Anyone else tired of seeing casuals use this Grant Morrison quote

>>89718558
I always saw this as a shot at the total grognards of the world who need an in universe explanation for everything

As in you create a story about vigilante crime fighter who dresses like a bat to strike fear in his enemies and there's people who want to who does the maintenance on his car

Morrison is a hypocrite. He tells people not to make child-inappropriate stories and then he goes ahead and pumps them out himself. He only approves of darkness or negativity when it has his own name on it.

>>89718752
what, no he doesn't. You're confusing him with Moore.

>>89718558
This quote is about how even kids know that fictional stories require a suspension of disbelief to work, something that adults seem to forget when they go all out and try to seek an explanation for every facet of a story.

>>89718626
>I always saw this as a shot at the total grognards of the world who need an in universe explanation for everything

Yeah that's what I took it to mean too, but people always act like Morrison is saying comics should always been aimed at children. Which is nuts given the stuff he's actually written, I wouldn't let a kid read a lot of it.

>>89718626
I think more specifically it's that he doesn't like the people who can't comprehend context. Shit works mainly because it's not the real world and things are different there. You don't ask about the singing crab because it's a cartoon where crabs can sing and not the real universe where they don't.

>>89718626
>As in you create a story about vigilante crime fighter who dresses like a bat to strike fear in his enemies and there's people who want to who does the maintenance on his car

No, someone else did, and they created an entire universe out of it and a whole cast of characters and situations and new aspects, and a central focus that drew a lot of people in over the decades upon decades of stories is the mysteries that were uncovered, the new aspects that got discovered, and it made them want to know more about this completely fictional world. And then, when they dug into this character that inspired them so and they wanted to know more about, they eventually asked how he does the amazing things he does, who keeps that car running when it should be broken, what literally drives this character they loved so much they wanted to see so much more of. They want to know who pumps the tires because they love this world, and they want to know so much more about it. Nobody wonders how Jupiter Ascending's hoverboots work, nobody seems to think too far as to what the sword in Legend of Orin is really made of, and nobody could care less how the time traveling mailbox in The Lake House functions, because it never inspires anything like that. It's just a bad story.

People who say stuff like this don't realize it when they say "No, I don't want you to think so hard about this world, do not question parts of it I did not intend, think only in the boundaries of what I put in front of you. Do not question the parts that make it work, do not wonder about what I do not show you exactly, and only think of the themes I paint by numbers and have my characters explain, nothing else." Only the most childish of writers would ever hold a mentality like this.

When they want to know more than only what you told them, you've succeeded in a way very few ever have.

>>89718626
>there's people who want to who does the maintenance on his car
Why not ask that question? The Nolanverse asking it gave us that version of Lucius Fox, which worked extraordinarily well for the story.

>>89719370
If the story wants to explore it that's one thing, but you shouldn't get hung up on things if it doesn't get addressed. Obviously the car stays maintained so it's in peak working condition when needed and there's no real reason not to accept that as true.

>>89719107
There's a difference between being invested and being hung about a particular question in a universe not being answered.

File: robin pumps the batmobiles tires.jpg (442KB, 900x1206px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 900x1206px

>>89718558
>Who pumps the Batmobile's tires?

Robin. Next.

>>89718558
I have never seen someone interpret it that way.

>>89720135
MORRISON BTFO

>>89720181
i saw someone on twitter do it today, that's what prompted this post.

>>89719107
>Nobody wonders how Jupiter Ascending's hoverboots work

That's mostly because there's a lot more to worry about in that movie.

>>89720028
Correct, it's the difference between being 'hung up' on something to the point that a small aspect is an obsession and just wanting an unexplored yet impactful aspect of the world answered. The Batmobile works in the story, that would be enough for while it's rolling along, but when the story is concluded and reread again, why not ask how this is maintained especially if it's capabilities of speed and durability are so vital to a pivotal action scene in the story? Why not ask who pumps those tires, Batman's entire ability to chase down someone in the thing relies on it after all.

It's a made up story, so why are you so afraid to make up an answer? What are you afraid of when people ask about parts of your world, and why? If you're trying to deflect questions about your world by calling those who think about them obsessive or hung up on pointless things, what are you saying about your story?

>>89720254
I'm saying you have autism.

>>89720237
And nobody cares about any of it, was his point. You never see anybody asks this shit about Eragon, and the book actually does answer a lot of stuff.

>>89720274
And that's all you need for an answer in the end, isn't it?

Comics ARE for kids though

>>89718558

how do you misread the quote that badly

>>89720237
I'm worried it even exists.

>>89720254
It makes Morrison so hypocritical, too. ASS makes use of tons of sunlight imagery, which itself only got added onto Superman as a way to try and re-explain his developing powerset. The only reason he could use those images was because before him, someone sat down and did the "who pumps the tires" work.

