shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 30, 2015 20:10:07 GMT -5
Superheroes have become cultural mythology by this point, which is exactly why the constant extension of the copyrights on characters like Batman and Superman is just plain wrong. These characters belong to the people at this point and, as such, should be kept generally all-ages friendly. I think its perfectly fine to have a dark graphic novel or limited series every now and then, but when kids get the impression that superheroes aren't for them anymore, I think the party's over. We've alienated the next generation of readers and, worse than that, denied our inner children as well. As much as I'll always appreciate a deep, well plotted and characterized Superman story, I'd be fooling myself to pretend what first appealed to me about the character wasn't wearing his licensed pajamas when I was three and running around the house with my arms extended forward. I think the characters entering the public domain is a two way street. On one hand, we can get more varied takes on the characters that can break from the traditional standards set by the Big 2. On the other hand, we may experience a glut of material that betrays the original intents of the creators of these characters simply by writers who don't get the characters or actively seek to make them fit their own perceptions of what "modernizing" them is. The problem with leaving them in the private domain is that DC's only incentive is profit; they gain nothing from keeping a character true to its roots. So we keep getting new costumes and reboots, which is fine, but public domain would ensure that someone is keeping the iconic version of the character alive. Take Sherlock Holmes -- since falling into public domain, a plethora of authors, tv show producers, and filmmakers have tried their hands at the character; some of those works are very different from the classic interpretation, but you can always find the classic incarnations being produced as well. It's the best of both worlds. Superman is bigger than a comic book universe. It shouldn't be up to DC's current EIC whether or not we can see Superman in red undies saving Lois Lane in a kid-friendly adventure. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 21:26:20 GMT -5
I think the characters entering the public domain is a two way street. On one hand, we can get more varied takes on the characters that can break from the traditional standards set by the Big 2. On the other hand, we may experience a glut of material that betrays the original intents of the creators of these characters simply by writers who don't get the characters or actively seek to make them fit their own perceptions of what "modernizing" them is. The problem with leaving them in the private domain is that DC's only incentive is profit; they gain nothing from keeping a character true to its roots. So we keep getting new costumes and reboots, which is fine, but public domain would ensure that someone is keeping the iconic version of the character alive. Take Sherlock Holmes -- since falling into public domain, a plethora of authors, tv show producers, and filmmakers have tried their hands at the character; some of those works are very different from the classic interpretation, but you can always find the classic incarnations being produced as well. It's the best of both worlds. Superman is bigger than a comic book universe. It shouldn't be up to DC's current EIC whether or not we can see Superman in red undies saving Lois Lane in a kid-friendly adventure. The other thing with public domain is just as someone might push for traditional takes, more likely people will do their own takes and you will get to see actual published versions of Superman and crew that are much more adult in nature, not just versions that we see now in fan fiction slash sites, but say HBO series level of violence with gore and sex as part of the package. Once its in the wild of public domain, there is no longer a standard definitive version-what's the definitive version of Robin Hood? Arthur? Hercules? Not the earliest myths and folklore in the public eye certainly. Once in the public domain characters tend to leave behind their original definitive take and evolve into something else entirely (not that Superman hasn't already done that under the DC umbrella), but going into the public domain is no guarantee that kid friendly material will continue to get seen. All producers of potential material will be at the mercy of what the market will bear and support and kid friendly material will be produced only if it performs to a level that makes it worthwhile. And even if the copyrights end, the trademarks will still be held by DC so a lot of the newerish material will be operating with one leg tied behind their back. Let's look frankly at what passes as kid friendly in today's market. Look at the content on channels like ABC Family, Nickelodeon, even Disney-the stuff in those shows would have been scandalous for a kids show 20 years ago (maybe even 10) and some of it wouldn't have cut it in the 10 PM time slot in the 70s let alone in a kid's show, so why would current superhero material adhere to those types of content standards for kids that are 2 decades behind the times and not current with today's market? The best stuff works at multiple levels, kids to adults, but really how many works of that quality are there? We think of a bunch certainly, but when compared to the total number of offerings out there