| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132644
|
| Posted: 06 November 2005 at 9:51am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Who is the audience this industry needs more desperately? Is it the young first-time comic buyer or the adult who has followed the big name titles but who is now finding that the same repetetive stories, themes, characters are loosing his interest? I was a X-Men, Thor, Batman addict all through the 80's. But now I'm a Preacher, Leage of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Sin City kind of reader. Somehwere along the way I started realizing that I knew what would happen to Spider-Man before I ever picked up the latest issue. ***** Newsflash: "adults" get old and lose interest in a lot of things. It's called "growing up". And if the toys of youth no longer interest you, that reflects the fact that you are changing, not that there is any inherent flaw in the toys. Any "adult" -- and I use the word advisedly -- who insists that the things he enjoyed as a kid should be changed so that he can enjoy them as an adult is a selfish ass, period.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Richard Siegel
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 868
|
| Posted: 06 November 2005 at 9:52am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Jon - I have a perpetual 7 year old brain. As do most creative types, me thinks.
I just love the stuff and Gardner Fox et al's pseudo-science still boggles my mind(s)!
If modern comics appealed to kids, they'd buy the things if they were accessible - ie supermarkets.
In a world where the Johnny DC line looks more interesting to me with their TV-style adventures (not that far removed from silver age but in Manga/Timm style), than mainstream books (with the rare exception of Baker's Plas & Cookes New Frontier), I wonder what the sales figures are on those....
Edited by Richard Siegel on 06 November 2005 at 9:55am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Stéphane Garrelie
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 August 2005
Location: France
Posts: 4226
|
| Posted: 06 November 2005 at 9:55am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
JB: I aggree, but as a child I liked to have characters that became more adult like the x-men under you and Claremont or your own FF.
And I like too that comics specifically done for adults like Neil Gaiman's Sandman exist too, all along with all-ages comics. There's room for both.
Edited by Stéphane Garrelie on 06 November 2005 at 9:56am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132644
|
| Posted: 06 November 2005 at 10:12am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Robin becoming Nightwing is one of the many examples of aging in comics that I do not like. Unless Dick exists in a vacuum, that means that all of the other original Teen Titans have aged along with him, and so have Batman and his contemporaries.***** I have mentioned before -- but it's always worth repeating -- that this is an area in which the Powers That Are at DC, as well as a whole flock of DC readers, seem to have trouble "doing the math". When Dick Grayson was introduced in 1940, he was 10 years old. When I "met" him in 1956, he was not appreciably older. Nor did he get much older over the next few years. But then Dick was abruptly aged, so he could be sent off to college and written out of the Batman books. That meant his contemporaries in the Teen Titans had to age, too. Check out these two covers, published five years apart...  
Looks like some real time aging has been going on there, doesn't it? And by the time I introduced my own Wonder Girl, I was told that Dick Grayson was 26. How old does that make Batman, if Dick was 10 when he first appeared? And how old does it make Batman's contemporaries, like Superman, or Lois Lane? Wally West, who was (from the way he was drawn) even younger than Dick when he first appeared, is now a adult and himself The Flash. And my Wonder Girl, 14 when she was introduced, looks to be at least 5 years older (again, aging almost in real time) now. Does that mean Dick is 31? So it's been 21 years since he debuted as Robin? Is Batman in his fifties? Is Superman? It's a very bad habit at DC -- and has been for years -- for aging writers to turn the characters into avatars of themselves. Superman, before MAN OF STEEL, had become fuller and softer of face and figure. downright paunchy, in fact. Even as Superman was being given a facelift, tho, Hal Jordan was given white temples and turned into a kind of fallen elder statesman -- with the result that he was replaced by someone more "youthful" a while later. A replacement -- like Wally replacing Barry -- that would have been completely unnecessary if the characters had been kept in the non-time that had been a tradition for decades. As noted, it's all about selfishness, about writers, artists and fans expecting the characters to serve their changing needs, instead of paying attention to the needs of the characters.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132644
|
| Posted: 06 November 2005 at 10:14am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
...as a child I liked to have characters that became more adult like the x-men under you and Claremont or your own FF.**** None of the characters aged so much as a day while I was working on those series. Franklin Richards, as a prime example, was about 5 years old when I started working on FANTASTIC FOUR, and when I departed 5 years later, he was still 5 years old. The X-Men had aged somewhat since their debut, but that had happened before I got to the title, and it stopped in the three years I was on the book.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132644
|
| Posted: 06 November 2005 at 10:16am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Richard Siegel: I have a perpetual 7 year old brain. ***** Just a particularly sick and twisted 7 year old. . .
