InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "i like hair bands"

Doop (xdoop) wrote in scans_daily,
@ 2009-07-08 14:32:00

Entry tags:

char: elasti-girl/rita farr, char: robotman/cliff steele, creator: john byrne, group: doom patrol, publisher: dc comics, title: doom patrol

Doom Patrol v4 #13

This is from Doom Patrol v4 #13, by John Byrne.

13 years ago, Robotman wakes up in bed with his girlfriend Julia.

The Doom Patrol realize that Robotman went back in time to prevent the racing accident that destroyed his human body.

Robotman calls his manager and tells him he won't be racing.

(Post a new comment)

	icon_uk 2009-07-08 07:44 pm UTC (link)
	All squickiness aside, I see the same thing that always bugged me in QL is also in place here; ignorable body differential. Not everyone that Sam leaped into could possibly have been the same height and weight as he is, and yet it never seemed to matter when people looked him in the eye. Surely Cliff would have noticed he was kissing someone who was 4'10"? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	kamino_neko 2009-07-08 08:24 pm UTC (link)
	Quite...she is TINY compared to him... Everything about Li'l Rita's scale just makes my head hurt, even before the smooching with Cliff - the bed, the bike... (Reply to this) (Parent)

newnumber6
2009-07-08 08:29 pm UTC (link)

It's science!, it doesn't have to make sense.

Actually, in early seasons of QL (thoguh they changed it later), it was at least implied that it was much like it was here, at least described. It's the MIND going back in time. Even if it looks to us, the viewers, like the body is different. So we the viewers would be seeing the self-image.

They quickly changed it for QL of course, and I believe the prevelant explanation was that Sam's body was actually being "spatially mapped" on to the body, so space was warped such that he always fit into the body - people who looked into his eyes weren't looking up, we just saw it that way as a viewers.

Of course, then they screwed with that, by having Sam be able to walk while the person he leaped into had no legs. I liked QL, but continuity was not its strong point.

Here I don't really know how it works since they see each other as heir 'real' selves (which doesn't make any logical sense at all), but mostly it looks like it's the self-image idea. Sort of like phantom limb syndrome, I guess... phantom body syndrome, they still see what their mind expects to.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	jlroberson 2009-07-08 11:24 pm UTC (link)
	A more obvious question. About his gal, and "breakfast." He may LOOK the same to her, but, well, I don't think Cliff is that complete, anatomically, do you? I get the feeling she'd get very suspicious soon. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	unknownscribler 2009-07-09 04:30 am UTC (link)
	Reminds me of the episode where Sam leaps into a crippled army vet whom the nurse abusing him eventually saw walk around without legs. Then there was always the translation convention that Sam effortlessly fit into the clothes of the people he replaced, even when he was replacing a child. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bariman1987 2009-07-09 08:22 am UTC (link)
	And then there was the time he lept into a pregnant woman and almost gave birth. And another time when he lept into a monkey... (Reply to this) (Parent)

	aaron_bourque 2009-07-08 07:49 pm UTC (link)
	Goddammit, Byrne. (Reply to this)

	fungo_squiggly 2009-07-08 07:52 pm UTC (link)
	So I guess it's now Byrne's Lolita Fetish Week? All taken together, it's less a matter of "it makes you wonder about Byrne" than "that's more than I wanted to know." (Reply to this)

	yaseen101 2009-07-08 07:57 pm UTC (link)
	I snickered...okay laughed at the last two pages, am I crazy or do I have a bad sense of humour. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	runespoor7 2009-07-08 08:09 pm UTC (link)
	I don't know but you're not alone. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Uh, folks, I think we need to be careful what we imply about Byrne... besamim 2009-07-08 08:08 pm UTC (link)
	Let's not forget that it was PAD-slamming that got s_d 1.0 shut down. If Byrne finds out people are implying he's some sort of pedo, don't think he won't take action. I'm not joking. Please, let's stop this now. (Reply to this) (Thread)

No it wasn't.

nefrekeptah
2009-07-08 08:38 pm UTC (link)

What happened is that someone posted pages from a then-recent issue that were heavy on the spoilers, after Peter David specifically requested that no one do that. He complained to someone, and they shut down the old scans daily. It was NOT because we were posting random pages that David wrote some ten years ago, and it was NOT because anyone here was slamming Peter David. I don't even think anyone WAS slamming Peter David, as he's a pretty good writer, and X-factor's a good book.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: No it wasn't. gargoylekitty 2009-07-08 10:00 pm UTC (link)
	While it is true that the pages were probably more of the cause, there was a fair amount of PAD bashing in the same post. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: No it wasn't. jlbarnett 2009-07-10 09:22 pm UTC (link)
	I really think it was the bashing. I mean not posting the pages is only a request. WOuld he be able to shut down a group where a person just describe it in vivid detail (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Uh, folks, I think we need to be careful what we imply about Byrne... jlroberson 2009-07-08 11:22 pm UTC (link)
	I would suggest this falls under "criticism and analysis." And it is a fair point that he does seem to keep returning to this March-September romance theme. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Uh, folks, I think we need to be careful what we imply about Byrne... foxhack 2009-07-09 01:15 am UTC (link)
	I don't think he's uh, that, but this has been a recurring theme in his stories. I think of it as being the same situation as the mild-manner writer who writes novels or stories about serial killers. He may write about the subject, but that doesn't mean he would go out and kill people because of it. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Uh, folks, I think we need to be careful what we imply about Byrne...