that bunch really only fills the 10% of Sturgeon's Law. We remember the best and lament that everything doesn't reach that standard not taking into account the truly terrible and forgettable material that came out at the same time as the great "kid friendly" stuff we remember. I mean do you really think those early Superman stories where Superman is dropping a bomb on a city to get rid of undesirables or where Batman is letting folks plummet to their deaths was kid friendly material? That's not how super-heroes started certainly. It may have evolved into that (helped along by Wertham and folks in the CCA), but there's nothing inherent in the super-hero genre that makes in need to be kid friendly or even all-ages. Should there be kid-friendly material out there? Absolutely. Would it be great if all comics produced achieved the quality of the best stuff that appeals to general audiences with material that is nuanced and works at multiple levels for kids and adults? Sure. But it's not going to happen, you'll get a handful of stuff each generation that achieves that at best. Do super-heroes only work or even work best with material that is kid-friendly or all ages? Nope. It's a genre that can work equally well at multiple levels of audience sophistication. It's the skill of the craftsman creating it that will determine the success at whatever level it is targeted at. But if you target a market you sell the story and content itself short in the creative process. Create the content then determine what the audience is. If the craftsmen are skilled enough they can succeed in crafting a tale/product that works at whatever level, but the material has to come first. The big bad wolf used to chow down on the piggies that had houses of straw and wood, they didn't get away to stay with the piggy in the brick house, until someone decided the kid story could be better served showing the value of hard labor if the pigs survived to learn it. Until then it was crunch and munch to scare the little ones but it was still a "kid's story" even with the gore and mayhem of the slaughter by the wolf. Standards change as to what makes kid fare, and content evolves to fit the new standards. Sometimes to the detriment of the content, sometimes to the detriment of the audience who lose something in the process. But sometimes it works for the betterment of both. If you are going to call for kid's fare, be sure you know what that means in the current market though. It's not what it was 5 years ago, let alone what it was in the Silver or Bronze Age. -M |
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 30, 2015 23:22:03 GMT -5
I think the characters entering the public domain is a two way street. On one hand, we can get more varied takes on the characters that can break from the traditional standards set by the Big 2. On the other hand, we may experience a glut of material that betrays the original intents of the creators of these characters simply by writers who don't get the characters or actively seek to make them fit their own perceptions of what "modernizing" them is. The problem with leaving them in the private domain is that DC's only incentive is profit; they gain nothing from keeping a character true to its roots. So we keep getting new costumes and reboots, which is fine, but public domain would ensure that someone is keeping the iconic version of the character alive. Take Sherlock Holmes -- since falling into public domain, a plethora of authors, tv show producers, and filmmakers have tried their hands at the character; some of those works are very different from the classic interpretation, but you can always find the classic incarnations being produced as well. It's the best of both worlds. Superman is bigger than a comic book universe. It shouldn't be up to DC's current EIC whether or not we can see Superman in red undies saving Lois Lane in a kid-friendly adventure. Totally agree. Look at Kirby's two greatest creations, The Eternals and the New Gods: Marvel and DC have failed miserably with them and I think that if they were public domain it would increase the chances that someday someone might do something worth reading with them. Those chances are much smaller with Marvel and DC, who have their own agendas, centred around their shared superhero universes, leaving little room for the larger concepts Kirby was working with. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 31, 2015 9:48:54 GMT -5
The problem with leaving them in the private domain is that DC's only incentive is profit; they gain nothing from keeping a character true to its roots. So we keep getting new costumes and reboots, which is fine, but public domain would ensure that someone is keeping the iconic version of the character alive. Take Sherlock Holmes -- since falling into public domain, a plethora of authors, tv show producers, and filmmakers have tried their hands at the character; some of those works are very different from the classic interpretation, but you can always find the classic incarnations being produced as well. It's the best of both worlds. Superman is bigger than a comic book universe. It shouldn't be up to DC's current EIC whether or not we can see Superman in red undies saving Lois Lane in a kid-friendly adventure. Totally agree. Look at Kirby's two greatest creations, The Eternals and the New Gods: Marvel and DC have failed miserably with them and I think that if they were public domain it would increase the chances that someday someone might do something worth reading with them. Those chances are much smaller with Marvel and DC, who have their own agendas, centred around their shared superhero universes, leaving little room for the larger concepts Kirby was working with. On the other hand, with just anybody and everybody producing whatever wild take they come up with, you'd end up like the kids in the old joke about two kids and two enormous piles of horse crap. The pessimistic kid just sits and complains about the big pile of crap. The optimistic kid grabs a shovel and starts digging. When asked why, he says, "With that much crap, there's got to be a pony around here somewhere." So whether you're an optimist or a pessimist, if there's anything good to be found, it will only be through digging in enormous piles of crap. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 31, 2015 10:21:02 GMT -5
Totally agree. Look at Kirby's two greatest creations, The Eternals and the New Gods: Marvel and DC have failed miserably with them and I think that if they were public domain it would increase the chances that someday someone might do something worth reading with them. Those chances are much smaller with Marvel and DC, who have their own agendas, centred around their shared superhero universes, leaving little room for the larger concepts Kirby was working with. On the other hand, with just anybody and everybody producing whatever wild take they come up with, you'd end up like the kids in the old joke about two kids and two enormous piles of horse crap. The pessimistic kid just sits and complains about the big pile of crap. The optimistic kid grabs a shovel and starts digging. When asked why, he says, "With that much crap, there's got to be a pony around here somewhere." So whether you're an optimist or a pessimist, if there's anything good to be found, it will only be through digging in enormous piles of crap. Which is absolutely no different than mult-national corporations "creating" stuff to appeal to the lowest common denominator. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 31, 2015 10:22:19 GMT -5
Superheroes have become cultural mythology by this point, which is exactly why the constant extension of the copyrights on characters like Batman and Superman is just plain wrong. These characters belong to the people at this point and, as such, should be kept generally all-ages friendly. I think its perfectly fine to have a dark graphic novel or limited series every now and then, but when kids get the impression that superheroes aren't for them anymore, I think the party's over. We've alienated the next generation of readers and, worse than that, denied our inner children as well. As much as I'll always appreciate a deep, well plotted and characterized Superman story, I'd be fooling myself to pretend what first appealed to me about the character wasn't wearing his licensed pajamas when I was three and running around the house with my arms extended forward. I think the characters entering the public domain is a two way street. On one hand, we can get more varied takes on the characters that can break from the traditional standards set by the Big 2. On the other hand, we may experience a glut of material that betrays the original intents of the creators of these characters simply by writers who don't get the characters or actively seek to make them fit their own perceptions of what "modernizing" them is. In most cases the creators have been dead for decades and the original intent was betrayed even more decades before that. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Mar 31, 2015 10:29:31 GMT -5
On the other hand, with just anybody and everybody producing whatever wild take they come up with, you'd end up like the kids in the old joke about two kids and two enormous piles of horse crap. The pessimistic kid just sits and complains about the big pile of crap. The optimistic kid grabs a shovel and starts digging. When asked why, he says, "With that much crap, there's got to be a pony around here somewhere." So whether you're an optimist or a pessimist, if there's anything good to be found, it will only be through digging in enormous piles of crap. Which is absolutely no different than mult-national corporations "creating" stuff to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Agreed. Though with only one source, the crap pile would probably be smaller. But the chances of finding something good would also be smaller (possibly non-existent). |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Mar 31, 2015 10:44:45 GMT -5
I think that's more applicable on a case by case basis. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 31, 2015 11:14:41 GMT -5
I think that's more applicable on a case by case basis. I don't think so. Since we're talking about IP entering the Public Domain, we're talking about IP that is at least 50 years old (based upon the old copyright of 24 years with a 24 year renewal). More realistically we're talking about IP that is at least 75 years old, which was set by the Copyright extension act of 1976. So really...older than 1940. Since a LOT of that stuff already fell into the public domain because the copyright holder no longer existed and the copyright wasn't renewed, we're really talking about Golden Age DC IP that is currently held hostage by DC Comics and Time-Warner. So let's look at the "Big Three". Superman - Jerry Siegel has been dead for 19 years, almost two decades. Joe Shuster has been dead for 23 years. You can argue that the "original