Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 9 Next >>
Topic: Should teen Super-heroes grow up? (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
Posted: 10 July 2013 at 7:44am | IP Logged | 1  

I'm not seeing any justification for the position that certain types of characters in one particular medium must remain static. Its essentially the same argument that musicians shouldn't artistically grow beyond the type of music they made for their first demo tapes, or that MASH should've stayed true to the largely just-for-jokes message of the movie, or that Picard should've stayed as stiff-necked and I personable as he was in the first couple of TNG seasons, just because of the various types of media they're in.

••

Not even remotely similar.

And, by the way, welcome to my IGNORE list.

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

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7526
Posted: 10 July 2013 at 2:20pm | IP Logged | 2  

JB: Even assuming Steve to have been 18 when he became Captain America, it's shaving it very fine to have him be physically 25 today. I'd think 30 would be closer to the mark.

***

I might be misremembering--this was from his run on CAPTAIN AMERICA in... something like '96? It's possible he didn't even state an age, just told the cop that he wasn't all that old. Which I thought made sense. Sorry, I seem to have introduced some misinformation into the thought-stream here.



Edited by Andrew Bitner on 10 July 2013 at 2:20pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7526
Posted: 10 July 2013 at 2:22pm | IP Logged | 3  

comic book characters do not age for the simple reason that they are *supposed* to be static. the illusion of change is essential; actual change is often a huge problem. aging a character, even to the point of giving hal jordan silvery sideburns or making a "kid sidekick" a fullblown adult, is almost always a bad idea.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Gary Olson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 September 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 382
Posted: 15 July 2013 at 6:08pm | IP Logged | 4  

Archie Goodwin did a nice Nick Fury graphic novel, The Scorpio Connection, which had Fury aging in real time and dealing with that: "What kind of husband would I have made? What kind of father?"

I think it was at a "tangent" to official Marvel continuity, in which Fury has the age-defying "Infinity Formula".

In other words, Goodwin's Fury tale was an "imaginary story", but I liked it.

Ironically, both it and the first Infinity Formula story(written by Jim Starlin) were drawn by Howard Chaykin.

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

Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4623
Posted: 16 July 2013 at 7:21pm | IP Logged | 5  

 James Goldsmith wrote:
I'm not seeing any justification for the position that certain types of characters in one particular medium must remain static.

Here's some comments by Gerry Conway that were posted on another board which I think address your question quite well:

I do think marrying her [Mary Jane] and Peter was a mistake (just as marrying Clark and Lois was a mistake) — mostly because it changed the nature of an established relationship, without actually accomplishing anything important for the characters' "personal growth." Whether we like it or not, comic book characters like Peter Parker don't have much depth — and they're not supposed to: they're archetypes, and when they work well, it's because they address some fundamental issue of the human condition. Peter's particular archetype is that of the "misunderstood outsider," always forced to make a choice between performing acts of heroism, and embracing the ordinary joys (and disappointments) of real life. Marriage is one of those joys (and disappointments) that are denied characters who fulfill this archetype. When characters like Peter Parker, or Clark Kent, get married, they break the archetypical roles they were created to fulfill. While that may be momentarily satisfying for individual writers (and readers) it's a disaster for the character — which is why, when these characters appear outside comics, they always appear in their non-married state. The trouble with comic creators and readers is that they get bored by the static nature of the archetypical story form, and rather than simply move on to more mature forms of fiction, they try to "improve" the archetypes by replacing or breaking them. It never works.


Edited by Jason Czeskleba on 16 July 2013 at 8:00pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security


Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10937
Posted: 16 July 2013 at 7:26pm | IP Logged | 6  


Jason, would you please add a source link for that quote?  It's great insight from one of my favorite writers, but we need a source for quotes that long.



Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4623
Posted: 16 July 2013 at 8:01pm | IP Logged | 7  

Updated my post to include a link to the source of Gerry Conway's comments.  Sorry about the omission...
Back to Top profile | search
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
Posted: 17 July 2013 at 1:14am | IP Logged | 8  

 that MASH should've stayed true to the largely just-for-jokes message of the movie,
~~~~~~~~~
Since Gouldsmith mentioned MASH. It is actually a reference for not aging characters. The Korean War lasted 3 years but Mash lasted for 11 years. 
So for all those years on air the characters only aged 3 years. In fact in the episode 'War for all seasons'. Everyone age a year in that one episode.

So the same sort of sliding scale when it comes to aging on that show has to apply in comics. It is only important were it is important to the story. But most things in comics need to be easily forgotten. They can't become a fixed point in time. 

Certain events if they are essential to the continuing story need to be timeless. Such as Uncle Ben dies, Gwen Stacy dies. What year they die things like that shouldn't really given an exact date. It's okay to say they died last week,month, year etc. Because it wouldn't matter if it is 5 years from now or 25 years from now. The kid reading can think it's last year from when he/she read it.  
Back to Top profile | search
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9410
Posted: 17 July 2013 at 1:29am | IP Logged | 9  

comic book characters do not age for the simple reason that they are *supposed* to be static. the illusion of change is essential;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't completely agree that characters are 'supposed' to be static. I think it is the illusion of not changing that is important. 
 
I said a while back when the topic of continuity came up. I thought the solution was to set every character back to a certain point in time. That was their 'fixed' point in time. Writers and artist work from that point and tell your story. When that story is done and the next group come along. They have the same fixed point in time. Everything else is up for grabs. If you like something from the previous group fine use it if not don't and keep going. 

How many times did the Joker face Bat-Man entirely up to the writer. Want to tell and old Superman story go ahead. Just know it's a self contained story. By the next group comes in back to status quo.
Back to Top profile | search
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7789
Posted: 17 July 2013 at 5:59am | IP Logged | 10  

We forget, as adults, what we knew as kids and what was important when we were kids.

When I read a comic as a kid, I did not have a real sense of history, nor did I have a real sense of who did what with a comic until I was in my early teens (I remember asking my brother what the line 'I'm still alive - Dave' meant in an issue of X-Men meant - he had no clue and he was 4 years older than me).

What I had was stories that were enjoyable - I didn't know they were published over 10 years before I was reading them. I didn't care.

Kids don't care about the length of publishing before the story they are reading - only adults do.

And kids don't care about who wrote or drew what - only teenagers / adults do. So no superstars able to run the show.

Factor in all that and there is no reason to age a character - ever.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Lewis
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 August 2012
Posts: 476
Posted: 17 July 2013 at 7:57am | IP Logged | 11  

To James's point, that is exactly why you age a character.

We do forget what was important to us as children, certainly.  But as adults, when we do think about kids, we maintain an arrogance that we know better. We know better what they should eat, and drink, or how they should be safe, certainly. But we also assume to know better when it comes to how they should have fun.

If we assume children will have fun with exactly what we had, we are wrong. Kids today are already on a different path than we were, just as we were on a different path than the generation before us. And never will it be in a way that completely satisfied or makes sense to the proceeding generation.

Ask, why does a My Little Pony comic continuously outsell a John Byrne super hero comic from the same publisher? If I try to wrap my head around it and the mentality of the buying audience, and from my paradigm it doesn't make sense.  Then I found my 12 year old boy watching My Little Pony.  He said he isn't a fan, but all of his closest middle school pals have taken to being Bronies. I still don't get it, except that I get they are doing it as a group. If any one of my or my friends had decided to be MLP fans as kids, we would have got our asses kicked. Look at more, successful, cartoons and entertainment for children and how it has changed. I love cartoons, but Regular Show and Adventure Time are well outside of my mental model of "fun".

So, with that point, heroes should age, and fade away. We should let out heroes go and make room for the next generation to have their heroes. Let them be who the kids want them to be and let our heroes be wonderful, nostalgic memories.



Edited by Brian Lewis on 17 July 2013 at 8:12am
Back to Top profile | search
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7789
Posted: 17 July 2013 at 8:03am | IP Logged | 12  

How's that working out Brian?

Because I don't see comics being produced to fill that vacuum created by aging characters. Or turning them in to psychos. Or increasing the amount of TnA or gore in a comic.

And comic sales are dropping like a lead balloon.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 9 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