|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 14:07:07 GMT -5
Stories should gain their meaning through their thematic content and their enjoyment value rather than whether they connect to some other story. The idea that fans can only enjoy a story if it is important in a greater shared universe is one of the things keeping audiences away from comics as a medium as a whole and a regressive force in the medium preventing it from adapting to become a medium that can be a force in the current marketplace outside of just being an IP factory for movies and tv shows. If you look at what comics actually sell in the larger market, it's not the so called important books, which have a limited audience, an audience limited to hardcore comic book fans, it is books that tell engaging stories that stand on their own within their own series and work towards a resolution/conclusion/ending that can pay off the readers for their choice of reading the book for the period of time it is produced (whether a standalone graphic novel or a series with a definite ending that it works towards). This is where the growth market for comics is.
A story needs to be internally consistent with a beginning, middle and end. It doesn't need to keep going ad infinitum with no real resolution, it doesn't need to be a fragment of a bigger picture, it doesn't need to spawn countless more (usually unnecessary or repetitive) stories and it needs exist for some reason other than to feed some fanboys need for a monthly (or weekly or whatever interval) fix because their buying habits resemble those of a junkie who doesn't care about the quality only that they score the fix and it fits into a bigger shared universe, which is their drug of choice.
Sure there are still customers who enjoy continuity-laden serialized never-ending stories, but not enough to keep the market healthy, and not enough for it to continue to be the main focus of the industry as a whole. It is a niche market, and a shrinking market, and it needs to be treated as such for the industry and the market to be able to grow,and not be the crux of their business model. Sure, keep making those kinds of books, but they should be a fringe product sold to the fringe market that is the direct market, but their main focus should be capturing the growth market and making products that will not only sell, but build future generations of customers.
Marvel's two biggest sellers in the youth market (via Scholastic sales where they outsell what any of Marvel's trades do in the direct market by a large margin, and in the book trade where they sell as well as if not better than any other Marvel trades) are Ms. Marvel (Kamela Khan) and Moongirl and Devil Dinosaur. These are the characters today's readers will look back on with nostalgia in 15-20 years, not the one's our generation clings to. These are the types of books that are finding the growth market and gaining new long term readers and customers. These are the books shaping the buying patterns of future comic book readers because they are the ones being bought and read now. What other books are finding audiences and exploiting the growth market?-books like Saga (it's internally consistent, has a definite end it works towards, tells a compelling story with a lot of world/universe building but isn't a shard of a larger framework, it is the framework in and of itself). It's only a middling seller as individual issues (but still scores in the top 50 books in the direct market each month usually) but sells better in trade, and more importantly keeps selling copies of the first trade which stays in print and each successive trade has a larger print run (and sell through) than the previous one, which means it is gaining readers not shedding readers as the story progresses. But by hardcore fan definitions it's not an important book because it doesn't tell a part of a larger shared universe story, so it doesn't matter, I mean when it's story is finished what was the point of it right?
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 17, 2018 14:08:55 GMT -5
Honestly don't know much about Marvel things, maybe there are too many writers team? But I guess that's inevitable with comic that been going for so long. Things I read so far, the creative team seems smaller, with select people only writing for more iconic characters. Must make it easier to keep to a continuing story. Yes, continuity glitches mostly arise in long-running comics which have seen many writers over the years. You won't see it so much in creator-owned comics that are basically the work of a single person over long periods. Yet some of the best stories were written by people who were given license to ignore continuity. I'm thinking of Frank Miller on "The Dark Knight Returns," Alan Moore on "Watchmen" (though he had to change the names of the characters to appease DC), the aforementioned Whedon X-Men run, Neil Gaiman's "1602," and so on. There were tons of "imaginary" DC stories in the 1960s also. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 14:10:13 GMT -5
Novels and movies carry on from each other generally? unless they stand alone which case that is different as nothing meant to be continued. and not sure what that means but ok? lol if you enjoy them that fine. I just like some continuity, shows the writer cares more about the character, needs to plan ahead as they can't just say 'it never really happened!'. Individual writers tend to maintain continuity in the string of stories they write. It's when the creative team changes that continuity tends to get ignored or ret-conned. An example of doing it poorly (IMHO) was the genesis of X-Factor, which not only involved resurrecting Jean Grey (thus cheapening one of the most iconic death stories in comics) but also required Cyclops to abandon his wife. An example of doing it well (again IMHO) was when Joss Whedon decided that to tell a good Kitty Pryde story in his Astonishing X-Men run, he needed Colossus back from the dead. (Not just dead, but dead, turned to ash, and scattered across the land.) So Whedon just declared that nope, Colossus had not really died, and he gave the characters a page of "lampshading" dialogue where they discussed the mystery of Colossus' survival without ever really explaining it, and then the story moved on to where it needed to go. The same thing happened in Star Wars: The Force Awakens when Rey asks Maz how she got Luke's lightsaber, last seen thirty years earlier falling out of Luke's amputated hand down a pit that leads to the center of a gas giant planet. Maz just says that the explanation is "A story for another time." Do I ever think the movies will take the time needed to explain this plot hole? Nope! We just have to roll with it. (I'm sure some book or comic book will make up an explanation; any fan can do the same.) that's the issue when you read pastiche products, and assembly line comics that live beyond the creative vision of those who created it are pastiche products. They can be good, they can be bad, but they are all a reflection or a rejection of the original creative vision not an original creative vision, and if the creator's original version can be discarded by those who came afterwards, why would the work of any who came after get any more consideration or respect than that? It's the nature of the beast when you buy a work for hire product. -M |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 17, 2018 14:14:58 GMT -5