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ed Love
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2712
|
| Posted: 06 November 2005 at 10:17am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
as i've stated before, i see no problem inherent with "growth &
change." per se. the eternal now/non-aging of characters really only
became prevalent in the 20th century as the characters became
properties of companies moreso than the creators. but literature is
littered with series of novels and stories where the heroes are allowed
to age. even the edisonade dime novels would have every so often the
boy inventor having grown up and having a son with the same name go off
on new adventures.
it's not until we get to nick carter, the shadow, doc savage and the
rest that we start seeing an eternal now. ole nick started off as a
traditional dime-novel detective, graduate to more pulp style
adventurer, and later become hard-boiled spymaster ala the executioner
type novels, a little more extreme example of byrne's example of batman
and superman changing to reflect the times.
with superhero comics as well as comic strips, i don't have a problem
with either path to a certain point. your average comic strip has
numerous examples of both and they all work within the framework of
that strip. and they can all still manage to go to blondie's and
dagwood's for their anniversary.
do i have a problem with spiderman graduating high-school, getting
married, etc? no. but, i don't see high-school as being central to the
character, but the fact that he was an average geeky guy with
average problems (i have more of a problem with him being portrayed as
not being above average smart to being an outright scientific genius).
he's not charlie brown. it's not what stan lee was going for if we
trust his interviews. he wanted characters that had real problems.
graduating high school, going to college, getting married, doesn't
change that. it just changes some of the type of problems he has. the
problem arises with his marriage in that they made mary jane a
super-model. a waitress who acts on the side is much more in keeping
with the type of character peter is. then you have a couple who has
trouble meeting the rent, peter cannot realistically pursue any kind of
serious 9-5 career because of his extracurricular activities thus
cannot follow his other passion, science. being spiderman still has
negative impacts on other areas of his life as he is still torn between
great responsibility as spiderman and his responsibilities as peter
parker. only now instead of just providing support for his aging aunt,
he has taken on responsibilities to his marriage, and to his
in-laws.
and i think that the other thing lee was going for was creating the
marvel universe as a larger story. things happening in other comics
might come into play down the road in the one you're reading. he was
changing the way people read comics, making them buy into a larger
story of the marvel universe. when you start talking about that type of
story, time passing, growth and change become more important to the
story. it's a different type of reading experience. the marvel
universe was not supposed to be a recreation of the 50s-60s dc model.
not that dc was totally immune to allowing time to pass. what makes the
jsa special is that they have been allowed to age and change somewhat,
and thus give dc a deeper heroic history. the idea of multiple earths
was a great ground-breaking story telling device. it allowed dc to have
their cake and eat it too. of course they are still trying to do that
after they got rid of the mechanics that allowed it in the first place.
however, having said all that, i don't think as a general rule
superheroes should age to dotage. mainly because superheroes are about
action and adventure. there are a few stories that can be told about
aging heroes, but, by and large once you done it, that character ceases
being viable as old age pretty much violates the basic concept of any
superhero character. as a general rule, characters should tap out in
the aging department. and it's not difficult to do so. it is a
sci-fi fantasy universe complete with creatures who manipulate time,
lazarus pits, infinity formulas, etc and so on. it's not hard to bring
a character from the 40's, 50's or whatever and plop them down in the
today with an explanation. in an issue of dan slott's she-hulk he did
it all on one page for an obscure golden-age hero, the challenger.
and there are a few characters that any significant passage of time is
completely detrimental to the basic concept of the characters ie the
marvel family (and i'd throw in johnny thunder).