>>89718558
I always hated this kind of thinking, because the logistics of how the hero operates can make for a story in itself.

>>89720237
I actually love Jupiter Ascending but the worldbuilding was the sort that didn't really invite any questions. A lot of genre offerings are like that. Everything is treated in such a way that it's never important.

Meanwhile, the world of Batman has had people delve into every aspect with the utmost gravity. it's treated with as much seriousness as one can grant a superhero. So it seems silly to start drawing arbitrary lines on what should and shouldn't be asked.

That being said, the only truly important question for almost any story is if it's well-executed enough to satisfy the people involved with creating it and/or consuming it.

>>89720501
>I actually love Jupiter Ascending
Jesus Christ

>>89718558
It is about the weird misplaced skepticism that some people apply when reading comics.

The best example? "How nobody recognizes that Clark Kent and Superman are the same person? This is BULLSHIT!"

Of course it is bullshit, you fucking idiot, but isn't more bullshit than one magical gene that transforms one human into a god.

If you're into comics, then you're already exercising your suspension of disbelief. If you draw the line in some minor detail, then you're a bigger idiot than any child.

>>89720254
>>89720395
He's not talking about being interested in something. There's nothing wrong with exploring as aspect or theorizing what it might be. He's talking about people who dismiss it outright as if it's not possible there's an internal explanation for it.

>>89720508
What can I say? It's got what might be the best Giacchino score of this decade so far and the Wachowskis can still choreograph and shoot action/chase scenes better than the vast majority of mainstream filmmakers. Just because those things were in service of a story and characters that most people didn't care for doesn't mean I'm going to stop having fun/enjoying myself.

>>89720547
>There's nothing wrong with exploring as aspect or theorizing what it might be. He's talking about people who dismiss it outright as if it's not possible there's an internal explanation for it.

Then wow did he phrase that wrong, or he super-detailed clarifies later, because saying "the adult starts asking really dumb questions like 'who pumps the batmobiles tires', It's a fucking made up story, you idiot! Nobody pumps the tires!" makes it sound like the exact opposite of what you said, there is no explanation, it's there because it's a story, stop asking these dumb fucking questions and just take it as a story.

You know, shitty writing.

>>89720712
Fuck off, autist.

>>89718558
It's Alfred, obviously. Alfred pumps the tires.

Holy shit adults over think everything. He's saying that children view things logically and employ a certain level of suspentiom of disbelief when reading comic books or watching movies while adults nitpick at all the stupid pointless little things that are just better overlooked. That's it. Jesus Christ, I'm 18 and this thread somehow made me even more miserable about becoming an adult in the last year than I already was.

I think Morrison is more pointing to dumbass normies who think they're being clever by pointing out stupid "problems" in movies, or who come up with retarded "theories" like "the crabs in Little Mermaid can sing because there was like a nuclear war and it mutated all the fish!" and other retards go "MIND = BLOWN".

Not nerds trying to parse all the tiny details of a universe, which would be ironic considering Morrison is so entranced by minutiae and making sense of the senseless.

I feel like this quote wouldn't get so much hate if he had picked a better example than "Who pumps the Batmobile's tires?" which has an obvious answer. If he had said like "How does Superman fly?" which is impossible to answer because it defies all laws of nature, it would better illustrate his point.

>>89720712
It's from Supergods and he does go on for a couple more paragraphs. flipping through now to try to find it. The gist of it was definitely against the people who will ask the questions to justify dismissing fantasy fiction though and not really about the actual analysis of concepts making sense internally.

I don't really get why people assume the worst from the part that gets quoted though when we know that he often even overthinks things. It's like they just jump on something to bitch about him.

>>89720543
>How nobody recognizes that Clark Kent and Superman are the same person? This is BULLSHIT!"
One of the most praised aspects of the Reeves Superman performance was his ability to sell exactly that, because either he or someone else on staff invested a lot of thought and time into making it work. It wouldn't have happened if they just dismissed it as story so who cares if it's believable. And the Quietly sketch of Clark's posture vs Superman's posture is constantly reposted for just how well it sells the difference, when he easily could have not cared because it's just a story.

>>89720543
Good point. Also "why doesn't Batman kill the Joker?". It's because he is fictional and literally impossible to kill, since no matter what manner of execution you come up with, he is 100% certain to come back when a writer wants to use him. It's the exact same reason heroes always get out of deathtraps and always seem to arrive just in the nick of time. Because if they DIDN'T get out of the deathtrap, or Batman DID kill the Joker, there'd be no fucking story.

>>89721255
He's talking about the people who would see those examples and think it still doesn't make sense and therefore the story is stupid and not worth paying attention to

>>89721183
>I think Morrison is more pointing to dumbass normies who think they're being clever by pointing out stupid "problems" in movies, or who come up with retarded "theories" like "the crabs in Little Mermaid can sing because there was like a nuclear war and it mutated all the fish!" and other retards go "MIND = BLOWN".