jlroberson
2009-07-09 01:44 am UTC (link)

No, of course not. That would have been like accusing Michael Fleischer of being a potential serial killer/rapist on the basis of that first novel of his.(and some folks got sued for saying something that wasn't that, and Mike lost) He's a bad writer but no criminal.

And Byrne lacks taste, but I don't think nor allege any pedo here. At the same time: it's a theme he seems to return to, and when he depicts it it's in some detail. So it's entirely valid to point this out and ask why.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Uh, folks, I think we need to be careful what we imply about Byrne... foxhack 2009-07-09 02:02 am UTC (link)
	Maybe he likes to poke the hornet's nest? See how people react to this sort of story? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: Uh, folks, I think we need to be careful what we imply about Byrne...

jlroberson
2009-07-09 02:16 am UTC (link)

Possibly. I will say this: I like how he draws Rita.

Here's something to consider, however. In at least two of these examples, this one and the one from Generations posted before, we have a reluctant older man practically being begged by a much younger girl to kiss her(and in both cases a significant amount of idolization by said girl). It may not be a pedo fantasy, but it's certainly a male fantasy and somewhat sexist in how he loads it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Uh, folks, I think we need to be careful what we imply about Byrne... unknownscribler 2009-07-09 04:32 am UTC (link)
	There's a difference between DIAF and the reasonable academic examination of past works and deriving a theory / interpretation based on what they describe. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2009-07-08 08:18 pm UTC (link)
	Wait, wait, wait. She goes on the internet to see where Cliff was headed? How old would that make her.. Also, that's a pretty selfish reason to make him crash 'I wouldn't be the woman I am today!' tsk. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	kamino_neko 2009-07-08 08:35 pm UTC (link)
	This came out somewhere in the 2004-2006 area, so, given she was 13 when it happened...had graduated college by the time Cliff got his body (putting a lower bound of 22 on it, unless she's an extreme genius)...23 or 24 is the most likely. Wouldn't say more than 25. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	bariman1987 2009-07-09 03:40 am UTC (link)
	23 or 24 is the most likely. Wouldn't say more than 25. That would make her only a couple years older than her adopted son, Gar "Beast Boy" Logan. Yeesh. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kamino_neko 2009-07-09 03:57 am UTC (link)
	Byrne's reboot played all sorts of havoc with a lot of characters, Gar not the least of them. Not only was Rita only a couple years older than Gar, per Byrne, he was an active hero longer than she. Steve Dayton (Mento, her husband when she was raising Gar) was a VILLAIN longer than she was a hero. Obviously, Steve and Rita never raised Gar. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	unknownscribler 2009-07-09 04:34 am UTC (link)
	The Internet didn't exist outside the education system until teh late 90s, yes? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kamino_neko 2009-07-09 05:10 am UTC (link)
	Not really. It wasn't common by any stretch, but by the mid-90s, it wasn't exactly unknown. The Web wasn't dominant, yet, but email groups, Usenet, and IRC channels would be both available and quite useful for Rita's purposes. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	foxhack 2009-07-09 09:04 pm UTC (link)
	I was using it all the way back in 1995 in my rinkydink hometown. Hell, we had internet cafes back then. (Reply to this) (Parent)

starwolf_oakley
2009-07-08 08:29 pm UTC (link)

The mention of Lolita reminds me of "Speed 2: Cruise Control" of all things.

Early in the movie, Alex and Annie are watching Lolita in their cabin. Later in the movie, Alex rescues a teenage deaf girl, who lets him know via sign language she'll soon be 17. Alex both signs and says, "I'm flattered, but I've been told that relationships based on extreme circumstances never work out."

