| Author |
|
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2230
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 1:29pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
On M*A*S*H, they "killed" Henry Blake against the wishes of the Suits.
The "suits" are concerned with marketing, etc. which can be (like in the Brennert Starlog piece) be very much at cross-purposes with the creative staff. The creative staff may not have infinite autonomy, but if they have none, then nothing will get done.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Darren Ashmore
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 960
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 3:00pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Another problem is that many of the Fan-pros are now Fan-editors.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4184
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 7:43pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote:
| I think you're deceiving yourself. |
|
|
Wow, that didn't come across as condescending AT ALL...
A core has a lot more wiggle room than a status quo does. The core of the Fantastic Four is the family relationship, which can work whether Reed and Sue are merely dating; newly married; or long term married raising Franklin. But you can't do all three at the same time. Beginning a Fantastic Four movie franchise/TV series with a dating Reed and Sue is a perfectly valid starting point but that's not the same thing as saying you need to leave them that way permanently.
There's a difference between incidental elements and vital ones. I think Superman being raised by the Kents is vital to the mythos, but how important is it that the Kents died before he moved to Metropolis (or at all)? Depends on who you ask. For most characters I think of marital status as being incidental, not key. YMMV.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6430
|
| Posted: 05 February 2014 at 9:08pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Dave: For most characters I think of marital status as being incidental, not key. YMMV.
**
Dave, I'm not trying to be condescending, so I apologize. Your posts keep referring to Conway's quote as if you disagree with it -- but your arguments are apples to his oranges. Conway talks about Spider-Man and Superman as characters whose core is damaged by pairing them off in marriage. Not the Fantastic Four or anyone else who isn't a "misunderstood outsider". That is what he calls the core of Spider-Man's character, not all Superhero characters.
If a movie or TV show started with a married Spider-Man (or Superman, or Batman, or Daredevil or...) it would miss the CORE of those characters by a mile. Is that really a position that you disagree with?
Edited by Mark Haslett on 05 February 2014 at 9:12pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4184
|
| Posted: 06 February 2014 at 6:31am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Mark Haslett wrote:
| Your posts keep referring to Conway's quote as if you disagree with it -- but your arguments are apples to his oranges. |
|
|
Keep in mind I was originally responding to Jason Czeskleba's assertion that "comic characters should not change or evolve", which he used Conway's quote to back up. He upgraded it from "specific example" to "general philosophy" and so did I. If you want to bring it back down to the specific example of Spider-Man and Superman being married, then okay.
QUOTE:
| If a movie or TV show started with a married Spider-Man (or Superman, or Batman, or Daredevil or...) it would miss the CORE of those characters by a mile. Is that really a position that you disagree with? |
|
|
Yes. (My problem with Batman and Daredevil being married in a Hollywood production would be more that there's no antecedent in the comics for such a move (unless you're doing a Huntress series, I guess), but that's neither here nor there.)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6430
|
| Posted: 06 February 2014 at 11:33am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Dave: Keep in mind I was originally responding to Jason Czeskleba's assertion that "comic characters should not change or evolve", which he used Conway's quote to back up. He upgraded it from "specific example" to "general philosophy" and so did I.
**
You specifically argued against Conway's assertions. I do not see how that "upgradeed it to "general philosophy."" But since you believe the core of Spider-Man could be captured with him starting out as married, I can't see that we have much common ground in this thread in any case.
Edited by Mark Haslett on 06 February 2014 at 11:35am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4184
|
| Posted: 06 February 2014 at 2:38pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| You specifically argued against Conway's assertions. I do not see how that "upgradeed it to "general philosophy."" |
|
|
Jason said "comic characters should not change or evolve." He used a Conway quote which focused on Spider-Man and Superman as specific examples, but when I commented on the Conway quote I bumped "these characters" up from Spider-Man and Superman to comic characters in general in line with Jason's original statement. (Which is why Batman showed up at the end.) Since that wasn't clear, that's a failure of execution on my part.
QUOTE:
| But since you believe the core of Spider-Man could be captured with him starting out as married, I can't see that we have much common ground in this thread in any case. |
|
|
Probably not. But there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree.
Edited by Dave Phelps on 06 February 2014 at 2:48pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Jansen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 October 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 2366
|
| Posted: 06 February 2014 at 11:18pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Q for the people arguing against any aging for these characters: Would you REALLY prefer Peter Parker to STILL be in high school?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2230
|
| Posted: 07 February 2014 at 12:06am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
If he aged real time since his creation in 1962, assuming he was 18 in highschool, that would make him 70 this year. If that's my option to keeping him in highschool, heck yeah I'll take highschool. If only on the grounds you have more story options for an 18 year-old Spider-Man than a 70 year-old one.The question then becomes what the optimal age is, and part of that determination would be the age of the target audience.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8515
|
| Posted: 07 February 2014 at 2:03am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
That being the case, clearly the answer to how old Peter Parker should be today is 47.
Edited by Brian Hague on 07 February 2014 at 2:04am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2230
|
| Posted: 07 February 2014 at 2:12am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Yeah, to speak to that audience, they should do stories where Spider-Man does battle with the Diabolical Receding Hairline, or sits down at the kitchen table on Sundays to combat the dreaded Spider-Bills.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Robert White
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4560
|
| Posted: 07 February 2014 at 2:41am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Spider-Man is ideal around 25 years old. The ship sailed on high school, in mainline continuity, when Stan had him graduate and then go to college. Given that you want Spider-Man to appeal to kids, but still be interesting to the current audience that is, for better or worse, factually 40+ in age at this point, I think mid-20's is ideal and balances the two spectrum's better than a 16 year old kid or one in his 30's--most of us are still in that quasi-state between our immature teen years and fully entering the adult sphere in our early and mid 20's.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