the problem with dc is it wants it both ways. we have wally west grown
up to be the flash, dick grayson taking on as nightwing and new
teen-age heroes. we have definitive markers of time passage. yet
batman, superman, and the other adult heroes don't look like they've
aged all that much, batman is still kicking butt. we have the jsa with
grown children. who aren't going to be allowed to
age all that much, yet the jsa is linked to wwII. just how old were
they when they had these kids? we have them doing the one-year jump
coming up which is not all that much to the adult heroes, but a year is
significant when dealing with teenagers.
i think allowing a comic universe to age for about 5-10 years and then
freezing it is the way to go. it gives characters context and history.
thus your captain foozeball can face off against death-face for the
50th time, they've both been around long enough for it to be accepted
they have a lengthy history together without bogging down in the
details. but if captain foozeball was in the 11th grade when he started
his career and he still is when he faces off against death-face yet
again, foozeball is still a novice hero and they couldn't have really
fought that many times before if at all.
which is probably enough rambling for today. like i said, i see reasons
for both ways. i think the best model is a little of both but also a
bit of consistancy. if you don't want to age characters significantly
and to keep up an illusion of change without real change, then you
avoid things that draw attention to the fact. such as holiday issues
each and every year, markers to specific points of time such as
presidents, specific historical events, and even characters and events
such as pregnancies, children, and such as regular ongoing characters.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132644
|
| Posted: 06 November 2005 at 10:25am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
i see no problem inherent with "growth & change." per se.***** Stated as simply as I possibly can: if a character "grows and changes" s/he stops being the character as originally created. Many things have contributed to the decline in comicbook sales over the past few decades, but it cannot be coincidence that the further characters moved from their original, highly successful forms, the worse their books sold. The books and characters have been increasingly pitched to an aging demographic, of whom there are fewer and fewer every year. Where is the sense in turning Spider-Man -- the ultimate pubescent fantasy -- into Joe Normal, with a wife and kids? What 12 year old wants to read about his parents as superheroes?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Eric Kleefeld
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4422
|
| Posted: 06 November 2005 at 10:32am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
If Peter Parker is 30, then the same attitudes from an insecure teenager are
now pathetic for the adult.
And if Peter Parker is 30, then Johnny Storm is 30. And the attitudes that
are at once fine in a cocky young teenager are now the behavior of a
complete jerk.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Steve Jones
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 August 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 548
|
| Posted: 06 November 2005 at 11:00am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
It cannot be coincidence that the further characters moved from their original, highly successful forms, the worse their books sold.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course, it could be true that by changing the characters it acutally saved superhero comics. If they had stayed true to their original form, it may well be the case that Marvel and DC would be fond but distant memories.
Change or Die, it has ever been so.
edited for typo,Steve
Edited by Steve Jones on 06 November 2005 at 11:01am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
|
| Posted: 06 November 2005 at 11:18am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Jon Godson wrote:
Am I the only one who can appreciate silver age
comic books as just enjoyable stories without having to think as a 7 year-
old? |
|
|
Nope -- I love Silver Age comics just for what they are, too.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ed Love
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 October 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2712
|
| Posted: 06 November 2005 at 11:20am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
yet, "growth and change" are things that helped allow marvel become the
powerhouse. laying a lot on its doorstep to say it killed the industry.
there are a ton of factors that are different now than then. and comics
enjoyed some good wine and salad days allowing for some growth and
change. and growth and change aren't detrimental in other forms of
series fiction either. doyle's sherlock holmes and watson were allowed
to age and change some and still stay inside of the parameters of their
characters. we see growth and change be part of several successful
series of mystery novels and such. just as we see the exact opposite.
it's a story telling world view. it's neither good nor bad. there are
successful forms of both and bad forms of both.
characters can be allowed to grow and change and still be inside of the
parameters of what they were created to be. and frankly, we can have
zero growth and change and have the characters be very different than
what they were created to be. such as batman. while robin was allowed
to grow up and become his own man, batman has essentially had little
growth, but he has changed a whole lot that has nothing to do with
being in-story. my example of nick carter is another of a character who
is supposed to be the same character as the one introduced in the dime
novels but at the same time is a radically different creation that he
might as well be someone else with a different name. and it's not like
they are going to reference that history at all anyway. cases of where
you can still have the change without any growth of the character. if
you're going to have the change anyways, why not have the growth,
generate a good story out of it and have it be part of the history?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
