| Author |
|
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 08 March 2013 at 8:58am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
It matters not that Spider-Man and Batman exist in a world that's more realistic and serious than the one inhabited by Homer Simpson and Fred Flinstone. The main reason these characters are allowed to be ageless is because of marketing and merchandising reasons. Once someone hits on a popular concept that sells, why risk having them evolve through succeeding generations just to reflect reality and the passage of time? Now I agree that artistically and dramatically it would be more interesting, but on the same token many of us would have never been able to get attached to Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker.
These characters, even the more realistic ones like James Bond, belong to everyone but should be geared, first and foremost, to the younger people of the current generation. It's fantasy, fiction, and we can play around with aging and time as we see fit. There will always be plenty of fiction where time progress and characters die FOR REAL. To be honest, Batman and Bond are more than just characters/people like we are or our literary counterparts are, they're as much akin to the gods and hero of ancient myth that are freely adapted to fit the times. The concept is much more important than the person in there cases. (This of course does not mean that the person isn't important...)
Edited by Robert White on 08 March 2013 at 8:59am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Thomas Moudry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5060
|
| Posted: 08 March 2013 at 9:05am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Once the ball got rolling with Peter Parker and the X-Men graduating, it
didn't stop. Now, we have 764 Robins.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Luke Styer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1515
|
| Posted: 08 March 2013 at 9:07am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Robbie Parry wrote:
| You know, I often think of the magician's tricks analogy. I've seen a few magicians over time and I buy into the magic. However, the day people start questioning how the tricks are done and wondering how the magician can do this and that, it's time to leave and find another hobby; I feel that those analyzing comic characters ages should do the same. |
|
|
I have to think there is some middle ground, though, where you can enjoy a given form of entertainment on a "meta" level without expecting everything in that form of entertainment to be pitched at you.
I know that stage magicians are doing sleight of hand and misdirection, and I can still be impressed that they do it well. I can even watch one of those shows where they show how this or that trick is done and then see someone do that very trick and still be impressed that they do it well. But I don't expect every magic show to be "transparent," and I don't feel any need to tell someone who isn't interested in the technique how the trick was done. My appreciation of magic tricks is different now than it was when I was young enough to fully "buy in," but I am okay with that and don't expect the field of magic to change for my benefit.
And that's the problem with certain mainstream superhero comics fans. They have changed and expect mainstream superhero comics to change with them. That is when it's time for a new hobby. Not when you start thinking about the comics, but when you expect mainstream superhero comics to change in response to your thinking.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Greg Woronchak
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 September 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1631
|
| Posted: 08 March 2013 at 9:36am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
aging Dick Grayson to
adulthood seems to have cost at least as much as it might have gained.
The elegant solution would have been to have the Robin of Earth-2 become Nightwing.
Ironically, I remember as a young reader being put off by Dick's angst-ridden behaviour in the New Teen Titans issues before he 'gave up' the role. Nightwing was a neat idea, but I think I would've prefered the status quo, rather than the whole Jason Todd fiasco.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Shawn Kane
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 November 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 3239
|
| Posted: 08 March 2013 at 9:43am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
I think that characters like Tim Drake and Kyle Rayner would be more interesting if they weren't Robin and Green Lantern. They're both limited because they're legacy characters.
Edited by Shawn Kane on 08 March 2013 at 9:44am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Aaron Smith
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 September 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 10461
|
| Posted: 08 March 2013 at 10:03am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I can't speak for anyone else of course, but even when I was a kid, one of the things that really appealed to me about characters with long histories was that I found something comforting about the fact that they didn't change, that I could read about or watch on TV or in movies (more or less) the same Spider-Man or Batman or Archie or James Bond that my father's generation enjoyed and that, hopefully, the generation after me could also take pleasure in. Artists and writers and actors and directors would change, of course, but I always wanted the core of the characters to remain intact. It just seemed right to me that the Superman of the 80s, for example, would have the majority of his qualities in common with the Superman of the 60s and, I assumed then, the Superman of 2050.
