|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Feb 2, 2019 9:00:28 GMT -5
So I mentioned in the reboot thread about the people behind the mask changing and was suggested to start a new thread. Which makes sense instead derailing the reboot thread.
I mentioned in the 90’s DC took Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Flash and Wonder Woman and changed things. GL was now Kyle Rayner. GA was Conner Hawke. Flash was Wally West. And WW resides on earth and even took a job.
These changes in either actual people or character behavior/situation was in an attempt to appeal to the possible younger demographic. Which was perfect timing for me, getting into comics right about then. Especially other than Batman TAS there was way more Marvel animated shows on TV so I was much more familiar with their characters. Along with the Spider-Man strip in the newspaper.
This to me is a better move than reboots. It allows for change but doesn’t require the erasure of history. In GA, GL and Flash’s case there was a unique story written that got Kyle, Conner and Wally in the costume. The original men behind those masks were still in the picture (even Oliver’s “death” wasn’t certain). WW became more mortal so to speak so became more down to earth; literally. And this was the best time for me in DC’s universe. I don’t think I’ve ever bought more monthly DC titles in my history of buying comics than at this time.
What are your thoughts on changes behind the mask? What to you draws you to buy a, say, Batman comic? Bruce Wayne or Batman?
And any opinions on the above mentioned titles at that time would be more than welcomed. I would love to hear from anyone that read them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Feb 2, 2019 9:17:08 GMT -5
So I mentioned in the reboot thread about the people behind the mask changing and was suggested to start a new thread. Which makes sense instead derailing the reboot thread. I mentioned in the 90’s DC took Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Flash and Wonder Woman and changed things. GL was now Kyle Rayner. GA was Conner Hawke. Flash was Wally West. And WW resides on earth and even took a job. These changes in either actual people or character behavior/situation was in an attempt to appeal to the possible younger demographic. Which was perfect timing for me, getting into comics right about then. Especially other than Batman TAS there was way more Marvel animated shows on TV so I was much more familiar with their characters. Along with the Spider-Man strip in the newspaper. This to me is a better move than reboots. It allows for change but doesn’t require the erasure of history. In GA, GL and Flash’s case there was a unique story written that got Kyle, Conner and Wally in the costume. The original men behind those masks were still in the picture (even Oliver’s “death” wasn’t certain). WW became more mortal so to speak so became more down to earth; literally. And this was the best time for me in DC’s universe. I don’t think I’ve ever bought more monthly DC titles in my history of buying comics than at this time. What are your thoughts on changes behind the mask? What to you draws you to buy a, say, Batman comic? Bruce Wayne or Batman? And any opinions on the above mentioned titles at that time would be more than welcomed. I would love to hear from anyone that read them. As a long-time reader of any comic, I want the character whose adventures I’ve been following for years t9 remain the same person. When reading Iron Man, for example, I want to know what happens next to Tony Stark, not to his armor. That being said, if I were a newer reader, I probably wouldn’t care overmuch. Not knowing who Hal Jordan is exactly nor who Kyle Rayner might be, I could be quite interested to read a story about passing the baton in a superheroic context. This is even truer when we consider team books, where I see it as a great quality to allow a slow turnover of characters, with some old favourites eventually retiring and new blood being slowly introduced. Generally speaking, because I think the ongoing soap operatic nature of American super-hero comics is one of their strengths, I view the eventual replacement of old characters by newer versions as a positive thing. It helps give the impression that even in those make-believe universes time does pass and that events have consequences. The changes, however, and this is absolutely crucial, have to be organic and feel natural. If they feel like they’re implemented by editorial fiat or look like a mere marketing stunt, they don’t work. I wasn’t really following DC in the 90s, except for the Legion titles, but it seems to me that replacing Hal with Kyle or Ollie with Connor worked. I’m not convinced that either of the new characters managed to be as iconic as their predecessors, but perhaps they would have grown into the role. Tim Drake certainly did a great job in filling Dick Grayson’s shoes! Part of a successful transition is the acknowledement of what came before. When Marvel decided to add a new, teenaged Nova to its stable of character, I’m sure things would have been fine if Richard Ryder had been mentioned from the get go. However, the new Nova was presented as THE Nova, as if there was no legacy he was basically usurping. His origin also torpedoed that of his predecessor thanks to continuity-killing retconning. That’s just how not to do things, irrespective of whether the new character is a good one or not. |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Feb 2, 2019 9:26:29 GMT -5
