Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 3 Next >>
Topic: Classic Marvel & "Disabled" Heroes. (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133324
Posted: 02 July 2013 at 4:31am | IP Logged | 1  

Many, many readers could identify with and admire JB's original take on Roger Bachs, whether they were confined to a chair or not. What Mantlo's thin, trim, handsome young devil had to offer anyone is lost on me. Similar arguments are made concerning Barbara Gordon. Batgirl is a beloved character and icon, but the cost of her return was the genuinely original and evocative Oracle. Which is truly more deserving of the reader's time and attention? The debate continues, and just to be on the safe side, Barbara seems awfully worried about the possibility of a relapse much of the time...

••

The problem with Oracle is not whether she is an interesting character, but how we got to that character. Whether the editorial mandate "Cripple the bitch!" really was handed to Moore or not, it does reflect am attitude that was starting to make itself felt in comics, on both sides of the counter.

I have often pointed to the fact that when Wolverine joined the X-Men there was an initial very negative response from readers. Many saw him as usurping the proper place of the Beast in the group, and wanted Wolverine to LEAVE.

Just a few years later, when Kitty Pryde was introduced, there was also initially a negative response. But this time the readers who did not like the character wanted her to DIE.

Should I offer a mea culpa for that? Was it the Death of Phoenix that sent the cart down that road? The dark clouds had been gathering for a while. If they had not, my response to Jim Shooter's command that Phoenix be "sent to a prison asteroid to be horribly tortured for all eternity" might not have been "F*ck that! I'd rather kill her!"

The crippling of Barbara Gordon came from a very dark place in our history, and was made all the worse by being completely unnecessary. If the shelf life of Batgirl was deemed to have expired, she could simply have LEFT. Oracle could have been an entirely new character.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Manuel Tavares
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 December 2009
Location: Portugal
Posts: 407
Posted: 02 July 2013 at 6:57am | IP Logged | 2  

