Is Grant Morrison right here?

...

Sure.

In fantasy genres, and superhero stories that embrace being fictional, yes. This is relevant to when cape comics were actually cape comics.

In shitty as NuDC post-2000 where the comics take themselves way too seriously and DEMAND the reader does too - For example, the obsession with making the Joker ultra edgy and throwing in bits of realism while not answering "How does this guy seriously not get shot?", that's when Morrison's argument largely falls apart. Because the more seriously they want us to take a comic and hubris put into it, the more scrutiny the work starts to deserve to merit it. And then we just stop giving a shit because it's not fun and we need to know who the hell pumps those tires like every other detail that was superfluous before.

No. He can't be right because we weren't the ones who bothered to give in to explaining it, the writers were.
As he is a writer its his own goddamn fault.

As for suspension of disbelief hes basically saying he likes writing for children because a lazy piece of shit.

Absolutely. Comics should be fun above all else, not SERIOUS BUSINESS WITH LORE AND STAKES.

No. He's just making excuses for his half assed writing.

>lol my stories don't need to have closure or to tie up loose ends because who cares

Yes. Internal consistency is important, but those rules dont need to follow the ones of the real world.

Wasn't Morrison the one who made that bullshit explanation that Batman could run his multibillion-dollar business by day and fight crime by night because he can sleep awaken? Also he didn't justify Gotham to be a shithole because some sort of negativity energy so Batman and the Joker are kind of demigods on an eternal struggle?

Gotham was literally being haunted by a Bat-demon for centuries according to Morrison first mentioning the name and milligan showing Barbatos for the first time in Dark City, Dark Knight

Comics are a big medium. There's enough room to make enough comics so that every single person can find something which appeals specifically to them. And nobody is wrong for liking what they like, even if what they like is different from what you or I like. Everybody has different taste, and that's fine, nothing wrong with that. But Morrison seems to think that comics should be limited, and that any comic which doesn't appeal to him personally shouldn't exist (same reason he shits on Chris Ware).

He's a self-centered egotistical narcissist and, as usual, he's wrong.

WinRAR!
Cape comics, and fiction at large have a conceit built-in. When you stop taking advantage of that, you have lost on the biggest strength of fiction.
This doesn't mean you should constantly contradict yourself for effect, but you have more leeway than actual reality lends.

One of the best examples of this I can think of is Asimov's 'The Gods Themselves'

That sound like an adult man thinking too much on a scenario created 70 years ago to entertain children.

>In fantasy genres, and superhero stories that embrace being fictional, yes.
>Internal consistency is important, but those rules dont need to follow the ones of the real world.
These. If someone builds a fictional world where it's explained how and why everything works that's fine too (and I quite enjoy that, it's proof the writer has put thought into their work) but trying to retroactively explain logically how Stardust the Super Wizard works in an attempt to get readers to take him seriously is fucking retarded. Capeshit was and is intended to entertain kids, not to stand up to serious scrutiny.

There has been an overly autistic obsession with REALISM! in fiction in the past decade and a half or so, which is about the time when comics started primarily pandering to adults, so I think he has more of a point than is readily apparent.

The cursed city started back in the 40's in green lantern, it was later expanded in the 70s. It's not morrison, the rest is simple: morrison focused on Bruce as the mortal hero, the ultimate human, that's fiction expanded, not bullshit.

More like an adult man trying to appease manchildren with bullshit explanations to stop them from interfering with his job

>It's bad when other people do it, but it's okay when Morrison does it!
Every time.

See also: "It's okay when Morrison does edgy ultraviolent comics" and "It's okay when Morrison does adaptation pitch comics".

What does Grant think of the term 'graphic novels'?

It's just a jumping off point for those adults so constricted by their perceptions of reality that they cannot accept that fiction can have any value if it's not directly tied to it.

I disagree with Morrison completely
I can accept illogical premises but not illogical conclusions derived from them.

Ok, Colossus becomes a bigger man made completely of steel. I accept that.
Now, lets calculate how much weight you could actually load on a steel statue the size of colossus, or how much you could hang from its feet, and let that be the range of his superhuman strength.

The reason cape comics started pander to adults was because they were the only ones who bought them. Does anyone actually know any kids who buy comics? And I stress BUY rather than pirate.

And now of course they're going totally off track by pandering not only to adults, but adults who don't even buy comics.