This discussion comes up all the time with respect to Doctor Who, and the answer is that it's up to the current creative team to tell compelling stories with the current character. If that happens, people won't be upset that the character has changed. The established character has the advantage of built-in continuity hooks for both plot and relationships with other characters. The new character has the advantage of uncharted territory. Either can be exploited by capable creators.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Feb 2, 2019 9:56:49 GMT -5
As a long-time reader of any comic, I want the character whose adventures I’ve been following for years t9 remain the same person. When reading Iron Man, for example, I want to know what happens next to Tony Stark, not to his armor. That being said, if I were a newer reader, I probably wouldn’t care overmuch. Not knowing who Hal Jordan is exactly nor who Kyle Rayner might be, I could be quite interested to read a story about passing the baton in a superheroic context. This is even truer when we consider team books, where I see it as a great quality to allow a slow turnover of characters, with some old favourites eventually retiring and new blood being slowly introduced. I think this is certainly why it worked for me in the case of the changes in DC characters. I wasn't really familiar with either so it was more of a matter of did I like what was going on at the time. Though I did and still do like Kyle and Conner over Oliver and Hal. Even though I do like Oliver. Never of what I've read been a fan of Hal. As far as team books I entered X-Men during Age of Apocalypse so the X-Men I was on print were much different than the 90's X-Men animated series. But I like both AoA and 616. I also really like Austin's team with Juggernaut and Nightcrawler. There were a lot of good stories in that run, and I like seeing "impossible" X-Men recruits like Juggernaut or Sabertooth in AoA. I think this is why I like the passing of the mantel events. It makes it seem more realistic. I don't mind characters changing and moving on to different aspects. Even not as a GL John Stewart played quite the roll in Kyle's progression as GL. Which was super cool to see. John may not have been a GL but he was still John. And yeah Tim is by far my favorite Robin. And I was reading both Robin and Nightwing. So it was cool to see them both in their own role. I couldn't agree more. I like for things to seem as though time is passing, just like in reality, and the past history is recognized by the present just like we do with human history. This discussion comes up all the time with respect to Doctor Who, and the answer is that it's up to the current creative team to tell compelling stories with the current character. If that happens, people won't be upset that the character has changed. The established character has the advantage of built-in continuity hooks for both plot and relationships with other characters. The new character has the advantage of uncharted territory. Either can be exploited by capable creators. This reminds me at some point I need to give the rest of the gals that teamed up with Steed in The Avengers a chance. I'm just so enamored with Diana Rigg that I just keep rewatching those episodes. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 12:50:53 GMT -5
DC:
The Good: Wally replacing Barry happened organically. Barry died a heroic death. His long time protégé Wally takes his place.
The Bad: Kyle as GL. Hal goes insane. And a random character that has never appeared before becomes the new GL. However with time Kyle became worthy and Hal became "redeemed" IMO when he re-ignited the Sun in Final Night. John Stewart would have made more sense.
Connor as GA. Roy yes. Connor no. He came out of nowhere. But I started to like him with time.
The Ugly: Artemis as WW. Jean Paul Valley as Batman. Neither made any sense at all. Donna as WW and Dick as Batman would have been great.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 12:55:02 GMT -5
Marvel:
The Good: Bucky as Cap. Rhodey as Iron Man. These two made sense. Jane as Thor. Man the execution of this was pitch perfect and so well done it was amazing. Scott Lang as Ant-Man is more interesting than Hank Pym as Ant-Man ever was.
The Bad: Sam as Cap. It was OK but just never got into it.
The Ugly: Ben Reilly as Spider-Man. Anyone but Banner as Hulk. In fact there are too many Hulks.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,588 
|
Post by Confessor on Feb 2, 2019 13:03:12 GMT -5
I generally don't like the person behind the mask changing because, as Roquefort Raider says above, "I want the character whose adventures I've been following for years to remain the same person." That said, I do think you have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Did I like Ben Reilly becoming Spider-Man in the mid-90s? Hell, no. Did I find the Eric O'Grady iteration of Ant-Man about a hundred times more interesting and entertaining than the old Hank Pym version? Yes, you betcha!
