Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum Page of 2 Next >>
Topic: Q for JB: Superman & aging (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Jeremy Simington
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 April 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 687
Posted: 13 January 2015 at 7:37am | IP Logged | 1  

JB, I just read WORLD OF KRYPTON and have been thinking about Superman and the aging process. In WOK, Kryptonians are long-lived even without clone part replacement (if I'm interpreting your work correctly). I know in GENERATIONS you show Superman as extremely long-lived. Does Superman age slowly because he's Kryptonian, because he's super-powered, or a combination of these factors? Thanks!
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132628
Posted: 13 January 2015 at 8:38am | IP Logged | 2  

Superman is a fictional character, so properly he should not age at all. I know this seems at odds with the fact that we can look into "the Future" and see him older, or into "the Past" and see him younger -- but here in "the middle," he should be the same age all the time, as should everyone else in his world.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7512
Posted: 13 January 2015 at 11:12am | IP Logged | 3  

I wish more current creators, editors and publishers understood this.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
Posted: 13 January 2015 at 1:32pm | IP Logged | 4  

Everything starts to unravel when creators insist that time is "passing." For example, in MAN OF STEEL, it's established that whatever attraction Lois might have for Clark Kent is overwhelmed by her annoyance with his "scooping" her for the first Superman storyline. In "real life" (or even the "reality" of a TV series where the characters visibly age), this would eventually be resolved, but in comic book time, it can remain a key dynamic indefinitely -- with only the illusion of change having Lois close to "forgiving" Clark and then it all reverting to "normal."

I still smile whenever I read an old BATMAN comic when Batman would discuss an old adventure with a 12-year-old Robin and in the flashback Robin is still... 12 years old. The correct audience didn't catch this and if they did, they didn't care.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Jeremy Simington
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 April 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 687
Posted: 13 January 2015 at 8:17pm | IP Logged | 5  

Thanks, JB!
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132628
Posted: 13 January 2015 at 8:48pm | IP Logged | 6  

Everything starts to unravel when creators insist that time is "passing." For example, in MAN OF STEEL, it's established that whatever attraction Lois might have for Clark Kent is overwhelmed by her annoyance with his "scooping" her for the first Superman storyline. In "real life" (or even the "reality" of a TV series where the characters visibly age), this would eventually be resolved, but in comic book time, it can remain a key dynamic indefinitely -- with only the illusion of change having Lois close to "forgiving" Clark and then it all reverting to "normal."

•••

I've often found myself in contention with writers who think thus-and-such problem should be resolved "by now." I've wasted many an hour trying to impress on these folk that "by now" is a concept that works only in a context in which something like real time is passing, not in one in which time is essentially reset with the first page of every issue/story.

And that's even without those who want to know who or what is CAUSING time to reset!!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8515
Posted: 14 January 2015 at 12:06am | IP Logged | 7  

Such investigations into the nature of time and the characters' relationship to it belay the essential point of storytelling: finding out what happens next.

The ones who engage in these bouts of navel-gazing may tell you that what they're doing is the same thing. After all, how many "next things" can believably or even possibly happen to a character? Shouldn't someone be counting them? Shouldn't we keep a running tally on how times Peter Parker has fought the Vulture? Shouldn't they all "count?" If they don't, then isn't the next already dead in the water before we've written it? After all, it's going to have no more permanent impact on the life of Spider-Man that all the others we're now rejecting out of hand...

None of that however tells us the next story; a story that logically, commercially, and thematically should begin with the same basic premise as the ones the writers and fans grew up reading. Spidey's a young super-hero, a little bit insecure at times, a little bit too cocky at others... He's Amazing. He's Spectacular. 

What is the point in prioritizing the navel-gazing over these intrinsic elements? Elements that interested the writers back in the day. Elements that have continued to lure readers and hold them since. How is the bleating of one writer that all thirty or so of Spidey's girlfriends should all get together and gang up on him, because, seriously, what kind of a piggish lothario is he, anyway, to have had so many "relationships?" 

