Great Mark Waid interview

[imperiusrex]

From may 13th comic book resources
the entire interview is here:
www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=10535
but here was the part I loved.


RT: I always ask DC exclusive creators what they thought of "Civil War" and Marvel exclusive creators what they thought of "52." So, how'd you like "Civil War"?

MW: I think they did a better job than we did of making it a new-reader-friendly story. It certainly had its exciting moments.

I think the finale showed such a fundamental lack of understanding of who Captain America is that my jaw is still on the floor, but, oh, well.

RT: And don't forget about Iron Man!

MW: The villains won. Congratulations! Iron Man I don't care about, though. Iron Man I never liked. It's Captain America that kills me.

RT: I don't really care about Iron Man either, but now in every book he appears in, whenever he walks in a room you just want to groan. It shouldn't be like that.

MW: Basically, what made me itchy about "Civil War" is that - whether intentionally or not - the message seemed to be "give up your civil liberties and stop fighting for the things you believe in and everything will be fine." I get enough of that from the Bush administration.

But, man, it sure was a good-lookin' book. Steve McNiven is brilliantly talented.




I'm glad to see we diehard fans aren't the only ones who got that impression about Cap.
The guy who wrote the most successful version of CA in the last forty or so years, did too...

[Doctor Doom]

Firstly, Waid's Cap run RULED.... but Brubaker's is better

Secondly, we were already discussing this in AA's thread but I'l post my response here

"I was about to post that. What I love about Mark Waid (one of my favourite writers) is his frank openness. Sure, you can expect most DC writers to pregnant dog about Civil War. And many haters even bash the McNiven art which I find just stupid. But Waid, naa. He admits where Civil War kicked 52's ass- acceissibility- he admits that it had exciting moments, and he outlines what he didn't like. Obviously I disagree with him, even if he did write a brilliant Cap run, but that's fine because he's not just pointlessly whining. Hell, even look at what he says about Iron Man- the interviewer PROVOKES HIM to whine on Iron Man and yet he still doesn't, more or less dismissing Iron Man and not making too much of a judgment call because he's not a fan of the character anyway.

That is why Waid rocks. No pointless whining, no pretending he hated it all, he admits the good points and he outlines in simple terms what he felt were the bad. And he doesn't make too much of a judgement on what he doesn't know- which, with Waid, is very little!

Oh, and he even admits at the end that the real thing he doesn't like isn't the characterization or the writing, it's the message he percieves. With the one exception of Cap in CW7, obviously. Classy.

Just to note, one writer I was REALLY impressed with in those itnerviews was Adam Beechan.

"RT: What did you think about "Civil War?"

AB: I enjoyed it. I thought it was a really interesting take. I like interesting ideas that are followed relatively logically. I thought it was attacked thoughtfully and they answered questions I had as a reader as I went along."

He's DC exclusive but y'know what? So what. He liked the story and he ADMITS IT. That's what a writer should be. I get pissy when Marvel ones snot on about 52 as well, they should be like AB and admit it if they like it or like Waid and specify their problem.


EDIT: Looking through a few old ones and found another example that annoys me. Greg Rucka said the majority of it was FABULOUS and the art was amazing (exact words), but the ending was anticlimatic and therefore he disliked the entire story.

And then my later counter to Balok:

Except of course, that he SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS the end. He could easily say "THe whole thing mishandled Cap..." or "The story demonstrated such a lack..." But he DOESN'T. So he's clearly singling out the ending. Firstly this indicates he didn't have a major problem with Cap for the rest of the war and secondly it also reflects only on his view of Millar, not "The WriterS". I know iut's your natural instinct to twist this so it agrees with you the most but please. We already know and have agreed Waid is honest so there's no reason he would single out the end if he thought the entire story mishandled Cap.

[imperiusrex]

I should've known Tana would've beaten me to posing the waid interview. With the exception of the whole Bucky thing, great minds think alike... ;D