"If the shelf life of Batgirl was deemed to have expired, she could simply have LEFT. Oracle could have been an entirely new character."
John Byrne
~~~~~~~~~
I agree completely, JB.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Lewis
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 August 2012
Posts: 476
Posted: 02 July 2013 at 8:27am | IP Logged | 3  

Perhaps Oracle should have been a different character, but she wasn't. Is it right to undo 20+ years of a charcter because older people want their superhero back?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35945
Posted: 02 July 2013 at 9:02am | IP Logged | 4  

I have to ask, reading your comments across the board, but is it your intent to be a knee-jerk auto contrarian Brian?  Seems not much can be said in any thread in which you participate where your immediate response isn't the opposite.  It's not that you have to agree with everything everyone writes, but I barely get a sense that you agree with anyone ever at all no matter the topic. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
Posted: 02 July 2013 at 10:20am | IP Logged | 5  

BRIAN: Perhaps Oracle should have been a different character, but she wasn't. Is it right to undo 20+ years of a charcter because older people want their superhero back?

SER: Yes. Barbara Gordon as BATGIRL was very popular with mainstream audiences (not just "older people" -- arguably, it was the "older people" who had grown attached to Oracle). It's not just the Adam West TV series. She had appeared in the Bruce Timm cartoons and the spin-off comics. Similar situation with Supergirl prior to her return in the comics.

There was a period in the 1990s where, other than Wonder Woman, the only female character with her own title was... Catwoman, an antihero at best and an outright villain at worst. Flash back a few decades and Batgirl was in DETECTIVE or BATMAN FAMILY and Supergirl was in ACTION and later ADVENTURE. Little girls *are* an audience worth appealing to in comics. There's the myth that they never read them but a lot of my back issues featuring those characters have a girl's name written in ink on the inside cover.

Oracle was not just a sidelined Barbara Gordon. She was also a plot device who did mental legwork for Batman that he used to handle himself. I never cared for her for that reason alone.

And, yes, I find it inspiring to see a character remain a hero in spite of a life-altering injury... but it rings hollow when the only one to *not* recover completely from paralysis (Bruce Wayne) and death (Superman) is female.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133324
Posted: 02 July 2013 at 11:09am | IP Logged | 6  

Perhaps Oracle should have been a different character, but she wasn't. Is it right to undo 20+ years of a charcter because older people want their superhero back?

••

Is it right to undo 20+ years of a character because current writers are bored with her? That's what happened to Batgirl. So be careful where you swing that sword. It has two edges.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Sam Karns
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7624
Posted: 02 July 2013 at 12:07pm | IP Logged | 7  

There's still, surprisingly for me, a large amount of fans who want Peter Parker married again to Mary Jane Watson.  I've mentioned before the dynamic changes the character and burdened with issues he never should encounter.  It's re-inventing his disability.

Edited by Sam Karns on 02 July 2013 at 12:09pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jesus Garcia
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 April 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2414
Posted: 02 July 2013 at 3:27pm | IP Logged | 8  

Doom Patrol.

A monstrous physical appearance is an affliction to most people, the Elephant Man being one of the most remarkable real-life cases.

Not only are the member "afflicted" by their powers; they are VISIBLY afflicted -- Except for Rita. But, of course, once her power is shown, she's known to be afflicted.

This is what stands out for me in the post-Lee & Kirby Mutant riff. Many of the later mutants have powers but most of them are basically good looking people, with swell physiques, with easy-to-conceal powers. Nightcrawler being a notable exception.

In my mind, mutants that can conceal their abilities and blend with humankind in are a sort of an aristocracy among mutants, in that the mutants with visible powers have had to face greater rejection from non-mutants.

This brings to mind a forum (not this one) argument I had back when the first Raimi Spider-Man came out. The argument was over the organic web shooters. The person I was debating with wasn't so much upset because the organic shooters departed from the source material, as the fact that organic web shooters made Parker a freak.

Not the wall-crawling, not the spider-sense, not the enhanced strength, speed, agility, powers of recuperation. I argued that without a price to pay for the powers -- like having to constantly replenish lost tissue with food -- obtaining the powers becomes a sort of lottery.

And that's what the other poster didn't like: he preferred a Spider-Man that had all the advantages of a mutation but none of the disadvantages.

Struck me at the time as yet another example of the generation that aspires to unmerited entitlement.

It's the sort of entitlement that made Wolverine a cooler character than Nightcrawler. Wolverine's biggest beef is that -- because of the blades -- he can no longer indulge in berseker brawls. My reaction to that was to "cry me an effing river, bub!". Compared to what Nightcrawler has to deal with everyday, Logan bellyaching about his lost fun made him a punk.


Edited by Jesus Garcia on 02 July 2013 at 3:31pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35945
Posted: 02 July 2013 at 3:34pm | IP Logged | 9  

 Jesus Garcia wrote:
Not the wall-crawling, not the spider-sense, not the enhanced strength, speed, agility, powers of recuperation. I argued that without a price to pay for the powers -- like having to constantly replenish lost tissue with food -- obtaining the powers becomes a sort of lottery.

So Lee & Ditko got it wrong?


 QUOTE:
Struck me at the time as yet another example of the generation that aspires to unmerited entitlement.

Since Lee & Ditko were of the Greatest Generation and created the original that "becomes a sort of lottery" I really doubt they also aspired to "unmerited entitlement".  Talk about unnecessary psychoanalysis! 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Bob Simko
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar
Negative Mod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 5982
Posted: 02 July 2013 at 3:44pm | IP Logged | 10  

Isn't Spider-Man...well, originally...all ABOUT the price that he paid?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jesus Garcia
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 April 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 2414
Posted: 02 July 2013 at 4:06pm | IP Logged | 11  

I was writing this in the context of mutants with visible mutations. Spider-Man's greatest affliction -- by Lee & Ditko design -- is that he's neurotic, not that he has great spider-powers. Lee made his heroes' neuroses a great point. 

Peter's intelligence is as exceptional as his spider-powers. His smarts and neuroses would have made him an outcast in any event.

And Ditko probably would have gone with organic web shooters but given the era, that would have met with too much comic code ballyhoo.

And yeah, Peter paid a great price. His uncle and aunt did, too, I think.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133324
Posted: 02 July 2013 at 5:43pm | IP Logged | 12  

And Ditko probably would have gone with organic web shooters but given the era, that would have met with too much comic code ballyhoo.

••

And your source for this is?

The organic webshooters were a bad idea because they DON'T MAKE SENSE.

Now, granted, that seems like a crazy thing to say in the context of a guy who is bitten by a radioactive spider, and from this gains the abilities of that spider, I grant you. But think about that for a moment.

He is bitten by a radioactive spider, and from this gains the abilities of the spider.

Nowhere, anywhere on Earth, are there spiders who spray their web from the ends of their legs under high pressure. Not a one. Spiders produce their webbing slowly, and not from their legs (or their mouths, as some seem to think). So the spider bite does NOT give Peter Parker the abilities of a spider, if the webbing is organic. The spider bite completely redesigns how spiders work, making the production of webbing very convenient for someone who goes on to be a superhero, but nothing at all like how real spiders work.

I gotta think Lee and Ditko knew this, when they concocted the character. Hence, mechanical webshooters, which make sense not only "realistically", but -- and this is perhaps even more important -- DRAMATICALLY.

Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 3 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