|
So I'm going to start by saying that, if you absolutely feel you MUST rewrite this, you might want to start by actually knowing things about HOW to write. It's very clear to me that the people rewriting this comic have ZERO IDEA how storytelling actually functions, and if they have opinions, their "fixes" do nothing to help them.
1) Right off the bat, it's clear that these writers do NOT understand how visual storytelling works. This for me is perhaps best shown by two things: first, is the joke that the writers threw into the dialogue in Page 14 of Part 3 that lampshades Nate's pose in those panels. This is a joke that seems to ignore that the emphasis is on the surroundings, and that it is meant as a non-literal interpretation of a passage of time.
Granted, that COULD have worked as a subtle bit of meta-humor. But first of all, this is not that kind of comic: meta-humor tends to work better when the entire work is in on it, not just one throwaway joke. But the reason I think this indicates a misunderstanding of how visual storytelling works is when you combine it with the second thing: their reference to punching up the color palate of Gavin's priest story. This shows that they CLEARLY don't understand that Kimmykun's use of palette was visual storytelling short-hand to orient the viewer so they could know what tone to expect the story to have. People use muted color palettes ALL THE TIME in visual storytelling to give a sense of mood, in things ranging from "O Brother, Where Art Thou" to "Heavy Rain" and back again. The fact that they punched up the colors shows an astounding lack of understanding of how visual storytelling works, and that thus colors every other time they rewrite something and try to lampshade a choice with the visual storytelling.
2) Then, they don't seem to understand a lot of the more subtle storytelling cues in Kimmykun's original comic, and thus they erase a lot of the more subtle moments, replacing them with over-the-top writing that would make most Saturday morning cartoon villains proud.
For me, nothing says this clearer than the way Wallace's parents are rewritten: in the original comic, Wallace's parents were more supportive, and the fact that the family was more supportive was supposed to stand in direct counterpoint to Nate's more self-doubting nature. Wallace is more confident in who he is, and it's implied through the storytelling of the original that it was because he had a nurturing support system and that was why he could be so open to begin with. It helped establish Wallace as a really good counterpoint to Nate.
So of course, Wallace's mother gets turned into a Fox News junkie that gets soap box lectures from her son, because subtle storytelling is just that hard, apparently.
This permeates practically every other rewritten character beat in the piece, from the ram priest's argument with Gavin to the way Jackie and his parents are handled, and on every front subtle storytelling beats are bulldozed over. To me, this indicates that these writers did NOT have the werewithal to realize that storytelling is just as much about what you say as it is what you DON'T say.
3) It's clear these people don't understand that characters making bad decisions in the service of characterization is NOT, in fact, bad writing.
This is perhaps best characterized by Nate and how his LiveJournal gets reworked in this version. The reworking with the grudge-holding student presses suspension of disbelief to its limit, and it also doesn't seem to understand how setup and payoff is supposed to work, but that's nothing compared to the fact that Nate's shitty actions are an extension of his own insecurities with who he is. What "Call Me Yours" seems to be headed towards is Nate getting over his habit of living vicariously through his friends to a place where he's more comfortable with his own sexuality, and his actions with the blog are an extension of that.
Thus, while naming names is a really shitty thing to do, it's not necessarily bad writing because it IS in service to characterization. Therefore, the way that plot thread is rewritten is cheap, shallow, and incredibly out of place.
4) Now, does that mean the comic is perfeclty written? No. There are real flaws with Kimmykun's writing. But even THIS the authors of this retooling bungle up, and I can think of no better way to demonstrate this than with the way Bradley's arc is rewritten.
They state in the author's note that they didn't like how "Bradley got to have his cake and eat it too". Alright, fair enough. But this glosses over the fact that, to me, Bradley's conversation with his boyfriend's mother is an expression of buyer's remorse. This plays into the conversation about "characters making bad decisions is bad writing" because it tries to act like Bradley should be saintly. But he suggests the divorce and gets cold with Jackie precisely BECAUSE of this "buyer's remorse".
But the thing that really differentiates this from the way Nate's arc was rewritten is one simple thing: their "fix" didn't even actually address the problem. See, Bradley's characterization is NOT the problem with that arc: the real problem with it is from a tone standpoint. The reason it feels like the comic is trying to have its cake and eat it too is because it plays the threesome stuff for fetish fuel, before then suddenly introducing the mother and framing what we just saw in a completely different way. Was the handling of that indelicate? Sure. But it's not anything that a revised draft couldn't fix, because what that scene needed was a streamlined tone that toned down the fetish fuel and played up the creep factor.
But our writers do not seem to get that. Nor do they objectively understand that, when you make Bradley less crazy, most people would dispense with the page that implies that Bradley goes along with the threesome even despite his initial reservations. Their fix is essentially like trying to fix a flat tire by replacing the rear-view mirror: they have tried to fix a real problem by replacing something that never contributed to the problem to begin with.
5) The added pop culture references are in bad taste. They generally serve no purpose and are just dumb. The Audrey II reference came out of nowhere, and the Dark Side joke they throw in with the member of the congregation is REALLY off-color considering it's in the half of "Call Me Father" in which shit gets serious.
6) The dialogue is just way, way hammier, and NONE of it feels authentic. It also feels like the writers don't understand how these kinds of people actually talk, from the way a gay person would address homophobic parents (hint: they wouldn't just nonchalantly go "Faux News" the way they do here), through Jackie's weird "mommy" comments ("daddy" fetish does not work like that), even down to the fact that NO CONGREGATION ON PLANET EARTH SAYS "VERSE 14 THEN SAYS" IN THE MIDDLE OF A SCRIPTURE READING. The writers don't seem to have much experience in any of these things, and it shows.
7) The typos! "Experiange"? "Pallette"? "Vers", said immediately after you spelled it correctly for the context in question?
----**----
I could go on and continue to get in-depth on all these things, but I'm not going to do that, for the simple reason that I'm fairly sure these criticisms will fall on deaf ears.
I mean, the sheer arrogance it takes to say "there are things I don't like about this story, so I'm going to write it better" when everything about the way they decide to tell their retooled story demonstrates they don't know a DAMN THING about storytelling is incredible. The hubris these people must have to do this without the creator's permission is incredibly screwed up. And the way they say "support the official release" is really just a wonderful way of saying "we want you to support him even though we think our writing of it is better".
This is nothing short of theft, and the KIRA group deserves every negative reaction they get for what they've done. Frankly, they should consider themselves extremely fortunate that Kimmykun was as diplomatic in his answer as he was, because they frankly do NOT deserve that kind of diplomatic answer.
The hubris that it took to steal someone else's work and say "hey, I can do better than this" is absolutely DISGUSTING, and this should not be excused no matter what.
Shame on you, KIRA Group. Shame. On. You.
|
