Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 28 Next >>
Topic: "Growth and Change" (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6282
Posted: 06 November 2005 at 11:38am | IP Logged | 1  

Quote: JB is absolutely right about the myth: viable character=growth. I think it's
a case of "you're damned if you do, and you're damned of you don't".
When something is changed, the "true fans" complain. When there isn't
any "growth", they complain some more.

***

The writing in the silver age DC books involved a lot of lessons learned by the heroes.   That's the kind of growth that really matters.  Good characters have a sense of "dimension" -- in other words they have apparently incongruent characteristics co-exist inside them.  They hit dillemmas and make tough choices under pressure and reveal their true nature.  They often choose wrong in the beginning and learn better as the story goes on until they choose right in the climax.  That's growth that matters.  "Aging" is not meaningful growth, it's marketing.

Whenever it's been good, "New and Different" modifications on characters have been more about marketing than story-telling.  The "New X-Men" and "New Look Batman" came to revive lagging titles.  Creators should be careful when they do this stuff about what they're implying throughout the rest of the comics universe. 

So many times changes have come to brief excitement followed by years of trouble -- Miller's "Born Again" arc on DD comes to mind.  It seems like any "New and Different" spin that's put out to "save" a lagging character should contain its own self-cancelling escape clause in case some unpredicted troubles arise. 

This wouldn't be such an issue if publishers would say "Damn the continuity torpedoes" and truly go after the youth market they really need.  "Growth" is only of interest to aging fans.  Lack of "growth" should be the rule. Anyone who doesn't like the rule should be treated to their own "Elseworlds" imaginary stories and direct sales "Events", but leave the main root of the industry healthy if you really want superhero comics to survive.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6282
Posted: 06 November 2005 at 11:58am | IP Logged | 2  

Steve Jones: "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."

***

That's a ridiculous argument.  The sales fate of Marvel Comics didn't rest on changing the details of the characters lives -- it had to do with Direct Sales shops, speculators, and the bad business decisions to rely on them exclusively. 

The convenience store spinner rack disappeared and took away all new readers and all "impulse buyers."  That made it irrelevent how the characters were written in the eyes of kids-- they couldn't find them anyway.  Speculators kept sales up for a time-- just long enough to keep key people from realizing what a big mistake they were making.

The speculators left, then only the fans stayed and pandering to them meant aging the characters as they aged.  Now there are only a couple hundred thousand of them left-- and no source for replacing them: new readers can't find the comics and if they did they couldn't penetrate the "continuity" anyway. 

Kid 1: "Hey Johnny, look at this awesome Spider-Man comic!"
Kid 2: "What happens in it?"
Kid 1: "Spider-Man has this gruelling fight with his ex-wife and goes up on the roof and ponders his life in the rain!  Then these people down in this diner talk to each other in punchy little phrases!"
Kid 2: "Get me mines!  I can't wait to read that!"
Kid 1: "And in only 3 months we'll find out what happens next!"

"Change or die" doesn't mean any change in any direction will keep you alive.  Stupid changes kill too.



Edited by Mark Haslett on 06 November 2005 at 12:04pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Mietus
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 9704
Posted: 06 November 2005 at 12:32pm | IP Logged | 3  

[disparaging remark thought better of and deleted by the poster]

Edited by John Mietus on 06 November 2005 at 12:35pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve Jones
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 August 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 548
Posted: 06 November 2005 at 12:44pm | IP Logged | 4  

Mark, I was actually replying to John's point about it not being a coincidence that the further characters moved from their original form, the worse sales became. He may be right, I don't know. Probably, I think he is partly right, that moving away from the previous successful business model did lose sales, but this business model was failing and did the move actually shore up other sales?

The same goes for Comic Shops. From what I can remember they saved comics but it had it's downsides too, and perhaps that is a price that is only now being paid. But if you're in charge of Marvel in the earlier 1980's, you can't really be too concerned with what Marvel will be doing in 2005. Maybe in an ideal world you would be looking that far forward but in an industry that had historically only looked at the next month it would be a lot to expect.

It is very easy from the sidelines to say that was a bad decision or they should have done that. But it can be argued that those bad decisions were the best that could be made at the time and that superhero comics are still here, still pretty much the same as they have always been and still making a profit. Unlike the pulps.

Then again, I could be wrong.

