|
|
Radiation Interrogation: Warren Ellis
|
|
|
Location: Blogs Atomic FalloutRadiation Interrogation |
 |
| Posted by: Jake Bell |
Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:01 AM |
You've expressed a distaste for superhero stories in the past. What
was it about supervillains that grabbed your interest? What's the
difference between a superhero and a supervillain who's forced to do
heroic things?
I'm not a big fan of the genre, no. I don't
really much like Westerns or musical comedies, either. And who told you
that THUNDERBOLTS is about supervillains who are forced to do heroic
things? They lied. See, from a certain perspective, the
pro-registration faction of the Marvel Universe is absolutely doing the
job of the criminal fraternity. And if superhuman vigilantes need to be
placed under arrest, then, frankly, which element of society is
best-trained in fighting them? If you're not registered, you're a
criminal, and the quickest way to catch a thief is to use a thief...
An
important part of story telling is getting the reader to associate with
the main characters. How hard is it to balance making characters
likable and repulsively evil at the same time?
Well, no, it's
not an important part of storytelling. Your teachers should have their
tongues cut out and then submit to compulsory sterilization. Being
interested in the central characters is not the same as associating
with them. People don't associate with central roles in popular and
famous books such as Hannibal Lector, Macbeth, or Satan. They are
simply very very interested in them, because they are monsters, and it
is amusing to us to see them practice their trade even as we root
against them. Or for them, if we're really into, say, killing people
and wearing their skin or eating parts of them.
That said:
repulsively evil characters ARE likable. Did anyone really want Alan
Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham to lose to Kevin Costner's Robin Hood,
say? Of course not. Everyone wanted Alan Rickman to carve Costner's
heart out with a spoon, and then cut off his skin and wear it, and
dance around the castle singing show tunes while rubbing his junk over
the severed heads of the Merry Men, and...
...sorry, did I cover the question?
There
are many more villains in the Marvel Universe than heroes. How much
flexibility do you have in the characters you can add or subtract from
the team and how much rotation will there be to the roster?
I
have a Kill List and a Team List. I can swap people in and out at
random, really. I'm keeping a core team, but I will change the colors
every six issues or so.
Which of the New Thunderbolts are you
most looking forward to writing longterm? Which has been the toughest
to make interesting?
Radioactive Man is the toughest -- I'm
still kind of pacing around him. Norman Osborn himself is just a joy to
write. He's just purely, joyfully, contently evil, bless him.
The
previous incarnations of the Thunderbolts have often dealt with
villains turning over a new leaf. Is that a theme we'll continue to see
or is redemption beyond these guys? Will we be seeing Bullseye helping
out at a stray puppy shelter after his heart is filled with goodness?
Obviously,
not every member of the Thunderbolts is going to experience redemption.
And the book can be about that, too. THUNDERBOLTS, to me, is very much
set in a situation where the Good Guys have lost, and the worst people
in the world have basically been made the secret police for the
superhero community. Within that narrative shape, there is plenty of
space to explore those characters who were reaching towards redemption
before this huge obstacle was rolled into their path, and to continue
to develop that as a theme.
But it's also about complete bastards beating the hell out of superheroes. |
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
|
|
|
|
|