On a related note, I'm a big fan of Kurt Busiek's Astro City comic, and one of the things about that series is that the events in the book happen in real time. So, since its inception in the early '90s, we've seen characters such as the Confessor and Jack-in-the-Box die or retire and have their mantle taken up by a successor. I never had a problem with that aspect of the series, but then, due to the nature of the stories in Astro City, it's not like you're following the same characters all the time. So, it's perhaps easier to accept a changing face behind the mask in that comic.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Feb 2, 2019 14:23:31 GMT -5
I don’t really know what’s happening currently (or what has happened for the last 25 years or so in terms of continuity) for my favourite hero Soider-Man but I know this.
I would rather read a story about Peter Parker. Always and forever. But I like the idea of change so if Miles Morales exists even in his own alternate world, I would love to read that. No need to pass the torch or try to connect the two just set it in its own reimagned world.
To my understanding that is kinda what they’ve done??
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 2, 2019 15:12:40 GMT -5
I generally don't like the person behind the mask changing because, as Roquefort Raider says above, "I want the character whose adventures I've been following for years to remain the same person." That said, I do think you have to take it on a case-by-case basis. Did I like Ben Reilly becoming Spider-Man in the mid-90s? Hell, no. Did I find the Eric O'Grady iteration of Ant-Man about a hundred times more interesting and entertaining than the old Hank Pym version? Yes, you betcha! On a related note, I'm a big fan of Kurt Busiek's Astro City comic, and one of the things about that series is that the events in the book happen in real time. So, since its inception in the early '90s, we've seen characters such as the Confessor and Jack-in-the-Box die or retire and have their mantle taken up by a successor. I never had a problem with that aspect of the series, but then, due to the nature of the stories in Astro City, it's not like you're following the same characters all the time. So, it's perhaps easier to accept a changing face behind the mask in that comic. A la the Phantom. A bit like Seinfeld says about our allegiance to sports teams, which feature thousands of different players over many decades: "We're rooting for the laundry."  |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Feb 2, 2019 15:13:56 GMT -5
adamwarlock2099 was right, the changes were easier to take if you had nothing invested in the character. I never cared for Hal Jordan and never bought the book so I wasn't upset when they moved in Kyle. West was deserving of the Flash Mantle so I was really shocked when they returned Allen after 30 years. Didn't Allens book get canceled for lack of interest/sales?
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Feb 2, 2019 23:31:26 GMT -5
I liked Wally as Flash, was indifferent to Kyle and Conner, as neither were my GL or GA. Never that big of a fan of GL, anyway. Ollie would always by Green Arrow. I agree that Roy was a better fit, though he would never take the name.
I hated most of the JSA legacies, introduced in Infinity, Inc. I didn't mind the kids; but, the female dr Mid-Nite and Wildcat were dull and Hourman had a horrible costume. Of the kids, Silver Scarab never really worked for me, as an identity. Loved Nuklon/Atom Smasher, Brainwave Jr was an interesting legacy, liked Fury (more when she was WW's daughter); hated Northwind (bas design, would rather have had Hector as Hawkman or some variation). Would have preferred Huntress and Power Girl to have stayed around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2019 11:30:53 GMT -5
Great topic!
I think, as Confessor said, it has to be on a case-by-case basis.
So, Wally West becoming Flash after Allen's heroic sacrifice, well that works for me. I was fine with Jim Rhodes, being a friend of Tony Stark, evolving to the point where he wanted to wear armour. Those things feel organic.
If it feels less organic (or not organic at all), then it comes across as contrived. So if there was a Venom sequel out, and somehow the comics had Tony Stark give Eddie Brock a symbiote-friendly armour to use, I'd feel it was a sales stunt.
An important point for me is whether something will be temporary or not.
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knew that Dr. Octopus would not remain Spidey forever. But I was on board because I was intrigued by the idea of Ock inhabiting Spidey's body. I'm fine with that. I quite liked Jean-Paul Valley as Bats because of how it came about, where it led, how it affected Bruce Wayne, etc.