He's right up to a certain extent. Something being realistic isn't really important in a story, but the world in which the story is set should still be consistent. Also, I believe that most people tend to overlook the concept of plausibility in a story, or confuse it with realism. Again, something that happens in a story doesn't have to be realistic, but it should be plausible in its context.

I think these two are on point:

>post-2000 where the comics take themselves way too seriously and DEMAND the reader does too

Even though I think this trend started in the late 80's / 90's.

>Internal consistency is important, but those rules dont need to follow the ones of the real world.

Absolutely, but this Internal consistency seems to be one of the first things to go out the window when cape comics start taking themselves too seriously, or become more "grounded".

On the one hand, it's a great way to rebuke raving autists who get upset over any small creative liberty.
On the other hand, it works as a defense for poor writing/consistency and laziness.

This. Just because nobody pumps the tires or Superman's genetics working under a yellow sun only doesn't make any fucking sense IRL doesn't mean comics can't have deep and meaningful storylines.

>Is Grant Morrison right here?
*looks around*
not unless he's hiding behind the filing cabinet again

Comics started pandering primarily to adults in the late 80s

>Ok, Colossus becomes a bigger man made completely of steel. I accept that.
No, that's an illogical conclusion of transformation, where does the mass come from?

Post Hypercrisis content please.

Peekaboo, cheil.

I think you are on to something. Writers tend to excuse them doing badly.

>This is just to unlogical
>You dont understand its just a fun story, dont read too much into it, and its for kids.

>This is very dark and violence
>Thats because its for adult

>That plot is very complicated and dnt make sense
>Because its very deep

Writers like to excuse something than admit they liked it and accept some readers that they dont see it, even if they have arguments for their points.

Yes but it's fun to speculate. Fans are deeply immersed in the genre and will eat up everything. They want it to be real and many will take it too far. But they know it's not real and can admit it. It just sucks knowing that.

I appreciate it when a writer can indulge us and not make it stupid.

Shut up, Millar.

He is only half right

Stakes are fine for action, adventure, drama, and sci-fi comics, which a lot of people find fun. They can even help in comedy comics. A lot of comedy comics with stories, even short one shot stories can be helped by having stakes. If there's nothing at stake, the characters have no reason to do anything, and they have no reason to react to anything that happens.

50% right. It depends on the story and the situation.

If you have internal consistency within a universe then you don't have to over-explain something. Like for instance the singing animals in Disney movies. The audience knows that animals can't speak or sing like Disney characters do. Or for instance few question if someone would turn into the Hulk through gamma radiation because that's not possible in real life. Or thinking that Thor is implausible just because Asgardian gods don't exist in real life.

And sometimes you don't need the extra information. Groundhog Day's script originally had an explanation for why Phil Connors was reliving his life over and over (it was a voodoo curse from an ex). But if they left that in, it would've wrecked the story flow because then the other conflict would be between Phil and his ex.

But something like Millar's Nemesis would need a lot of explanation because it went from a grounded concept (Nemesis is the only known supervillain) to implausible (Nemesis walking on that plane) to what in the fucking fuck is this (rigged womb, etc)

>But something like Millar's Nemesis would need a lot of explanation because it went from a grounded concept (Nemesis is the only known supervillain) to implausible (Nemesis walking on that plane) to what in the fucking fuck is this (rigged womb, etc)

You are also forgetting that Nemesis take place in the same universe as Wanted. Why the fuck is the Fraternity allowing this guy to run rampant?

>because it's not real
Morrison wtf

>You are also forgetting that Nemesis take place in the same universe as Wanted. Why the fuck is the Fraternity allowing this guy to run rampant?

That's the other thing; he didn't claim Nemesis was part of the same world as Wanted at first. But once he did, okay, it made semi-sense that he could do all that bullshit because supervillains still secretly exist. But then it leads into your own question. Did killing off all the knock-offs of Superman and Batman villains weaken them?

Like I said earlier that's not precisely what he believes, it's just the way to break people out of their way of thinking about fiction.

>bullshit explanation that Batman could run his multibillion-dollar business by day and fight crime by night because he can sleep awaken?
That shit went right over your head, user. It was supposed to be the opposite of that.

Yes. Suspension of disbelief makes you abide by certain in-universe rules which wouldn't work in real life. Contradictions and contrivances happen when, even if given those extra benefits, there are still mistakes with the plot.

Depends on the situation/individual comic. A lot harder with ongoing things, but in self-contained stories or universes it's a lot easier. Comics don't need to be either "all fun" or "all serious." Could be one or the other, or a mix of both.