|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Aug 25, 2016 16:37:47 GMT -5
Just those changes in the war that gave birth to the character should change so much about him. I don't think that's detrimental necessarily, but you can't just swap out Vietnam for Afghanistan,or World War Two for Vietnam if you're updating the origin of the FF without making changes in the characters, because the circumstances in each case are so different. They would not be the same characters at all. And maybe that's reflected in the new origins, ret-cons, updates. I haven't read these characters since dirt was new. I agree. For Tony Stark.. selling weapons in VIETNAM in particular, where some of them got into the wrong hands of a war alot of people didn't want anyway, paved the way for him to not want to sell weapons any more. Move that to a non-descript conflict some later time, it has far less impact. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 25, 2016 17:43:39 GMT -5
There was nothing designed about those early universes. They were sowed together after the publishers saw that they were still in business years after The Wertham attacks. Nowadays , new comic companies have a design, although when new writers take over , it's subject to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 25, 2016 18:38:43 GMT -5
I don't know. The messiest story was The Bible, both the original and the sequel. They both turned out pretty popular But the sequel totally retconned the original. The original contradicts itself in dozens, if not hundreds of places. Both were constructs cobbled together from various previous works and they both have unreliable narrators. Much closer to Big Two comic book history than an actual complete story. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 25, 2016 18:54:04 GMT -5
I don't know. The messiest story was The Bible, both the original and the sequel. They both turned out pretty popular But the sequel totally retconned the original. The original contradicts itself in dozens, if not hundreds of places. Both were constructs cobbled together from various previous works and they both have unreliable narrators. Much closer to Big Two comic book history than an actual complete story. Absolutely, that's what I meant by it being "The Messiest Story Every Told". Even the main character keeps changing his personality, especially within the original novel, going from vengeful eye for eye guy to loving thy neighbor dude. And talk about unsympathetic leads. Tells a father to drag his son up a mountain and slice him open to show his love for HIM and at the last moment says 'Just pulling your leg". And the worst mess about the story is, the star is all seeing, all knowing and everything happens to plan. So everything that happens in the book is explained by that rule. Things are what they are because that's the plan and no more discussion. What a cop-out |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Aug 25, 2016 21:59:50 GMT -5
I don't know. The messiest story was The Bible, both the original and the sequel. They both turned out pretty popular They'd probably have been less popular if someone hadn't lost the first page. The one that starts "All characters and events in this book are fictional, no resemblance to any real person living or dead is intended..." Red Dwarf fan? |
|
Pat T
Full Member
Posts: 103 
|
Post by Pat T on Aug 25, 2016 22:36:32 GMT -5
Regardless of your feelings today about whether or not the illusion of one long story is a good thing, it's the very reason some of the long-time
readers became hooked. Of course, we hardly had any resources for back issues, so the "important" ones had a reverence to them that doesn't
exist anymore. If I want to read Amazing Fantasy 15 today, I can find it in a matter of seconds, where before the internet, I would have had to
wait for a reprint or find a copy at the Flea Market or one of the sellers that advertised in the comics themselves. Even with those sellers, I
remember ordering a catalog, which arrived in about a month, and then selecting the books I wanted (along with backups in case a book was out of stock).
After mailing a check, the comics would arrive about a month later, and I always ended up with the backup books instead of the ones I really wanted.