But if something is going to be permanent, or very, very long-term, then that's a different ball game. I'd take it on a case-by-case basis, but it would definitely be a game-changer as far as whether I'd continue reading or not.
I think it's the character (e.g. Bruce Wayne) that is a most important factor. Bruce Wayne is Batman because of a unique set of circumstances. Same with Peter Parker as Spidey. I don't necessarily think masks/armour should be interchangeable. It can dilute the originals if everyone from Bruce Wayne and Jean-Paul Valley to Santa Claus can put on the Bat-mask/armour. The fewer people can be a certain character, the better. For me, the magic number is two. I'm happy with Steve Rogers and Sam Wilson being Cap, but if there's 5, 10 or 15 people who can all be Cap, well how does that make Cap unique and special?
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Feb 4, 2019 9:29:21 GMT -5
A change under the mask is a great way to refresh the strengths of a character and what makes him/her the great hero/villain they are. It played out wonderfully in Batman and Captain America and Ironman that it takes more than just having the name to being them. It also bodes well when the "Sidekick" picks up the mantle of their former mentor. As far as I am concerned Wally is the only one heir to the title Flash. Dick Grayson is the heir to Batman. It really dilutes and takes away from the characters when a "new" person shows up out of nowhere and suddenly "becomes" the hero/villain.
While I can appreciate the mileage from crafting "new" stories with a new person in the identity, I think it shouldn't be done permanently unless they are a "legacy"type character set up with that as part of their concept. A different Phantom, no problem, but a different Shadow no way. You become invested in certain heroes and villains over time and reading until "that" person is who you want to read about. Bruce Wayne will always be Batman, tony Stark Ironman, Steve Rogers Captain America, Peter Parker Spider-Man and so forth. Introducing somebody else weakens the original characterization and unless it is something like the GL Corp or when Superman "died" and others stepped up to fill the void, who would want to become the second person under the mask? Every time you make a mistake or error you are going to get slammed with you aren't half the person of the one before you. Even though the originals make/made plenty of their own errors it is always the 1st who creates the standard that all the others coming after have to live up to.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Feb 4, 2019 12:07:50 GMT -5
Introducing somebody else weakens the original characterization and unless it is something like the GL Corp or when Superman "died" and others stepped up to fill the void, who would want to become the second person under the mask? Every time you make a mistake or error you are going to get slammed with you aren't half the person of the one before you. Even though the originals make/made plenty of their own errors it is always the 1st who creates the standard that all the others coming after have to live up to. This is actually why I think I enjoyed Kyle and Conner as GL and GA respectively. Kyle didn't ask for it, but he got it. And after Hal's falling out, it really started to be about Kyle trying no necessarily to fill Hal's shoes, but just as a member of the Corp itself. Hal's shortcomings, were Kyle's motivation. Similarly Conner wanting to be as a good of an archer and GA as Oliver was his motivation. So to me, people comparing them to their predecessors was just more motivation for them to be better. I feel like it was similar with Wally, though I did not follow Flash as faithfully as I did GL and GA. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 5, 2019 19:59:49 GMT -5
I think it's all about how it's done and who the character is. I love Kyle and Wally.. far more than Hal and Barry (who IMO are both terribly dull. And I STILL think Hal going crazy made total sense and was done well). I was fine with Rhodey as Iron Man for a while, because Tony was still in the picture and developing.
More recently, I hated Riri Williams.. mostly because Tony Stark was still hovering over her... you couldn't move on, really, but yet Tony was not developing either. It probably didn't help that Riri herself was exactly like every other recent Marvel created character.
With Sam Wilson as Captain America, I think I would have preferred he just stayed Falcon, but inherited the shield. He was a good hero in his own right already.
Jane Foster as Thor was good, but the way they handled Odinson in the meantime was silly and definitely cast a pall on things at times.
I've never wanted Dick Grayson to be Batman.. he's better as his own character... same with Roy Harper. They transcended being a sidekick/heir apparent and I feel like taking someone else's role would be a step back.
|
|