 

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132673
Posted: 06 November 2005 at 1:09pm | IP Logged | 5  

Change or Die, it has ever been so."

++++

That's a ridiculous argument.

****

Consider the source.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter J. Romeo
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 52
Posted: 06 November 2005 at 1:36pm | IP Logged | 6  

I don't think it can be put any better than Mr. Byrne just did a few moments ago. The truth is, the comics themselves should stay the same for each new generation of children to discover, enjoy, and then leave.

Those of us who stay behind must admit--even begrudgingly so--that we are the aberration, not the "target audience."

Back to Top profile | search
 
Jason Schulman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2473
Posted: 06 November 2005 at 1:46pm | IP Logged | 7  

The aging of the Teen Titans made a certain sense considering that they were supposed to be, y'know, teenagers. When you consider Bob Haney's "hip" dialogue and Nick Cardy's nack for drawing very attractive young men and women, it's hard to imagine that those styles could've worked for characters under 15 (Cardy's art would've seemed downright pervy!).

Anyway, per current canon, Dick was 12 when he became Robin, and Batman was 28...so when Dick is 26, Batman is...42. Yikes. Then again, Batman did take a dip in the Lazarus Pit in a story written by Denny O'Neil in the 1990s, as I recall, so if one really needs an explanation for Bruce's continued vitality, there 'tis.

I think the grey temples on Hal Jordan's hair were an attempt to keep the O'Neil/Adams stories in the era for which they were intended. (It is true that they don't make much sense in any later era.) But that was a bad idea.

I'm generally in agreement with JB about on this topic, but I guess I have a "what's done is done" attitude about the matter, and unless both DC and Marvel engage in universe-wide reboots (total reboots, not pick-and-choose reboots like those in the wake of Crisis), writers are just going to have to use the characters as they are and "fix" them as best they can. (For Spider-Man, getting Peter out of Avengers Tower and having him and MJ have an amicable divorce would be a nice start.)
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve Jones
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 August 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 548
Posted: 06 November 2005 at 1:50pm | IP Logged | 8  

So comics shouldn't have changed. Just stayed the way they were. Hmmm, let me see, they were being forced off the newstands. So where do we sell them? In Comic shops. But that's a change. So we better change. No, no we mustn't change. But if we don't change, we won't have anywhere to sell them. That's true, you've persuaded me. I am glad you agree if we hadn't changed we would have died.

All organisations have to change. Times changed, ways of doing business change, regulations change, markets change, fashions change, tastes change. The important thing is not that we have to change, that is a given, but whether the change we choose to make is the best one or in many cases the least worst?

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Peter J. Romeo
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 52
Posted: 06 November 2005 at 2:10pm | IP Logged | 9  

Steve--

You can make that change, say, to direct sales shops catering mostly to adults, but if you do--eventually that audience you've targeted is going to die. And, without a younger audience coming up to replace that one, comic books also die.

Kids today don't know where to find comic books, or why they should read them, And, should a comic fall into their hands, they often find a muddled story of a thirty-year old hero dealing with mundane, "mature" issues.

Comic books should, at their essence, be for children. Comics for adults should be a niche market--not the other way around.

 

 

Back to Top profile | search
 
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12857
Posted: 06 November 2005 at 2:19pm | IP Logged | 10  

"All organisations have to change. Times changed, ways of doing business change, regulations change, markets change, fashions change, tastes change. The important thing is not that we have to change, that is a given, but whether the change we choose to make is the best one or in many cases the least worst?"

That's such a woozy-headed argument. Comics has changed such that there is no need to bring in young readers?
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Jason Schulman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2473
Posted: 06 November 2005 at 2:21pm | IP Logged | 11  

No, comics for adults should not be a niche market, any more than books for adults should be a niche market.  We are talking here about Marvel and DC superhero comics, not comics-in-general. It is possible to do comics for adults that are as sophisticated as any novel, and we should hope that the audience for such comics expands and expands. But it's less likely that this audience will expand unless more people start reading comics as youth. If they don't start out reading Superman or Spider-Man, they're less likely to start reading Love & Rockets or Eightball later.
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Grumpy Old Guy

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132673
Posted: 06 November 2005 at 2:57pm | IP Logged | 12  

The aging of the Teen Titans made a certain sense
considering that they were supposed to be, y'know,
teenagers.

*****

Teenagers begin at 13. That Wonder Girl looks a
mite older than that to me.
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 28 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