Everybody didn't already know the story then like they do now, so the back issues were integral for the entire story. Newer readers just don't understand
how lucky they are to have all that material just a click away in most cases, and maybe they just don't appreciate past stories like we did. Anyway, what
I mean to say is that the "One Ongoing Story" method was a brilliant idea when the publishers began to realize that some adults followed certain books,
and that was one way to keep them coming back. It made comics a unique form of entertainment, too, due to the longevity of the illusion. Other than
making a sliding timeline, though, the original characters would have to die or retire sometime, which I guess is why the industry is at such a crossroads
right now. Hope my gibberish makes sense to somebody. There's a point in there somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2016 22:57:04 GMT -5
Regardless of your feelings today about whether or not the illusion of one long story is a good thing, it's the very reason some of the long-time readers became hooked. Of course, we hardly had any resources for back issues, so the "important" ones had a reverence to them that doesn't exist anymore. If I want to read Amazing Fantasy 15 today, I can find it in a matter of seconds, where before the internet, I would have had to wait for a reprint or find a copy at the Flea Market or one of the sellers that advertised in the comics themselves. Even with those sellers, I remember ordering a catalog, which arrived in about a month, and then selecting the books I wanted (along with backups in case a book was out of stock). After mailing a check, the comics would arrive about a month later, and I always ended up with the backup books instead of the ones I really wanted. Everybody didn't already know the story then like they do now, so the back issues were integral for the entire story. Newer readers just don't understand how lucky they are to have all that material just a click away in most cases, and maybe they just don't appreciate past stories like we did. Anyway, what I mean to say is that the "One Ongoing Story" method was a brilliant idea when the publishers began to realize that some adults followed certain books, and that was one way to keep them coming back. It made comics a unique form of entertainment, too, due to the longevity of the illusion. Other than making a sliding timeline, though, the original characters would have to die or retire sometime, which I guess is why the industry is at such a crossroads right now. Hope my gibberish makes sense to somebody. There's a point in there somewhere. The reliance on back issues and the ongoing story became a vicious circle though. The more you relied on stuff that wasn't available, the less you were going to draw new readers into the pool until all you were left is the hardcore audience and not a mass audience. Comics sales peaked before the ongoing story became the thing that comics were known for, and it was a crutch to retain (unsuccessfully) the dwindling readership they had. It never reversed the attrition rates form comics peak. Certain issues spiked because of collector's speculation and what have you, but readership as a whole dwindled the longer comics relied on the one ongoing story model. People point to TV, video games, decline in reading etc. as factors, and they are, they accelerated (not caused) the existing attrition rate of dwindling readership. Sales overall declined steadily once comics moved away form done in one and free standing stories. It appealed to the hardcore fans and people inclined to become hardcore fans of the properties, but it did not appeal to mass readership and caused comics to shed readership. It's something I have come to call Continuity Entropy. The more focus on continuity and one big story there was, the faster entropy affected comics readership. And it was a vicious circle because as readership disappeared, publishers more and more tried to appeal to the hardcore audience that was left increasing focus on the ideas of shared universe continuity and one big story, only furthering the entropy and shedding more readers. The direct market made it easier to get books to that hardcore element and cheaper to produce since you didn't print copies that didn't sell (creating a de facto ceiling for growth as an unintended consequence though), extending the lifespan of the industry but doing nothing to slow or reverse the effects of Continiuty Entropy on the readership as a whole. As I have stated before, the mass popularity of super-heroes and the success of the comic book format to tell stories other than super-hero tales to a mass audience show it wasn't the genre of super-heroes or the format of comics themselves that turned away the mass audience, but the way that the big 2 went about telling, packaging, and formatting their stories that was the problem, all of which was geared to the one big continuity driven story that appealed to the hardcore audience and drove all the other potential readers away. The very thing that many hardcore readers point to as the "appeal" of shared universe comics is the thing that drive everyone else away and turned a successful mass market entertainment form into a barely surviving niche hobby market. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 25, 2016 23:03:53 GMT -5
"On going story" was around a long time before comics, specifically Marvel, employed the method. TV soap operas existed in it's earliest days, radio soap operas preceded that. Long novels were serialized in magazines, sometimes lasting about a year as far back as the 1800s, maybe earlier. Charles Dicken's work was published in that manner for the first time.
