Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 16 Next >>
Topic: Fans vs. Pros (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132673
Posted: 04 February 2014 at 10:50am | IP Logged | 1  

One of the crazier things I have noticed in some fans is that they want a sliding scale for "comicbook time" even if the increments are microscopic. If the characters age just ONE DAY for every year of real time, these fans will be okay with that, so long as SOME passage of time is acknowledged.

It borders on the pathological!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
Posted: 04 February 2014 at 11:16am | IP Logged | 2  

I never really cared about that stuff in such specific detail. I like a solid 10 year rule (opposed to 7 or 13 simply because 10 is such a solid, round, number and somehow more "significant" given its a decade and all) for both Marvel and DC--for me, it's always been 10 years since Batman and Superman started as well as the FF and Spider-Man. 

I'm at the point where I don't think it's wise to continue to set the universes in the modern day. Use the major cultural themes to keep things relevant, but Batman is just so much cooler looking in a timeless version of the 40's, while Superman and Spider-Man just seem to fit better in a modified version of the 50's and 60's respectively. Why not keep the old newspaper and freelance photographer business going as they were in their boom periods? And, lets face it, Superman not being able to do the phonebooth trick is a downright tragedy.    


Edited by Robert White on 04 February 2014 at 11:17am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jack Michaels
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 June 2013
Posts: 422
Posted: 04 February 2014 at 11:51am | IP Logged | 3  


 QUOTE:
The true professional writer's knows their job is to play up the Superman/Clark/Lois love triangle every which way and make the fans want so desperately for Clark to tell Lois the truth so the two can live happily ever after. As soon as one of those fans becomes the writer and actually does that story, they've missed the point.

You kind of go in with the fannish assumption that the professional writer either wants to continue with the status quo or even understands it exists. 

And the truth of the matter is that people are often pretty awful at their jobs. The guy writing comics as his day job under a pen name in the hopes that his Great American Novel will allow him to quit his day job is the sort of guy you're going to be dealing with a fair bit of the time. If he really hates his job, he'll happily undermine it. 

And these are the kinds of people who exist within the pro ranks. Some of them just don't care. If they're boss came in with the stupidest idea known to man, they wouldn't argue, they'd just give him what he wants and be done with it. What happens if the boss doesn't care, what if he's the owner's idiot son-in-law who has been put in charge because he needs a career. 

What I see in this thread is people building up the Professional Writer to near mythical status, the guy who not only understands exactly what is essential to the characters he's working on, but steadfast in his loyalty to those ideals. 

The Starlog article linked up-thread kind of shows what writers have to deal with, so even if they want to do a good job, their bosses may be making that impossible because they want sensationalism, they want headlines, they want controversy over someone being beating to death with their own severed arm. 

These are your professionals. They're just as much a hive of scum and villainy as fans-turned-pro. 

And then there's the assumption that the fan-turned-pro who's writing Hawkman is a proper fan of Hawkman. To him, it might just be a gig to prove that he's capable of writing Green Lantern, so he starts writing the book like Green Lantern... which might end up being way more popular than Hawkman being written like Hawkman, so the bosses will say "keep doing that", because they're chasing sales. (Put him on Green Lantern, then he becomes a gibbering fanboy who brings back every obscure GL character he can lay hands on, because he's lack any critical thinking about what does and doesn't work in Green Lantern.)

Which isn't terribly different from pros deciding they don't particularly like the book they're doing and shifting it into something they do like doing and hope the boss doesn't notice and/or care, which has happened numerous times in the professional ranks. 

The fan-turned-pro just adds this self-referential sheen to the whole thing, which rarely does anything more than alienate potential new fans. They either care too much about the minutia or lack the critical eye necessary to work on their favorite characters. 

Or to put it another way... maybe Early Marvel was one of those rare and wonderful moments when a group of professionals came together who wanted to produce truly good work and were allowed to. Even then, it doesn't sound like it lasted more than about a decade. 


Edited by Jack Michaels on 04 February 2014 at 12:10pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4566
Posted: 04 February 2014 at 1:46pm | IP Logged | 4  

I've quoted this before, but here are some comments from Gerry Conway that pretty well sum up the reasons comic characters should not age or "evolve":

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.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jack Michaels
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 June 2013
Posts: 422
Posted: 04 February 2014 at 2:42pm | IP Logged | 5  

Vaguely on the subject. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the aging of the kid sidekicks happen right around the time kid sidekicks went out of fashion. During the brief time I read a bit of Teen Titans, I got the sense that they really didn't know what to do with the characters after they had been cast off from the main books and aged them into something more in line with the current comic scene, namely the X-Men. 

If something doesn't work anymore, then only a fan will insist it stays as they remember. The pro is going to try to turn it into something that keeps the paychecks coming. 

Back to Top profile | search
 
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2206
Posted: 04 February 2014 at 2:48pm | IP Logged | 6  

Nice quote Jason!  Conway's statement does seem to be a "pro" view.

