|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 26, 2016 1:12:13 GMT -5
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? Isn't everyone? |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 26, 2016 1:19:49 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. In the UK, we've never really differentiated between "comic books" and "comic strips"; the term "comic book" was never really used here; comics are just comics. And soap operas are still very popular, with one of the most popular being The Archers on BBC Radio 4. On TV, EastEnders and Coronation Street continue to dominate the early evening schedules several times a week. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 14:10:00 GMT -5
I still like DC's multiple earth concept as a way of making sense of all of it. IMO it is less confusing than Marvel's sliding timeline. As far as letting comic book character's age, retire, etc...I think of Bryne's Generations trilogy as to how that would play out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 26, 2016 14:54:07 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. , the background was never that significant to the origin story itself. Wow. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 26, 2016 15:02:43 GMT -5
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. Ting, this would be like my watching the two famous film versions of Henry V, Olivier's (1944) and Branagh's (1989) and willfully ignoring the difference in tone and theme each captures because, hey, World War Two and the Falklands War had no significance to me, as I was born after the first and the latter didn't involve my country. I can assure you that the historical context is crucial to an appreciation of both films. There are universal truths that apply to every war, I'll grant you, but the "background," as you called it, of each war is indeed significant, and an Iron Man conceived in Afghanistan should be quite a bit different than the one conceived in Vietnam.. That's why history is so fascinating. It repeats itself, but in endlesssly unque ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 26, 2016 15:10:14 GMT -5
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. Ting, this would be like my watching the two famous film versions of Henry V, Olivier's (1944) and Branagh's (1989) and willfully ignoring the difference in tone and theme each captures because, hey, World War Two and the Falklands War had no significance to me, as I was born after the first and the latter didn't involve my country. I can assure you that the historical context is crucial to an appreciation of both films. There are universal truths that apply to every war, I'll grant you, but the "background," as you called it, of each war is indeed significant, and an Iron Man conceived in Afghanistan should be quite a bit different than the one conceived in Vietnam.. That's why history is so fascinating. It repeats itself, but in endlesssly unque ways. But..But..But.. Hal Wouldn't you still respect Captain America if he volunteered to be shot up with Super Soldier Serum to fight the evil Daniel Noriega in Panama? it's just another war |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 26, 2016 17:36:11 GMT -5
Ting, this would be like my watching the two famous film versions of Henry V, Olivier's (1944) and Branagh's (1989) and willfully ignoring the difference in tone and theme each captures because, hey, World War Two and the Falklands War had no significance to me, as I was born after the first and the latter didn't involve my country. I can assure you that the historical context is crucial to an appreciation of both films. There are universal truths that apply to every war, I'll grant you, but the "background," as you called it, of each war is indeed significant, and an Iron Man conceived in Afghanistan should be quite a bit different than the one conceived in Vietnam.. That's why history is so fascinating. It repeats itself, but in endlesssly unque ways. But..But..But.. Hal Wouldn't you still respect Captain America if he volunteered to be shot up with Super Soldier Serum to fight the evil Daniel Noriega in Panama? it's just another war Yeah, so true. Hey, remember that issue with the famous story, "To Kill Some Nuns?" Love some "Contra" America stories! |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Aug 26, 2016 19:04:58 GMT -5
But..But..But.. Hal Wouldn't you still respect Captain America if he volunteered to be shot up with Super Soldier Serum to fight the evil Daniel Noriega in Panama? it's just another war Yeah, so true. Hey, remember that issue with the famous story, "To Kill Some Nuns?" Love some "Contra" America stories! Love the New Blackhawks, made up of Nato members, flying over Bosnia in 1994 with their battlecry "Look Ma, No Boots On The Ground" |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Aug 26, 2016 19:49:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Aug 26, 2016 19:49:34 GMT -5
I still like DC's multiple earth concept as a way of making sense of all of it. IMO it is less confusing than Marvel's sliding timeline. As far as letting comic book character's age, retire, etc...I think of Bryne's Generations trilogy as to how that would play out. The main DCU still has a sliding timeline. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 19:55:00 GMT -5
I still like DC's multiple earth concept as a way of making sense of all of it. IMO it is less confusing than Marvel's sliding timeline. As far as letting comic book character's age, retire, etc...I think of Bryne's Generations trilogy as to how that would play out. The main DCU still has a sliding timeline. I know. DC has gone back & forth between multiple earths & a sliding timeline. Sometimes they use both. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 20:39:41 GMT -5
Another thought comes to mind. Certain characters are tied to a certain time period like the Lone Ranger or Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes. I think it's OK to tell stories in the time period that the character is tied to. For example the Green Hornet. He doesn't work as well in the present day IMO but having stories told in the 30's works well.
I would be OK telling JSA stories set in the 40's & 50's instead of trying to make them work in the present day. It is either that or throwing characters into limbo, suspended animation or having a long lifespan due to magic, etc. to explain why they still appear young today.
So another solution is to update the characters origin every decade or simply continue to tell stories set in a nebulous past. Iron Man benefits more from the first option while someone like Capt America works well with the second option.
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 27, 2016 0:25:31 GMT -5
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. Ting, this would be like my watching the two famous film versions of Henry V, Olivier's (1944) and Branagh's (1989) and willfully ignoring the difference in tone and theme each captures because, hey, World War Two and the Falklands War had no significance to me, as I was born after the first and the latter didn't involve my country. I can assure you that the historical context is crucial to an appreciation of both films. There are universal truths that apply to every war, I'll grant you, but the "background," as you called it, of each war is indeed significant, and an Iron Man conceived in Afghanistan should be quite a bit different than the one conceived in Vietnam.. In what way? He was captured by a rather nondescript generic foreign warlord, injured, built the suit, escaped, and came home. It doesn't matter where or when it happened. It's simply a convenient backdrop for him to build the suit against. It's barely mentioned afterwards. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Aug 27, 2016 0:25:45 GMT -5
I still like DC's multiple earth concept as a way of making sense of all of it. IMO it is less confusing than Marvel's sliding timeline. Something most people have trouble making sense of, is confusing. Something that doesn't make sense, is a nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 27, 2016 0:27:55 GMT -5
Ting, this would be like my watching the two famous film versions of Henry V, Olivier's (1944) and Branagh's (1989) and willfully ignoring the difference in tone and theme each captures because, hey, World War Two and the Falklands War had no significance to me, as I was born after the first and the latter didn't involve my country. I can assure you that the historical context is crucial to an appreciation of both films. There are universal truths that apply to every war, I'll grant you, but the "background," as you called it, of each war is indeed significant, and an Iron Man conceived in Afghanistan should be quite a bit different than the one conceived in Vietnam.. That's why history is so fascinating. It repeats itself, but in endlesssly unque ways. But..But..But.. Hal Wouldn't you still respect Captain America if he volunteered to be shot up with Super Soldier Serum to fight the evil Daniel Noriega in Panama? it's just another war No idea what point is being made here. But I think you mean Manuel. |
|
