Tag Archive 'J. Michael Straczynski'

Friday, January 11, 2008

THE TWELVE #1

THE TWELVE #1Publisher: Marvel Comics
Writer: J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI
Art: CHRIS WESTON
Colored By: CHRIS CHUCKRY
Lettered By: COMICRAFT
32 PAGES, $2.99

Golden Age heroes fighting for America during World War Two are captured in Germany by Nazis and put into Nazi deep freeze. The Nazis then get their ass kicked by the Russians. Nobody knows about these American heroes that have been placed into Nazi deep freeze. They remain in their state of Nazi deep freeze until 2008 when they are found by construction workers.

Evidently if there was one thing Nazis knew in 1945 was how to put superheroes into deep freeze. When they are frozen, they stay frozen.

This is when it gets a little kooky. For some reason, the U.S. Army is somehow able to take possession of the superheroes. Why exactly is beyond me. A general who had just recently watched the movie “The Untouchables” gets an idea. He quotes the “Sean Connery character” who says, “If you want to avoid getting a bad apple, don’t take it from the barrel. You take it from the tree.” He believes that these still Nazi deep frozen superheroes are the tree. They come from a time when the United States is beyond question the good guy and because of this will do anything the government tells them to do.

Maybe Kooky is too strong a word.

The heroes are then taken back to the United States where they are led to believe it’s still 1945. The belief is that the shock of finding out that it’s 2008 would just be too much for these superheroes to bare. Then again, if the idea is to get superheroes who are patriotic and believe everything their government tells them, maybe it’s not a good idea to start out lying to them.

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN writer J. Michael Straczynski has responded to some of the comments made by Marvel Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada in an ongoing, five-part interview with Comic Book Resources. Straczynski’s response says everything you need to know about the silliness presented in the “One More Day” arc. I think it explains why JMS wanted his named taken off the book. Newsarama received an e-mail from Straczynski explaining his position.

This is what he wrote:

Having seen Joe’s third interview on OMD, I think he raised a lot of fair issues. I think most of it represents accurately our conversations. It does, however, omit some of the main concerns I had with the resolution…concerns not mentioned therein, most probably as an oversight. As you know from my prior email, I was content not to respond to the prior interviews because I don’t need to have the last word. (Newsarama Note: this last was in reference to Straczynski’s earlier e-mail mentioned earlier in which he declined a “One More Day” post mortem conversation.)

But there are some vital omissions in the interview, including the primary reason I finally threw up my hands on the book, which had mainly to do with how the resolution was handled.

To explain, here’s the conversation I had with Marvel, in sum:

“So what does Mephisto do?” I ask.

“He makes everybody forget Peter’s Spider-Man.”

“Uh, huh. So Aunt May’s still in the hospital –”

“No, he saves Aunt May.”

“But if all he does is save her life and make everybody forget he’s Spidey, she still has a scar on her midsection.”

“No, he makes that go away too.”

“Okay…:

“Then he wakes up in her house.”

“The house that was burned down?”

“Right.”

“But how –”

“Mephisto undoes that as well.”

“Okay. And the guys who shot at Peter and May and were killed, they’re alive too? Mephisto can bring guys back from the dead?”

“It’s all part of the spell.”

“And Doc Strange can’t tell?”

“No,”

“And the newspaper articles? News footage?”

“Joe, it’s been forgotten.”

“I’m just asking is that stuff there or not there?”

“Not there. And Peter’s web shooters are back.”

“Is this the same spell or a different spell?”

“Same spell.”

“How does making people forget he’s Spidey bring back his web shooters?”

“It’s magic, okay?”

“I see. And Harry’s back.”

“Right.”

“And Mephisto does this too.”

“Yep.”

“So is Harry back from the dead, or has he been alive? If they ask him, hey Harry, what did you do last summer, will he remember? And the year before? And the year before? If he says they all went on a picnic two years ago, will they remember it?”

“It’s –”

“Because if he now has a life he remembers, if he’s not back from the dead, then you’ve changed the continuity you said you didn’t want to change. Those are your only options: he was brought back from the dead, and there’s a grave, and people remember him dying –”

“Mephisto changes THEIR memories too.”

“– or he’s effectively been alive as far as our characters know, so he’s been alive all along, so either way as far as our characters are concerned, continuity’s been violated going back to 1971.

How do you explain that?”

“It’s magic, we don’t have to explain it.”

And that’s the part I had a real problem with, maybe the single biggest problem. There’s this notion that magic fixes everything. It doesn’t. “It’s magic, we don’t have to explain it.” Well, actually, yes, you do. Magic has to have rules. And this is clearly not just a case of one spell making everybody forget he’s Spidey…suddenly you’re bringing back the dead, undoing wounds, erasing records, reinstating web shooters, on and on and on.

What I wanted to do was to make one small change to history, a tiny thing, whose ripples we could control to only touch what editorial wanted to touch, making changes we could explain logically. I worked for weeks to come up with a timeline that would leave every other bit of continuity in place. It was rigorous, and as logical as I could make it. In the end of OMD as published, Harry is alive and he’s always been alive as far as the characters know…so how is that different than he was alive the whole time?