Does this means Jason Patric should play Robotman in the Doom Patrol movie? Perhaps.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	fungo_squiggly 2009-07-08 08:31 pm UTC (link)
	The mention of Lolita reminds me of "Speed 2: Cruise Control" of all things. Crap. Now I'm remembering that movie... and that's something I hoped never to do. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	I Think I See A Pattern jlroberson 2009-07-08 10:20 pm UTC (link)
	Why does Byrne like this theme so much? http://asylums.insanejournal.com/scans_daily/619968.html http://asylums.insanejournal.com/scans_daily/622591.html (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: I Think I See A Pattern halloweenjack 2009-07-09 04:25 pm UTC (link)
	You missed one. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: I Think I See A Pattern jlroberson 2009-07-09 08:59 pm UTC (link)
	Good heavens. Yes, this is a pattern. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	volksjager 2009-07-08 11:54 pm UTC (link)
	I remember this book got tossed under a bus real quick. (Reply to this)

	porringer 2009-07-09 12:37 am UTC (link)
	Those first two panels really reminded me of Madman comics. I don't think it's just the person-completely-wrapped-in-bandages. Just me? (Reply to this)

	his_spiffyness 2009-07-09 03:43 am UTC (link)
	So, this is John Byrne lolicon week now? (Reply to this)

rab62
2009-07-09 04:36 am UTC (link)

There's one other aspect of this story apart from the obvious I'm surprised no one has noted.

Apparently, you can completely steal the concept and distinctive visual shorthand of a television show -- against all logic and sense -- and get away with this laziness and lack of creative effort by having the characters mention the original source over and over again so you can call it "homage."

Yes, Byrne would make the argument that this was not plagiarism -- passing the ideas of another off as his own -- because how could it be when he repeatedly acknowledges the original source? But I don't call this plagiarism. I just call it outrageous hackery.

(Reply to this)

jlroberson
2009-07-10 02:45 am UTC (link)

Even leaving aside everything else--what right has she got to ask him to do all this for her benefit? She's asking Cliff to become a COMPLETE AMPUTEE for her. I mean, who cares ultimately if there's a Doom Patrol, if that's what it comes down to?

It's truly perverse if you look at it. "I had the biggest crush on you when you were human and I was a little girl, but when I saw you as a disembodied brain, I fell in love! If you don't get killed I can't fall in love with you!" What the fuck good does her falling in love with him do him, if he ends up like this, anyway? Seriously, a villain wouldn't try to trick someone with a reason that lame and overtly self-serving. I mean, it makes you wonder just what her "love" means. It would be like if Comet could be turned human again, and wanted to, but Supergirl prevented it because she liked him better as a horse, as her pet.

I may also be saying that because I don't care about this one. It's Drake's and Morrison's DP I like, and I always found Byrne's snotty contempt for Morrison's annoying.

I also agree that the QL conceit is lame. I don't call it plagiarism, because he's saved himself from that by repeatedly mentioning it, in a really stupid and clumsy way that makes Byrne seem like a middle-aged man trying to dress like a teen. No, it's just lame, graceless and unimaginative writing.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	kamino_neko 2009-07-10 07:26 am UTC (link)
	Byrne's is the only DP I haven't liked - I have a hard time reading through the heavy silver-ageism of Drake's, sometimes, but I do like the stories and general characterization...Kupperberg's and Pollack's are highly under-rated, IMO; Morrison's is rightfully loved; and Arcudi's is my absolute favourite. Byrne's was painful. Looking forward to Giffen's. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	kamino_neko 2009-07-10 07:29 am UTC (link)
	And, yeah...Byrne's comments re: Morrison's DP (and Alan Moore's Demon) were absurd... (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-07-10 09:51 am UTC (link)
	Byrne is Dexter in 'Mazing Man. (there was an issue where a British writer came in and took over Dexter's book) Also, Crazy Jane would NEVER have asked Cliff to go through that again for her. (Reply to this) (Parent)

psychop_rex
2009-07-10 04:05 am UTC (link)

Frankly, I don't really get what the big deal is. I mean, yes, she's younger than he is, but he's NOT kissing a 13-year old, he's kissing his teammate, who's in her twenties. Everyone else sees them as a regular guy and a little girl, but they're really Robotman and Elastigirl - the issue here is that everyone ELSE thinks something twisted is going on, not that something actually IS.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-07-10 09:48 am UTC (link)
	I think that she should probably take care of her hepatitis first. Unless that's just a really strange coloring job. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	psychop_rex 2009-07-10 08:33 pm UTC (link)
	I didn't notice anything weird about her coloring... (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	jlroberson 2009-07-10 08:37 pm UTC (link)
	She's bright orange. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	psychop_rex 2009-07-10 09:05 pm UTC (link)
	I read that as 'tan', personally - she DID used to be a film star (In the original continuity, anyway). Caucasian skin tones are a tricky thing to get right. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

jlroberson
2009-11-05 02:23 am UTC (link)

Yeahhh, but...I mean, she's only a couple of shades fleshier than CLIFF. And I see Caucasian skin tones done fine in comics all the time, and they have been for a loong time, so I don't think that's an excuse.

And look at Cliff's girlfriend, dark orange later, but earlier she's whiter than Rita. Interesting. A very garish and ugly coloring job, really. Everything is in too bright a shade. (and I hate the design of Cliff's body here--ironic given Staton's design for Cliff was obviously taken from Byrne's Rog-2000)

(Reply to this) (Parent)