Here's the thing: There are those who keep track. Let them. That's what they like doing. The world needs the occasional George Olgeshevkey Index Series to keep things interesting. What's interesting about them is that they do look at the form from the wrong end of the telescope and everything looks kind of cool, all small and intensely miniaturized that way. They're fun. But the folks who write them are not your audience.

Even you, the writer, are not the audience. Once upon a time you were. Sure, you still have to write to please your own aesthetics, but that's not the be-all, end-all of the job you've taken on. Your job is write Spider-Man. The same guy you read as a kid. The same guy the kids today have every right to expect of you. Spidey's a young hero, masking a ton of insecurities and the occasional guilt-trip or neurosis. He's a hard-luck hero who's fighting very hard to get it right, and he isn't there yet. 

He's not a married guy with a pregnant wife or the owner of cutting-edge tech company. There are stories to found in those characters, yes, but they're essentially not Spider-Man stories. The central premise is lost at that point, sacrificed on the altar of neurotic compulsions that have nothing whatsoever to do with Who Spider-Man Is.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Jason Schulman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2473
Posted: 14 January 2015 at 11:14am | IP Logged | 8  

I think it was much easier to maintain the illusion that no time was passing in superhero titles when the stories were mostly done-in-one, or at least only took place within single titles.

By the early 1990s there were many multiple-part stories that took place over multiple Superman titles, Batman titles, Spider-Man titles, X-Men titles, etc.

And they were all "important" and all "counted" and you "had" to read all of them in order to get all the parts of single stories.

I hated it. But besides that, if all these stories "accumulate" and do NOT "reset" then it becomes harder not to wonder why the characters aren't getting older.

The yearly Big Event Series that the Big Two put out don't help either.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132628
Posted: 14 January 2015 at 11:32am | IP Logged | 9  

Here's the thing: There are those who keep track. Let them. That's what they like doing. The world needs the occasional George Olgeshevkey Index Series to keep things interesting. What's interesting about them is that they do look at the form from the wrong end of the telescope and everything looks kind of cool, all small and intensely miniaturized that way. They're fun. But the folks who write them are not your audience.

•••

Unfortunately, those indexes exceeded their mandate. Not content to simply list the issues and stories in chronological order, they tried to make the pieces fit together, putting a story into "context" with stories in other series. ("This occurs between issues 127 and 128 of CAPTAIN FONEBONE..."). And once Marvel started publishing the indexes, it effectively canonized what had been only fan opinion.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7512
Posted: 14 January 2015 at 12:21pm | IP Logged | 10  

It also feeds on itself. Fans get together and talk--and that has never been easier than it is today. In the past, there were letter columns (which published *some* of what they got from readers); then there were fanzines and conventions, which had lots of inside-baseball back and forth between self-proclaimed experts; and then there were internet chat rooms...and here we are today.

The loudest know-it-alls kill the fun for those who might become casual readers and eventual fans themselves.



Edited by Andrew Bitner on 14 January 2015 at 12:22pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
Posted: 14 January 2015 at 2:25pm | IP Logged | 11  

In superhero comics, there should really be only two settings for when a hero has encountered a villain: Previously and now*.

Lately, there's the growing insistence that every encounter has to "count" or matter. So now the Batman *must* kill the Joker because of all their prior interactions and he must spend a few pages going on and on about how many people he's allowed to die because he never stops the Joker permanently. And so on.

*One thing I liked about the BATMAN TV series was that there were no origin stories for the villains. And each appearance effectively ignored the prior one (e.g. Catwoman's many deaths, during which she'd turn up alive and even in safely in prison in her net appearance). It was just always "Previously" and "now."
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Roy Johnson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 1323
Posted: 14 January 2015 at 4:07pm | IP Logged | 12  

What do the people who want to "fix problems with continuity" expect would happen if they did? That everyone would say "well, now we can finally enjoy these stories because continuity works"?
Back to Top profile | search
 

Page of 2 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login