Jack, while writers are certainly as human as the next person, capable of mistakes or letting a moment of fanboy squee leak into a piece, would you agree that it is better if they don't?
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
Posted: 04 February 2014 at 3:11pm | IP Logged | 7  

Doesn't seem to happen outside comics, though (as far as I know). No-one seemed to mind Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes appearing in a WWII adventure in one of his films. No-one seems to mind that James Bond reflects whatever current affairs are necessary. Is it only comic fans that are pedantic?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jack Michaels
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 June 2013
Posts: 422
Posted: 04 February 2014 at 4:14pm | IP Logged | 8  


 QUOTE:
Jack, while writers are certainly as human as the next person, capable of mistakes or letting a moment of fanboy squee leak into a piece, would you agree that it is better if they don't?

Well, certainly. I merely disagree about many of the examples as being fan mistakes. They're just common mistakes, which fan-pros also make... sometimes in a distinctly fannish way. 

But let's not put the Pro on a pedestal. They're often disinterested in the finished product and you can find many more examples of pros screwing something up royally. Cousin Oliver wasn't brought in by a rabid Brady Bunch fan. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6282
Posted: 04 February 2014 at 4:36pm | IP Logged | 9  

Jack: But let's not put the Pro on a pedestal. They're often disinterested in the finished product and you can find many more examples of pros screwing something up royally. Cousin Oliver wasn't brought in by a rabid Brady Bunch fan.
***

In this context, being a "Pro" is akin to a state of mind. The old Pros had an attitude to their work, an emotional distance from it, that made it easier to resist fanboy pressures. It didn't guarantee creative achievement or inspiration.

Speaking of "Pro" vs. "Fan" mentality just refers to the professional distance from the characters that fans are all-to-often unable to imagine.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132673
Posted: 04 February 2014 at 9:02pm | IP Logged | 10  

Speaking of "Pro" vs. "Fan" mentality just refers to the professional distance from the characters that fans are all-to-often unable to imagine.

•••

There were a couple of decades or so in which the work was being produced by many for whom it was just A Job. Even some of those who brought real skill and obvious enthusiasm to the work really wanted to be working in the strips.

Sometimes, a lack of involvement can be a benefit. I've often said some of my best work has come with characters and stories with which I feel no connection, so it becomes wholly and solely about the work.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4181
Posted: 04 February 2014 at 9:16pm | IP Logged | 11  

 Jason Czeskleba wrote:
I've quoted this before, but here are some comments from Gerry Conway that pretty well sum up the reasons comic characters should not age or "evolve":


The funny thing is that I preferred Conway's married Spider-Man run to his single Spider-Man run... :-)

Long standing characters/concepts need to be reinvented from time to time to stay relevant. There are two ways to do that - paring a concept down to its basic elements (to varying degrees) and rebuilding or allowing for the evolution of the character you already have. There are numerous successes and failures in terms of sales, critical acclaim and "longevity" (i.e., do they show up on "Best of" lists 30 years later? :-) ) from either approach and doing either will gain and lose long time readers and leave fans of an earlier incarnation wondering where "their" character went. Previous generations didn't get the benefit of "unchanged characters" (even when status quos are generally unchanged, approaches to telling stories still change over time, leading to series having different "feels" when viewed over a long period of time); why should later ones?

(Weisinger Superman, Schwartz Superman and JB Superman are all recognizably Superman; and all of them were single reporters; but that still left enough variation between them for fans of one to decry the others.)

 Gerry Conway wrote:
which is why, when these characters appear outside comics, they always appear in their non-married state


Because non-comics adaptations always do SUCH a great job of capturing the essence of a character... And I also think a comment like that ignores that fact that adaptations start with the single version because that's the appropriate starting point and they simply don't last long enough to get much farther. Even starting from the JB reboot, it took until about issue "#350" (counting all solo issues as if it were a single series) or thereabouts for Superman to marry Lois. The longest running Superman TV series just made it past the 100th episode.       

We start getting movie franchises that can get more than 1 or 2 good movies per incarnation and a solid TV series that lasts even a 10th as long as the series it's building off of and then we can talk. (Much as I love the Timm-verse, 100+ Batman episodes is a pretty small fraction of the total number of Batman stories produced in the comics. That's like, what? Batman #1-30? And even then Timm significantly changed things up for the last 24 episodes.)
Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4566
Posted: 04 February 2014 at 9:28pm | IP Logged | 12  

Jack, no one is saying pros are infallible or incapable of errors or bad ideas.  But the point is that fans turned pro who don't restrain themselves are prone to a certain kind of self indulgence manifests itself in wanting the characters to age and change, and in wanting to see stories that "dare" to alter the status quo in other ways.  That's what's being criticized here.

And we're just talking about ongoing serial fiction.  Television series are a different thing entirely, particularly since the characters are played by actors who do age.
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 16 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