I've always been grateful for the chance to enjoy these characters, but I've never thought of them as MINE.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4184
|
| Posted: 08 March 2013 at 11:37am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I'm the opposite. I like the histories. I certainly don't need characters to "grow with me" or such nonsense (I liked married Spider-Man, but he beat me to it by 15 years), but long form serialized shared universe comics are the only ones where you can get a nice long run of a character in one status quo, adjust to something else, and then get a nice long run there. Then, if there's a story that requires an old status quo, you just do a special issue or what have you revisiting those days. Win win to me. The "preserve the characters" argument is an odd one for me. All debates about what "core of the character" means aside, just by the nature of creative sensibilities there will be subtle differences in how characters are handled. The characters may still "feel" wrong to you even if they haven't gone through any major events. So if you really want to introduce the characters you loved to future generations, it makes a lot more sense to me to do it using the STORIES you loved, just as you would in any other medium. Admittedly in most cases, it would be because you had to - it's not like Tom Sawyer was a continuing series or anything. But if you want to introduce your kids to Star Wars, would you really be more inclined to pick up the latest novel or comic featuring those characters than to just show them the original movies?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 08 March 2013 at 1:17pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
What's interesting about The Simpsons is that it has always been a prime time show and its intended audience is primarily adults. This is the inverse of superhero comics, whose audience was intended to be kids who "refreshed" themselves (e.g. the readers grow up and move on but are replaced by new readers). So, arguably, The Simpsons should have felt more pressure for "change" but it has resisted it -- Bart, Lisa, and Maggie have only grown older through "elseworlds" and "what ifs."
This is The Simpsons' 24th season and the core cast is unaltered (Homer works at the same place; Bart and Lisa are in the same grade). It has done a masterful job with the "illusion" of change.
Meanwhile, let's consider Spider-Man: Twenty-four years into the publication of his title, he's aged at least five years from high school student to graduate school drop-out. He's married and his current costume is different.
Oh, and when they made a Simpsons movie almost 20 years after the show premiered, there was no real debate about "who" The Simpsons would be in the film. They told a story that could have occurred within episodes of the current series. That hasn't been true of a Marvel or DC film.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 08 March 2013 at 1:29pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
^ I'll second everything Stephen Robinson just said, because I agree with every word.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Lars Sandmark
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 October 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3144
|
| Posted: 08 March 2013 at 7:38pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I like the cartoon 'Batman Beyond' in the sense that you had an aged Bruce Wayne and the series was a continuation of Batman the animated series.
In comic-publishing terms it would have worked as two seperate comic titles published monthly.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mikael Bergkvist
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 23 April 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1857
|
| Posted: 09 March 2013 at 1:14am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
It matters not that Spider-Man and Batman exist in a world that's more realistic and serious than the one inhabited by Homer Simpson and Fred Flinstone.
-----------
-----------
This is what is wrong with the world of today. Batman is viewed as more realistic than Homer Simpson. *LoL*
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Kip Lewis
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 01 March 2011
Posts: 2880
|
| Posted: 09 March 2013 at 7:02am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Never understood this argument of comparing super-hero
genre to the comedy genre. Saying Stewie doesn't age, so
neither should Peteris like saying, there should be fairy
tale monsters on Hawaii 5-0, because they have them on
Grimm. They're both on TV and both involve the police so
why not? Because Grimm is a fantasy action adventure and
H50 is "real world" police action adventure. Saying Robin
didn't age for over 30 years is a valid comparison to
Spider-Man. Archie and Bart are not.
----
This argument is nonsensical on several levels. Aging is
not an inherent part of the superhero genre, and non-
aging is not an inherent part of the comedy genre. So why
are comparisons invalid? Is Bond a comedy because people
can accept that the character played by Connery through
Brosnan are the same person and remains roughly around
the same age?
-------------
-No, aging is not inherent part of either one. "For
Better or Worst" has aged all their characters in real
time and it worked well for them. That isn't my point;
comedies and adventure stories have different rules and
goals in mind. Even within one genre, stories may play
by different rules. But when you cross genres you are not
only have different rules but different goals in mind.
Stewie is written to make you laugh, and sometimes think;
Spider-man is not. Spider-man takes the reader on an
action adventure. Yes, we may laugh but that is just
part of the ride. It isn't the goal.
So, no, the comparison is not valid.
Could action adventure characters be timeless, sure.
Ultimate Spider-man was. He had over 100 issues and he
remained in the same grade while the universe around them
aged and changed. Bend is said he would never age while
he wrote him. (Though he did kill him.). Comparing him
to Robin; that is a valid comparison because they have
the same goal in mind and play by similar rules.
Personally both ways work as long as the story is good.
Edited by Kip Lewis on 09 March 2013 at 7:03am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