And of course, comic books' immediate predecessor, the comic strip, used that story telling method.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 25, 2016 23:15:37 GMT -5
"On going story" was around a long time before comics, specifically Marvel, employed the method. TV soap operas existed in it's earliest days, radio soap operas preceded that. Long novels were serialized in magazines, sometimes lasting about a year as far back as the 1800s, maybe earlier. Charles Dicken's work was published in that manner for the first time. And of course, comic books' immediate predecessor, the comic strip, used that story telling method. Dickens' work was serialized, true. But they each had a beginning a middle and an end. Dickens didn't continue Great Expectations for his entire career and then pass it on to O'Neil and Kaluta. And yes, comic strips were similar to comic books. But the continuity strip had its day and has largely disappeared, replaced by the gag-a-day strip that has little to no continuity. And as I recall, soap operas have pretty well disappeared from the airwaves as well. |
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Aug 25, 2016 23:20:00 GMT -5
But the sequel totally retconned the original. The original contradicts itself in dozens, if not hundreds of places. Both were constructs cobbled together from various previous works and they both have unreliable narrators. Much closer to Big Two comic book history than an actual complete story. Absolutely, that's what I meant by it being "The Messiest Story Every Told". Even the main character keeps changing his personality, especially within the original novel, going from vengeful eye for eye guy to loving thy neighbor dude. And talk about unsympathetic leads. Tells a father to drag his son up a mountain and slice him open to show his love for HIM and at the last moment says 'Just pulling your leg". And the worst mess about the story is, the star is all seeing, all knowing and everything happens to plan. So everything that happens in the book is explained by that rule. Things are what they are because that's the plan and no more discussion. What a cop-out The hardcore fans (the gnostics) explained that long ago: the later writers just weren't as good, and they retconned everything. The first volume jumped the shark at David, and the second volume was re-written by that wannabe editor Paul, who didn't even meet the original writer. But focus on just the art, and see it in the context of the golden age stories (the enuma elish, gilgamesh, etc.) and the art tells a totally different story IMO. Spoiler: the lord of Eden was the bad guy. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 25, 2016 23:29:58 GMT -5
And yes, comic strips were similar to comic books. But the continuity strip had its day and has largely disappeared, replaced by the gag-a-day strip that has little to no continuity. And as I recall, soap operas have pretty well disappeared from the airwaves as well. How true, how true, how prior serialisation story telling formats have lost their popularity and faded away. Forgot to mention the movie serials, many running up to 16 weekly chapters. And they too have long ago disappeared. And here are the super hero comic books, still trying to hold on to their readership using that device. And the general public walked away from comics decades ago. But the hard core fans swear by them, putting it up on a pedestal. Wondering why they don't sell more at a ridiculous high price for 10-15 minutes of partial never ending repetitious story. I certainly don't see intelligent design with this |
|
Pat T
Full Member
Posts: 103
|
Post by Pat T on Aug 26, 2016 0:00:31 GMT -5
And yes, comic strips were similar to comic books. But the continuity strip had its day and has largely disappeared, replaced by the gag-a-day strip that has little to no continuity. And as I recall, soap operas have pretty well disappeared from the airwaves as well. How true, how true, how prior serialisation story telling formats have lost their popularity and faded away. Forgot to mention the movie serials, many running up to 16 weekly chapters. And they too have long ago disappeared. And here are the super hero comic books, still trying to hold on to their readership using that device. And the general public walked away from comics decades ago. But the hard core fans swear by them, putting it up on a pedestal. Wondering why they don't sell more at a ridiculous high price for 10-15 minutes of partial never ending repetitious story. I certainly don't see intelligent design with this I don't put the old storytelling on a pedestal. It was fun while it lasted. It's a shame that people who started reading comics after the first couple of resets will never get to experience a storyline much longer than a year or so. Eventually the number 1's won't fool anybody that they're starting fresh. The next crop of old time readers (if there are any) will have 15 different number 1's of their favorite titles, and the newcomers will tell them how stupid it is to start over every year, pretending it's new and fresh. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 26, 2016 1:03:01 GMT -5