vision" of Superman as a populist strong-man barely made it into the 1940s. Definitely the Weisinger era Superman was a far cry from what Siegel & Shuster had originally done with the character. Batman - Bob Kane has been dead 17 years. Bill Finger for 41. Gardner Fox for 29. Jerry Robinson for only 4. The Batman of most of the 1950s bore very little resemblance to the the original character except in name and costume. That's the entire reason the book was rebooted first by Carmine Infantino and then by O'Neil and Adams. Wonder Woman. William Moulton Marston died in 1947. H. G. Peter in 1958. The Amazing Amazon has been through dozens of incarnations over the years, many of which bore little to no resemblance to the original character. Corporate ownership has little to no bearing on staying true to the creator's vision. It has everything to do with bowing to the winds of cultural zeitgeist in pursuit of money. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Mar 31, 2015 15:36:23 GMT -5
I think that's more applicable on a case by case basis. I don't think so. Since we're talking about IP entering the Public Domain, we're talking about IP that is at least 50 years old (based upon the old copyright of 24 years with a 24 year renewal). More realistically we're talking about IP that is at least 75 years old, which was set by the Copyright extension act of 1976. So really...older than 1940. Since a LOT of that stuff already fell into the public domain because the copyright holder no longer existed and the copyright wasn't renewed, we're really talking about Golden Age DC IP that is currently held hostage by DC Comics and Time-Warner. So let's look at the "Big Three". Superman - Jerry Siegel has been dead for 19 years, almost two decades. Joe Shuster has been dead for 23 years. You can argue that the "original vision" of Superman as a populist strong-man barely made it into the 1940s. Definitely the Weisinger era Superman was a far cry from what Siegel & Shuster had originally done with the character. Batman - Bob Kane has been dead 17 years. Bill Finger for 41. Gardner Fox for 29. Jerry Robinson for only 4. The Batman of most of the 1950s bore very little resemblance to the the original character except in name and costume. That's the entire reason the book was rebooted first by Carmine Infantino and then by O'Neil and Adams. Wonder Woman. William Moulton Marston died in 1947. H. G. Peter in 1958. The Amazing Amazon has been through dozens of incarnations over the years, many of which bore little to no resemblance to the original character. Corporate ownership has little to no bearing on staying true to the creator's vision. It has everything to do with bowing to the winds of cultural zeitgeist in pursuit of money. The desire to have "traditional takes" on material is fine, as long as one keeps in mind that the people who produce them still have their own priorities. No creator, whatever he says, is motivated principally by wanting to "be true" to something another creator did. Englehart appreciated the Golden Age Kane-Finger-Sprang Batman, and he understood how to channel some of that appeal into a contemporary version, but first and foremost, he wanted to do something that made people sit up and say, "Boy, that was a great Englehart comic!" |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Apr 1, 2015 0:34:04 GMT -5
I'm generally in the camp of comic fans who believe that superheroes should generally be targeted at kids (i.e. eschewing graphic violence, language, or sex scenes). I'm not opposed to more mature superhero comics being done, as long as they can still be appreciated by kids as well (Claremont on X-Men, Wolfman on Teen Titans, Levitz on LoSH, etc.) I'll go 1 step farther and say I can enjoy graphic violence, language, or sex scenes in my super hero comics as long as they're clearly labelled/rated and preferably original characters, not Supes, Spidey and the like. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 3:17:18 GMT -5
Totally agree. Look at Kirby's two greatest creations, The Eternals and the New Gods: Marvel and DC have failed miserably with them and I think that if they were public domain it would increase the chances that someday someone might do something worth reading with them. Those chances are much smaller with Marvel and DC, who have their own agendas, centred around their shared superhero universes, leaving little room for the larger concepts Kirby was working with. On the other hand, with just anybody and everybody producing whatever wild take they come up with, you'd end up like the kids in the old joke about two kids and two enormous piles of horse crap. The pessimistic kid just sits and complains about the big pile of crap. The optimistic kid grabs a shovel and starts digging. When asked why, he says, "With that much crap, there's got to be a pony around here somewhere." So whether you're an optimist or a pessimist, if there's anything good to be found, it will only be through digging in enormous piles of crap. At least in that scenario there's a chance of there being a pony. I think with heavy handed corporate mandated editorial standards on closely protected IP, there is no pony no matter how much digging is done, because the crap was sifted through a fine screen to ensure uniformity by the powers that be long before anyone gets a chance to even start digging. Having said that, I REALLY dislike brand loyalty, and these characters are a brand. If you have a fantastic story about a caped muscleman, why do you need the Superman license to tell it? Furthermore, why do consumers need the Superman license to buy it? If it weren't for brand loyalty, you wouldn't have to do a whole lot of digging to find a pony, because the powers that be wouldn't waste their time on crap if there wasn't a guarantee someone was going to pay to dig through it. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Apr 1, 2015 11:31:28 GMT -5
