Questions for the Amazing Spider-Man 2,” birthmoviesdeath.com, May 6, 2014): “WHY DOES THIS CREATIVE TEAM KEEP FLIRTING WITH CONCEPTS AND THEN NOT ACTUALLY DEALING WITH THEM OR EXPLORING THEM? […] WHY DO WRITERS CONTINUALLY NOT UNDERSTAND THAT SCREENTIME ISN’T ABOUT POSITIONING THE LOGISTICS OF WHY PEOPLE DO WHATEVER, BUT ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS AND THE MEANING OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS?” And there’s so much more quotable stuff in there. 

Arthur Tebbel is just as harsh: “Stop teasing me on the Sinister Six if you can’t give me one compelling villain in this movie.  Stop giving me the mystery of Peter Parker’s parents when you can neither give Aunt May enough space nor have Peter remember the death of his uncle.” (“Box Office Democracy: The Amazing Spider-Man 2, www.comicmix.com, May 5, 2014).

And to really drive it home, SouronsBane1 adds: “What’s even worse is the fact that there are a number of more minor subplots that come up out of nowhere, have valuable screen-time dedicated to setting them up…and then they ultimately end up going nowhere as well.” (“Why It Didn’t Work: The Amazing Spider-Man 2,”www.comicbookmovie.com, May 28, 2014.)

The idea here isn’t to belabour the point on this movie that certainly had its share of bad reviews, but to learn something and improve our own writing abilities. We often get the impression that writers and screenwriters want to stand out for ever-more-complex plots, when it takes a lot of effort to express a simple story. Simplicity doesn’t mean lack of complexity, but it should mean lack of complication. And when we’re polishing grand ideas, we tend to forget the small details that make a real difference. The question we should ask ourselves is: “Does this plot have too many improbabilities, too many gratuitous coincidences, that in the end the reader will more interested in pointing them out than in getting absorbed into the story?” The answer isn’t simple, but a little logic should be deployed in a story.

In an opinion piece on the failure of the Silver Surfer title published in the early 70s, Mike Huddleston (“Why Did the Original Silver Surfer Run Fail? #1-18,” www.comicbookdaily.com, June 12, 2014) points out that it had few secondary characters. Now, that’s an interesting observation. The hero can have adventures, but he or she won’t have anyone to anchor him or her and to breathe life into the story. There will only be one point of view. We feel that “ensemble casts” allow for a wide variety of possible storylines.

Recently, we found this analysis by Ed Campbell, pointing out that big comicbook editors (Marvel or DC) haven’t been able to create as many characters in recent years as they had in previous decades.

But does creator’s rights make the comic book industry stale?  Or does it only affect the “big 2″ comic publishers, while smaller publications thrive?

If you look at Marvel and DC over the past decade, there haven’t been too many new characters come out for the comics.  There were some characters who were “re-imagined” when DC launched the New 52.  But on the most part there haven’t been any characters to really jump off the page and become household names.  Even Marvel has introduced some new characters like Ghost Rider, Nova and Ms. Marvel.  But they are just older characters with new characters portraying these long-time Marvel personas.  (“Creator’s Rights = Stale Creativity,” www.comicbookdaily.com, June 20, 2014).

To find proof of this stagnation in character development, one need only think of Mark Gruenwald, who invented dozens of characters—some of them quite memorable—during his time on Captain America. There’s no sense of such a rich creative vein being tapped nowadays. New characters allow heroes to face new experiences and new adversaries that multiply fans’ reading pleasure.

While our last entry may have seemed critical of the Star Wars saga, we can’t disregard its many technical innovations and narrative risk-taking. Keith Phipps (“Why Star Wars?,” thedissolve.com, November 14, 2014) gives a good example of these risks:

By opening with C-3PO and R2-D2, Star Wars thrusts viewers into its world and counts on them to be engaged enough to figure out what’s going on. Even if Star Wars’ title hadn’t been amended to add “Episode IV,” it would still feel like a story already in progress, complete with talk of a Galactic Senate, a never-seen Emperor, spice-smuggling (an homage to Frank Herbert’s Dune), and a past filled with Jedi. The action stops for the occasional explanation, but more goes unexplained. 

And when you think about it, the characters are introduced gradually, in large expository scenes that allow each one to position him- or herself. It’s fair to wonder whether, in the current screenwriting climate, this approach would even be used if the episode were remade.

Episode VII of the Star Warssaga will be released in a few days. We came across a pretty savage analysis of Darth Vader’s psychological development (John Ostrander, “Redeeming Vader,” www.comicmix.com, October 26, 2014). Naturally, episodes I, II and III muddied up what could have been a very great work. We offer a rather lengthy excerpt of this analysis:

At the end of Episode VI, Anakin’s Force Ghost takes its place with the Force Ghosts of Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda, the two Jedi who represent the wise mentors and forces for good.

I have serious reservations about this. I don’t know if Anakin/Vader deserves or achieves redemption. Anakin, as he turns to the Dark Side, betrays all his friends. He kills children. Let me repeat that – he kills children. Episode III makes it clear even if it doesn’t show it. Anakin/Vader leads a cadre of Clone Troopers into the Jedi Temple and we see him confront children, the young students, some of which look to be six to eight. They know him only as a Jedi and trust him. We are later told that some of their corpses had lightsaber marks on them and Anakin is the only one who has a lightsaber in that attack. Anakin killed the children. How is that redeemable?