I don't understand. Aside from a few minor continuity tweaks like the war Tony Stark was injured in being changed, what has been rewritten? Taking just Tony Stark as an example: 1) The war he was injured in was Vietnam first, then an unnamed "Southeast Asian' conflict, then 'the Middle East' (I think at one point they may have specifically said Desert Storm, but I'm not sure about that) 2) Jim Rhodes was his Helicopter Pilot/buddy/VP/stand in. Now he's the government liason to Stark '---' and a Miltiary guy 3) He was Secretary of Defense, killed an ambassador when his armor was possessed, then fired. No one has mentioned that since, even when he took over SHIELD 4) He was a sleeper agent for Kang his entire life, killed, and a teenage version of himself put in the present day. The Teenage version went to the Heroes Reborn Universe, and came back the a late 20s/early 30s adult again, because that's how Franklin Richards saw him. 5) He's faked his death 3 times. The last one, in addition to faking his death, he literally erased his brain and re-boot it from an electronic back up, but he was lazy and didn't back it up that often, so he only remembers like 10 years of his life from others telling him about it. 6) He came back from Civil War broke, but no one knows why, except when it's a good plot device for him to have a company, which is Stark Enterprises again, even though it hasn't been Stark Enterprises for years. Meanwhile, the former Stark Resilient (his last company).. now just 'Resilient' and run by Pepper Potts.. theorically is still operating in the MU. 7) Oh, don't forget for a year he was 'inverted' and moved to San Francisco, made a phone app to make everyone young and healthy, gave it away for free.. for a while, than made started making billions on it when he cranked up the price. That will probably never be mentioned again. (Superior Iron Man) 8) Instead of the son of Howard and Maria Stark, he's from an orphanage in Eastern Europe, and his father is still alive. (International Iron Man). That same series establishes that he was a college kid in 1990. A) Tony Stark didn't go to college, he was already the CEO of a multi-million dollar company in college. B) That makes it massively problematic that Howard Stark was involved with SHIELD in WWII, since he would have had to have been BORN around WWII to have a child that age. C) that would make Tony over 40 in today's MU, which I don't think they meant to do. Those are the major ones that annoy me. There are LOTS of others that at least made some sense  As far as I can recall, even when he was introduced in the eighties, Rhodey was always said to have had a past in the military, wasn't he? Admittedly, it was very much his past, but he had been a soldier at some point. As for Tony's age, I've always ssumed he was now over 40, and had been for years, kind of like Green Arrow in the pre-Flashpoint DCU. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 26, 2016 1:05:48 GMT -5
Just those changes in the war that gave birth to the character should change so much about him. I don't think that's detrimental necessarily, but you can't just swap out Vietnam for Afghanistan,or World War Two for Vietnam if you're updating the origin of the FF without making changes in the characters, because the circumstances in each case are so different. They would not be the same characters at all. And maybe that's reflected in the new origins, ret-cons, updates. I haven't read these characters since dirt was new. A war is a war, the background was never that significant to the origin story itself. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 26, 2016 1:09:33 GMT -5
Just those changes in the war that gave birth to the character should change so much about him. I don't think that's detrimental necessarily, but you can't just swap out Vietnam for Afghanistan,or World War Two for Vietnam if you're updating the origin of the FF without making changes in the characters, because the circumstances in each case are so different. They would not be the same characters at all. And maybe that's reflected in the new origins, ret-cons, updates. I haven't read these characters since dirt was new. I agree. For Tony Stark.. selling weapons in VIETNAM in particular, where some of them got into the wrong hands of a war alot of people didn't want anyway, paved the way for him to not want to sell weapons any more. Move that to a non-descript conflict some later time, it has far less impact. You're assuming Vietnam would have any particular significance to the current generation of readers, anyway. I doubt it would. It certainly never had any particular significance to me, reading reprints of those Silver Age stories in the 70s (though admittedly, it wasn't our war, anyway). On the other hand, for younger readers, those more recent conflicts are a part of their history, therefore significant. |
|