On the other hand, with just anybody and everybody producing whatever wild take they come up with, you'd end up like the kids in the old joke about two kids and two enormous piles of horse crap. The pessimistic kid just sits and complains about the big pile of crap. The optimistic kid grabs a shovel and starts digging. When asked why, he says, "With that much crap, there's got to be a pony around here somewhere." So whether you're an optimist or a pessimist, if there's anything good to be found, it will only be through digging in enormous piles of crap. At least in that scenario there's a chance of there being a pony. I think with heavy handed corporate mandated editorial standards on closely protected IP, there is no pony no matter how much digging is done, because the crap was sifted through a fine screen to ensure uniformity by the powers that be long before anyone gets a chance to even start digging. Having said that, I REALLY dislike brand loyalty, and these characters are a brand. If you have a fantastic story about a caped muscleman, why do you need the Superman license to tell it? Furthermore, why do consumers need the Superman license to buy it? If it weren't for brand loyalty, you wouldn't have to do a whole lot of digging to find a pony, because the powers that be wouldn't waste their time on crap if there wasn't a guarantee someone was going to pay to dig through it. I think this is something you could perhaps stand behind in say the late 40's or 50's, but it makes little sense now because of the sheer reason that characters like Batman and Superman are a large part of our cultural fabric. Chances are high that if you've come up with a story about a caped muscle man it isn't just any old caped muscle man in your mind but is in fact Superman. You grew up reading him, you idolized him and spent countless hours imagining your own adventures with him and now you've made the big time and can bring those stories from your childhood to bear in reality. Could you create an all new character? Of course, and many do but if the genuine article is available why create a substitute? Are some of these stories pretty uninspired? Absolutely, in fact the out right bad and mediocre stories far out number the good...but that's no different than the golden age of superheroes or even the modern indie scene today. Just as there are mountains of shit comics put out by the big two today there are just as many shitty independent comics...or films, or paintings or really any other commodity that is produced by humans. You're shoveling shit no matter what so I don't really get making a distinction. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 12:11:20 GMT -5
One reason to create a substitute is you'll own the intellectual property. I have a feeling creators who are confident in their work would rather be the next Robert Kirkman than the next whoever is drawing whatever public domain comic at Dynamite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 1, 2015 12:11:58 GMT -5
At least in that scenario there's a chance of there being a pony. I think with heavy handed corporate mandated editorial standards on closely protected IP, there is no pony no matter how much digging is done, because the crap was sifted through a fine screen to ensure uniformity by the powers that be long before anyone gets a chance to even start digging. Having said that, I REALLY dislike brand loyalty, and these characters are a brand. If you have a fantastic story about a caped muscleman, why do you need the Superman license to tell it? Furthermore, why do consumers need the Superman license to buy it? If it weren't for brand loyalty, you wouldn't have to do a whole lot of digging to find a pony, because the powers that be wouldn't waste their time on crap if there wasn't a guarantee someone was going to pay to dig through it. I think this is something you could perhaps stand behind in say the late 40's or 50's, but it makes little sense now because of the sheer reason that characters like Batman and Superman are a large part of our cultural fabric. Chances are high that if you've come up with a story about a caped muscle man it isn't just any old caped muscle man in your mind but is in fact Superman. You grew up reading him, you idolized him and spent countless hours imagining your own adventures with him and now you've made the big time and can bring those stories from your childhood to bear in reality. Could you create an all new character? Of course, and many do but if the genuine article is available why create a substitute? Are some of these stories pretty uninspired? Absolutely, in fact the out right bad and mediocre stories far out number the good...but that's no different than the golden age of superheroes or even the modern indie scene today. Just as there are mountains of shit comics put out by the big two today there are just as many shitty independent comics...or films, or paintings or really any other commodity that is produced by humans. You're shoveling shit no matter what so I don't really get making a distinction.  |
|
