| Posted: 17 July 2013 at 10:09am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Brian Lewis wrote:
| My point though, is that not all characters should be stylistically updated to match the times that they are in. |
|
|
Agreed.
QUOTE:
| For all intents and purposes, the Superman I grew up with was not behavioraly the same Superman my dad purchased when he picked up Action Comics #1 off the shelf. |
|
|
Give that same character from ACTION COMICS 1 just a year or two and he was pretty much the same from 1941 to the 90s at least. Oh, costumes may have changed. Rogues came and went. Some stories were goofier than others. But the character in 1941 would not be unrecognizable to a reader from that era if he or she picked up a Superman comic in 1964, 1972 or 1981. And that's my point. But all of a sudden we're supposed to consider that the character should be aged and fade away simply because, what, kids have changed so dramatically in a single decade where they hardly changed at all in the decades between 1930-1990? Sorry, don't buy it.
QUOTE:
| But the Cleavers should not be forced to behave any different than they are. And Batman should not be forced to behave any differently either. But because today is different, and different behaviors are enjoyed/expected, then that is why we should let go. Because to expect our way as the best way is really what is selfish. |
|
|
I agree with your first statement here, but not with your conclusion. Again, you seem to operate on the presumption that for decades kids didn't change so dramatically from one generation to the next, but they suddenly do now. 1939 was different from 1950 was different from 1965 was different from 1977 was different from 1988 was different from 1999 was different from 2006. For the most part, however, the same basic character of many mainstream superheroes remained the same. The window dressing may not have, but the core character was there. I do not believe that kids are so different now, have expectations that are so different from just a decade or two ago (your assumption being they didn't have any changing expectations in the preceding five decades) that either the characters have to be radically altered or they need to be aged out of existence. That's ludicrous to me.
At the end of the day, kids didn't leave mainstream superheroes because they suddenly had different expectations than those of their fathers, but because comic companies left them. 30 years ago companies decided it would be better to marginalize their product via the DSM thus slowly but surely eliminating the one thing all companies need to thrive; bringing in new customers. Without new customers, companies were faced with appealing to an aging, shrinking fanbase, many of whom are demanding that these formerly all-ages characters age and grow with them. We see some of them in this very thread. And thus the snake eats it's tail leaving nothing left for anyone.
|
Topic Closed)