This. While we're on the topic, fuck every shitty Cracked video and fuck all the psuedo-intellectual dipshits making shit up out of nothing and completely tossing suspension of disbelief out the window who make and watch these godawful uninteresting videos for the lowest common denominator of 'nerds'.

>>89720464
It's not that writers shouldn't go there, but that you shouldn't let it bother you if the writer doesn't provide an answer. One of the fundamental principles you have to accept about capeshit is that a lot of times things just work. Not everything requires an explanation.

>>89721321
Nowhere in the quote does he say that. He says that the question itself is stupid.

>>89721195
>I don't really get why people assume the worst from the part that gets quoted though

Because it goes against what you just said, but that's fair to criticize when he clarifies afterwards. People make mistakes and don't say what they mean when trying to make a point and people take quotes out of context that completely changes their meaning and renders any problems with the phrase moot, it's honestly terrible both ways and it's one of the biggest reasons you need to cite where the source is coming from when you post a quote.

What you said is a fantastic explanation, trying to use something like that to break the fantasy is a very cynical thing to do, akin trying to rip off the head of a character at Disneyworld, and is wholly different from someone who loves Batman so much they want to know how his cool ass car works and who makes it.

>>89721370
>Not everything requires an explanation.

Well, yes and no. Pretty much every major aspect of a story requires A explanation, it's just the level of detail that varies. We need to know why Superman can fly, but we'll accept it at "he's an alien.' Sure, you can ask "How does his alien biology let him fly?" along with it, and it'll probably provide a fantastic answer, but if he character has no reason to ask that, like say he's had it all his life, then the audience at least has an explanation enough to understand the story. Why can the crab sing? Because she's a mermaid. There's the explanation.

Why does this crazy old kook have a magic laser sword? He was a part of a group who all dicked around with magic laser swords. Why does he have Luke's Dad's sword? Because they were friends. There, explanation made, and we don't have to go into full detail his rise and fall of that just yet. It might even be a shitty story when you do find out, but the point is the audience has an explanation now, you have to give them something. Just tell us Batman is rich, and we'll assume he can buy a tank. Sure, we'll want to know who builds a tank if we like the story, or won't care if we don't, but at least in universe there's an explanation. Everything vital in your story has to have an explanation, it's important, otherwise it's just something you didn't think through.

>>89721195
I still can't find the quote but he does go on about a couple of nerd discussion headcanons anyway if you wanted proof that he's not against it.

>If Superman had a wet dream, would he flood the world with indestructible supersperm capable of tunneling through women's bellies to reach the eggs packed within?

>The answer is "no," if you believe that the Man of Tomorrow's essentially alien sperm wouldn't bother to seek out human eggs; and "yes," if you think that Kryptonian supersperm would naturally be capable of fertilizing anything., including cats, dogs, cattle, horses, and winsome quid - in which case we'd have a lot more to worry about than just undying spermatozoa.

>>89720135
>he has his own peculiar code of honor. And that code does not include clumsy brutal crimes

All these years we've had the wrong joker!

>>89721645
What I said:

>not everything in capeshit requires an explanation

What you took away:

>Nothing in capeshit requires an explanation

>>89722223
There are three of them, after all

>>89721195
Ok I finally found it and it's also online so I don't have to type the whole thing myself. Pages 55-56 if anyone wanted to check their own copy:

>In Wertham’s diagnosis, then, children were too underdeveloped to separate the outlandish fantasy in their comic books from everyday reality, and this made them vulnerable to barely concealed homosexual and antisocial content.

>I tend to believe the reverse is true: that it’s adults who have the most trouble separating fact from fiction. A child knows that real crabs on the beach do not sing or talk like the cartoon crabs in The Little Mermaid. A child can accept all kinds of weird-looking creatures and bizarre occurrences in a story because the child understands that stories have different rules that allow for pretty much anything to happen.

>Adults, on the other hand, struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life. Adults foolishly demand to know how Superman can possibly fly, or how Batman can possibly run a multibillion-dollar business empire during the day and fight crime at night, when the answer is obvious even to the smallest child: because it’s not real.

I misremembered the context (thought it was more directly discussed rather than an aside in the Wertham part) but I think it's still enough to tell that he's talking about people not wanting to buy in on a concept and not really fans/creators having fun with ideas.

>>89718626
It's a shot at realismfags who try to punch holes in fiction, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

>>89718752
Literally not what he said, but I'm not surprised an illiterate would hate Morrison.

>>89722712
NDT is proof that social media was a mistake. What a fucking cunt.

>>89720543
I've seen people use the fact that Reed Richards doesn't cure cancer as their primary argument against comic books as a whole. People just look for excuses to tell themselves they're smarter than fiction.