Why does Anakin turn to the Dark Side? Partly because he feels his fellow Jedi aren’t treating him with enough respect; as tragic flaws go, this is rather petty. Also, Darth Sidious/Emperor Palpatine, Anakin’s mentor, convinced Anakin that he could prevent Anakin’s wife, Padme, from dying. Ever.

Anakin had Separation Anxieties. He couldn’t save his mother from death at the hands of the Tusken Raiders so, once again, he slaughtered every Tusken man, woman, and – once again – child in the tribe. But Sidious tells Anakin he can keep Padme from ever dying and the chump believes him. It’s enough to send him careening down the path of the Dark side, becoming Darth Vader in the process.

And yet both Padme and, later on, Luke insist that there is good in him. Damned if I could see it.

How is Vader redeemed? When he decides he can’t turn Luke to the Dark Side, he decides to turn Luke’s sister. He tries to kill Luke. Instead, Luke defeats him, literally disarming him. Palpatine wanders in and tells Luke to kill Vader and take his place. Luke refuses, tossing away his lightsaber … a rather boneheaded move. Sidious then shoots lightning from his hands and starts to slowly turn Luke into a Crispy Critter. Vader, despite his son’s pleas, just watches for a few moments before finally turning on Sidious and tossing the Emperor to his doom, getting mortally wounded himself along the way. And this act supposedly redeems Anakin.

What exactly did Anakin/Vader do? Did he renounce the Dark Side? No. Did he regret his betrayal of his fellow Jedi? No. Did he feel bad about slaughtering the innocent children? Nope. He turned on his former Master because Sidious was killing Anakin’s son whom Vader himself had been trying to kill only a few moments earlier.

I admit to being an agnostic but I’m specifically a Roman Catholic agnostic. I was raised and steeped in the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church and the notion of redemption was a strong part of that. The concept is that suffering expiates past sin or sins. Anakin/Vader sacrifices his own life to destroy Sidious. Why does he do it? To save his own child. Motivations matter and, it seems to me, this one is private, personal, and rather selfish. I don’t see the act as redemptive.

As we’ve written previously, in the comic book world, authors often have grand concepts to justify re-launching a series (Josh Wilding, “Make Mine Marvel? No Thanks. Why DC is now the place to go for quality comics,” September 11, 2013, www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites). Anthony Falcone summarizes the situation thusly:  “… in the majority of comic books a real story isn’t told but a series of things just happen and are put together in a slapdash fashion.” (Anthony Falcone, “Comics I Read Aren’t Sh*t,” January 31, 2013, www.comicbookdaily.com).

So, as we’ve also mentioned before, character deaths are often used as a simple dramatic springboard, without having any impact on the readers (Anthony Falcone, “Death be not proud ,” February 28, 2013, www.comicbookdaily.com), who simply count down until the character returns (Tony Guerrero, “Death and the Return of Characters: Jean Grey,”  April 11, 2013, www.comicvine.com).

 In her analysis of Daredevil, Christine is heading in the right direction: “the best superhero stories have at least something to say about some of our most human challenges.” (Christine, “Review of Daredevil # 26”, May 22, 2013, www.theothermurdockpapers.com). Heroes or superheroes can face superhuman challenges, but when faced with more down-to-earth challenges, how can their reactions be so different from the rest of us humans? 

Along those lines, Chris Sims draws an interesting line between the Marvel and DC universes: “What it comes down to is that the Marvel universe is built on limitations. That’s the core difference between the foundation of the Marvel Universe and the DC Universe. Even though they’ve largely been shaped by the same creators over the past few decades, they’re built around very different ideas that are expressed in the characters that define them. There’s nothing that makes me roll my eyes harder than when people refer to the DC characters as “Gods” because that’s such a goofy, high school way to look at them, but even I’ll admit that there’s an element of truth to it. The DC Universe, even before there was a DC Universe, was built around characters that have this uncomplicated aspirational ideal to them. You just need to look at Superman to see it.” (Chris Sims, “Ask Chris # 171: The Superman (Well, Supermen) of the Marvel Universe,” November 15, 2013, comicsalliance.com). These “simple aspirations” are too simple, we guess: so let’s give our characters more elaborate desires and we may end up with denser stories.

Faraci revisits the oft-touted argument that superheroes are fascist: “Superheroes are essentially fascist because they use force to accomplish their goals, and their goals are almost always supporting and protecting the status quo.” (David Faraci, “Are Super-heros Fascist?”  December 1, 2013, http://badassdigest.com.). The status quo is more than bearable if the superhero is a multi-millionaire, but then we may wonder whether the hero is acting for the benefit of others or to preserve his or her own social standing?

The latest Captain America, The Winter Soldier, offers a counter-argument to this opinion. The shield bearer doesn’t stop at defeating the bad guys’ plot, he also destroys his employer, Shield, which he feels has become too corrupt to pursue its mission. It should be noted that Cap’s altruism is his trademark. 

We confess that we didn’t quite know what to do with the fact that Markham injected himself with a mixture prepared by Andraski. Valasquez finds out by accident, and then, Markham can’t find his box and goes to the lab. In this story, we decided to keep our eye on the long-term and to leave a maximum number of options open for future story developments.