It made no sense to me.

Still doesn’t. It’s sloppy. It violates every rule of writing fiction of the fantastic that I and every other SF/Fantasy writer knows you can’t violate. It’s fantasy 101.

It troubled me that it’s MJ and not Peter who is the one to actively make the decision.

I’d originally written the first issue of OMD to take place directly after May gets shot, and in fact turned in the first script directly after she gets nailed. Editorial decided to build in a block of issues for One More Day…meaning May would be in that bed for almost a *year* which I thought was just too long to make work.

And yes, I wanted to retcon the Gwen twins out of continuity, which was something I always assumed I could do at the end of my run. I wasn’t allowed to do this, and yes, it pissed me off. I felt I was left holding the bag for something I wanted to get rid of, and taking the rap for a writing lapse that I had never committed. Why this aspect was not brought up in the other interview, you’d have to ask Joe.

Mainly, the book was rewritten in the editorial offices to a degree that the words weren’t mine any longer, to a certain degree in three, and massively in four. If the work represents me, I leave the name there and take the rap; if it doesn’t, then that’s a different situation. There’s just not much of my work there, especially once you get to the last dong of midnight…everything after that was written by editorial.

Whether my work is good or it sucks, it’s mine. What came out of the end of OMD wasn’t, hence my desire to omit the writing credit. Joe graciously offered to share it on the last issue. I think that helped. Credit where credit is due.

What I don’t want is for this to turn into a public pissing match. Joe did what he did because he thought it was the right thing to do, and as EIC that’s his call, not mine. I respect and admire him. I hope this will be the end of the matter.

I just felt that there were some important bits not addressed, that needed to be.

Comic Book Resources continues with part 3 of a 5-part interview with Marvel Editor-In-Chief Joe Quesada concerning the recent storyline involving Spider-Man. Quesada has long made it known that he believes having Peter Parker/Spider-Man married to Mary Jane Watson was a big mistake. He believes that it somehow curtails good story telling by having the character married. Or he thinks that kids can’t relate to a married character. It’s hard to keep track of the many reasons Quesada has for not wanting Spider-Man married.

Quesada’s reasons seem to change a lot.

If the belief that Spider-Man must be a single to craft interesting stories seems silly, the method Quesada uses to achieve this objective seems absolutely insane - Spider-Man makes a deal with the Devil that will save his elderly aunt from dying if he allows the Devil to not only magically undue his marriage, but to make everyone magically forget that they were even married. As though the marriage never happened. Oh, and the Devil also agrees to make everyone magically forget that Peter Parker is Spider-Man. A fact everyone knows ever since he removed his mask on national television and announced that he was Peter Parker (see CIVIL WAR #2).

Needless to say, fans have been critical of this magical storyline.

In the Comic Book Resources interview, Quesada is asked why he didn’t just have Peter and Mary Jane get a divorce. It’s a good question. Here is Quesada’s reply:

Sure, that would have been a very easy solution. However, how would a parent feel when they had to explain to their kid that Spider-Man just got divorced from his wife? How would that headline read across the AP or on USA today? The same can be said with an annulment. Sure, divorce is a reality of life, but Peter Parker and Spider-Man are not the types of characters that would do that. Spider-Man is a worldwide icon and is considered one of the good guys, like Superman.

Not the type of characters that would do that? What is that supposed to mean? I’m sure the people that have gone through a divorce would like to know. Speaking as just such a person, I certainly would like to know.

Someone can’t be considered a good guy if they have been divorced? This hits a nerve with me. Normally one only finds this type of ignorant bigotry at an evangelical church, not in a comic book.

So Peter Parker isn’t the type of character to get a divorce, but he is the type character to enter into a magical arraignment with the Devil? The inference is that it’s better to strike a deal with Satan then it is to get divorced. Either way Peter is breaking his marriage vows. One requires him to enter into an unholy pact with Satan, the other requires him to sign a bunch of paperwork and pay a lawyer.

Joe Quesada picks option number one evidently because it makes him a better person.

Quesada claims parents would have had a hard time explaining Spider-Man getting a divorce. Imagine how hard it will be for them to put a positive spin on Spider-Man entering into an agreement with Satan.

How is that preferable to getting a divorce?

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The Sensational Spider-Man #41

The Sensational Spider-Man #41Writer J. Michael Straczynski
Pencils: Joe Quesada
Inker: Danny Miki
Colorist: Richard Isanove

This book turned out not to be nearly has bad as I thought it was going to be. My expectations were extremely low. The Internet told me what was supposed to happen in this story. Plus, the cover looks remarkably like a cover of Wizard magazine. I can’t help but think that’s a bad sign.

It really wasn’t that mad. I still don’t agree with the path this story is taking the Spider-Man franchise. I’ve already explained why that is. Straczynski’s writing is up to it’s usual greatness and Quesada certainly knows what to do with the pointy end of a pencil.

This comic cost a whole $3.99 and the story was over before I even hit the staples. The rest of the book contained a long and detailed bio on Mephisto (Satan). Stuff you wont find in the Bible. It also contains a reprint of THE SILVER SURFER #3. It’s the first appearance of the Mephisto.

It wasn’t that bad.