| Author |
|
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6430
|
| Posted: 04 February 2014 at 10:06pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Dave: 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.
**
JB's reboot was 1985. By 1992, just 7 years later the plan to have Clark and Lois marry was replaced at the last minute by the "Death" of Superman storyline. By this time, Lois knew Superman's secret identity and the fan-service had already hit a tipping point.
You point out that non-comic adaptations have not lasted as long as the comics as if that contradicts Conway's point. But his point was that the characters, at their most lasting core, fit an archetype. He's saying that the recognizable part of the character, the part you agree is an appropriate starting point, is that core.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 6:58am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
…here are some comments from Gerry Conway that pretty well sum up the reasons comic characters should not age or "evolve"…•• Is there an ECHO in here?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 7:32am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
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.
***
Given some of the things that have happened in recent years, I can see how that would be a definite advantage.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4184
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 8:02am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote:
| You point out that non-comic adaptations have not lasted as long as the comics as if that contradicts Conway's point. But his point was that the characters, at their most lasting core, fit an archetype. He's saying that the recognizable part of the character, the part you agree is an appropriate starting point, is that core. |
|
|
My point was that there's a difference between the Core of the Character and what's simply a good starting point. In the comics, there are a lot more opportunities (and, arguably, a greater need) to fiddle with the elements. I don't think knocking comic creators for taking advantage of these opportunities while praising adaptations for not lasting long enough for it to be an issue (on the sadly rare occasions where they don't screw it up to begin with) is playing fair. (In principle, anyway. Specific examples get messier.)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Darren Ashmore
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 960
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 8:57am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
IMO part of the difference between real-pro and fan-pro is knowing where to draw the line. Fan-pro doesn't, real-pro does for example having a post coitus Batman & Catwoman on a rooftop, or a soaking wet Ultimate Hank Pym 'climbing out' of Ultimate Wasp. To further illustrate my point - In a unified Marvel Universe Ben Grimm can easily be cured of being The Thing, take Ben's cells, stick 'em in Miles Warrens' cloning machine and age 'em (Warren made an 18 year old Peter Parker in roughly two years, and he's a High School teacher). Voila! clone of Ben, use the Oviods technique of consciousness transference (even Reed has done it) and you have a completely functioning human Ben Grimm, Thing Free. Now Fan-pro would be all over this like a lycra suit - "Look how dumb these old writers are, not one of them has thought of this in 60 years, but boy I have! How smart am I!". However Real-pro knows that much of the appeal of The Thing character lies in the exploration of his tragic state and his continual search for a cure while conversely not wanting to be cured because of his perception that Alicia only loves him as The Thing. Fan-pro wants to see Ben cured, he's wanted it since he read Fantastic Four issue whatever. It comes down to what serves the characters best not what serves the writer.
Edited by Darren Ashmore on 05 February 2014 at 8:58am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Tim O Neill
Byrne Robotics Security
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10937
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 9:18am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
"…here are some comments from Gerry Conway that pretty well sum up the reasons comic characters should not age or 'evolve'…"•• JB: "Is there an ECHO in here?"
+++++++
Too true!! You were saying all of this stuff back when the web was in its early dial-up, wild west stage. And it got you a boatload of flack. I'm glad to see many creative folk saying the same thing these days - maybe if more people were honest and didn't pander to a dying model, then we could see some real change.
it would be good to see JB acknowledged for saying these opinions early on. He was vilified for some pretty minor stuff -- in retrospect, I think it was retribution for being against the comic book establishment's status quo.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133334
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 9:24am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
To further illustrate my point - In a unified Marvel Universe Ben Grimm can easily be cured of being The Thing, take Ben's cells, stick 'em in Miles Warrens' cloning machine and age 'em (Warren made an 18 year old Peter Parker in roughly two years, and he's a High School teacher). Voila! clone of Ben, use the Oviods technique of consciousness transference (even Reed has done it) and you have a completely functioning human Ben Grimm, Thing Free. Now Fan-pro would be all over this like a lycra suit - "Look how dumb these old writers are, not one of them has thought of this in 60 years, but boy I have! How smart am I!".•• Doctor Strange could do it in a nanosecond!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 9:29am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
"Look how dumb these old writers are, not one of them has thought of this in 60 years, but boy I have! How smart am I!".
***
This reminds me of someone who asked me why Superman didn't intervene in the 1990s KNIGHTFALL storyline where there was a mass breakout at Arkham Asylum, engineered by Bane.
My response was something like, "Because Superman could probably have most of Batman's villains locked up within five minutes and then there'd be no stories or challenges for Batman."
Darren Ashmore's examples take me back to two "dreams" I had for comic characters as a kid: I wanted Jack McGee on the Hulk series to learn Banner's secret. And I wanted Parker to reveal his identity to Jonah Jameson. I was about 9. That's fan-think. As an adult, I know better.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4184
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 10:14am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Darren Ashmore wrote:
| Ultimate Hank Pym 'climbing out' of Ultimate Wasp |
|
|
If only it was Ultimate Hank and Jan... (sigh)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jack Michaels
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 June 2013
Posts: 422
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 11:18am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| 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. |
|
|
These sort of things sneak in regardless of whether there's actors involved or not. Watson got married and widowed (neither affected the stories much). Jack Ryan went from CIA analyst to President of the United States. Plenty of examples of serial fiction doing the same sort of stuff as the comics.
Which, at least to me, begs the question. How much of what's going on is truly the influence of fans running things? Everything I've read about DC these days suggests a sales-obsessed management is dictating events to their writers, which seems to be a very familiar problem running back to the Go Go 90s, when the sales department pretty much ran the show and no fan dollar was to be left uncollected.
Fans have their weird predilections and as someone who has read far more Doctor Who novels than is healthy, I can quote you chapter and verse about what kind of stories fans-turned-pro will churn out if left to their own devices... and some of them have a nasty streak.
When I read today's comics, I can see the fan influence, but mostly I see the marketing department. Every fan bitches and moans about company wide cross-overs, the writers never seem to be happy about being forced to participate, yet they keep happening, because the sales department knows they can count on the completist tendency to deliver a nice bump in sales. There's nothing fannish about that, it's just straight-up exploitation.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6430
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 11:22am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Dave: My point was that there's a difference between the Core of the Character and what's simply a good starting point.
**
I think you're deceiving yourself. What is that difference? If there was a difference, then why would the core and the "good starting point" always be the same? People may now have nostalgia for the married Spider-Man and Superman eras, but I've never heard anyone try to say those were core/defining periods for what makes those characters work.
Conway does not praise the adaptations in any way, he simply points out that making a recognizable version of a character means keeping the core "archetypal" idea.
Taking opportunities to fiddle with it does not serve the characters, it serves something else (creator ego? fan-pressure?).
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jack Michaels
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 June 2013
Posts: 422
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 12:01pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| Taking opportunities to fiddle with it does not serve the characters, it serves something else (creator ego? fan-pressure?). |
|
|
Money? Free publicity?
These kinds of things don't happen to high profile characters without the suits being on board.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