Marvel's two biggest sellers int he youth market (via Scholastic sales where they outsell what any of Marvel's trades do in the direct market by a large margin, and in the book trade where they sell as well as if not better than any other Marvel trades) are Ms. Marvel (Kamela Khan) and Moongirl and Devil Dinosaur. These are the characters today's readers will look back on with nostalgia in 15-20 years, not the one's our generation clings to. These are the types of books that are finding the growth market and gaining new long term readers and customers. These are the books shaping the buying patterns of future comic book readers because they are the ones being bought and read now. What other books are finding audiences and exploiting the growth market-books like Saga (it's internally consistent, has a definite end it works towards, tells a compelling story with a lot of world/universe building but isn't a shard of a larger framework, it is the framework in and of itself. It's only a middling seller as individual issues (but still scores in the top 50 books each month usually) but sells better in trade, and more importantly keeps selling copies of the first trade which stays in print and each successive trade has a larger print run (and sell through) than the previous one which means it is gaining readers not shedding readers as the story progresses. But by hardcore fan definitions it's not an important book because it doesn't tell a part of a larger shared universe story so it doesn't matter, I mean when it's story is finished what was the point of it right? Ms. Marvel feels like a classic 60s Marvel book with its breezy, low-stakes, teen-oriented stories. It's emotionally engaging but not overwrought or gritty or sexualized. Its setting (New Jersey) allows it to interact intermittently with the main Marvel characters in Manhattan without drowning in 50 years of continuity. I would not complain to see more books like it. |
|
Søren
Full Member
I trademarked my name two years ago. Swore I'd kill any turniphead that tried to use it
Posts: 321
|
Post by Søren on Jan 17, 2018 14:31:16 GMT -5
On a random point, this is friendliest discussion type thread think I been in.  Enjoy reading everyones opinions  |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 17, 2018 15:03:57 GMT -5
In the late 80's The Silver age Flash was killed in Crisis on Infinite Earths and he was brought back 30 years later. Hal Jordan Green Lantern was made crazy and was killed in the Final Night Mini series. He was brought back in the early 2000's. There are many fans that don't care how ridiculous it is that 2 long dead characters are back, they just care that they can read more stories about them. Why worry about it? I don't need an explanation of why those two are in the JL comics. I just need to enjoy the story that includes them.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 18, 2018 0:35:59 GMT -5
DC is the one I always think of with the most problematic sliding timeline, because of (a) the characters who are nailed down into the 1940s chronologically, and (b) the vast number of kid sidekicks who are now adults. That's just as big an issue in Marvel... Kitty Pryde.. Power Pack, the Richards' kids, even Justice and Firestar, all have aged, yet Cap, Iron Man, et al haven't. I've said this a million times, (and I get the IP aspect), but I always think how cool it would be if the time actually passed in the Marvel and DC shared Universes, and characters were allow to grow, develop, age and (yes) die. DC started doing that in the 90s, but clearly I was in the minority in liking it, as Kyle Rayner, Wally West, Connor Hawke, and the others of the generation all got pushed back aside after Flashpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 18, 2018 0:40:14 GMT -5
I don't really care. They are fictional characters. I enjoy reading them. They should not have to age. Why is it a problem in comic books but not other fiction? Should James Bond have stopped being published/in movies so he could age? Should the Hardy Boys series ended decades ago? What about the Simpsons? What about comic strips? Shows that do that are fine, but honestly, I think they get boring over time. I lost interest in the Simpsons 10 years ago at least. Bond is still fun for the action and the pretend science. You're not expecting a overreaching story, just a fun, self contained one. Just like Holmes. They can certainly have good moments, but by and large the longer they go on they fewer those moments are. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 18, 2018 0:53:20 GMT -5
But what gives one generation of reader the right to enjoy the best version of a character during the character's prime over somebody who happens to be born later? The Spider-Man I like is the same guy a brand new reader can read about. He's the one that became the icon. Why should a new reader be forced to see him as an old man or wait for a new one? They can enjoy it just fine with back issues... perhaps those classics would sell more if they were more relevant. I know TONS of people who tell me they are comic book fans without having read a single comic. They like the toys/movies/cartoon/etc. When I ask why they don't read them, they say 'it's too confusing' or 'there are too many' or something along those lines. Now, lets say Spidey actually was allowed to say married, have a child, etc. we end up with, say 500 issues of ASM and 200 of PPSM, after that we have May/Anna (whoever) as the next spidey, and Pete gets to retire, maybe comes out during the odd crossover. You have a finite series people can read and enjoy, but a developing universe that grows and ages. Plus, it's not like doing so prevents new Spiderman stories, you can always do an "untold tales' thing, or an Ultimate universe thing.. no issue. |
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Jan 18, 2018 12:27:18 GMT -5
that's the issue when you read pastiche products, and assembly line comics that live beyond the creative vision of those who created it are pastiche products. They can be good, they can be bad, but they are all a reflection or a rejection of the original creative vision not an original creative vision, and if the creator's original version can be discarded by those who came afterwards, why would the work of any who came after get any more consideration or respect than that? It's the nature of the beast when you buy a work for hire product. Another factor this conencts to ... let's pick Flash as a random example. Jay Garrick's original publishing career (this is from memory, okay, but other can look it up) was for a little less than a decade. That's a reasonable chunk of life for an adult. Barry Allen's career up to Crisis was thirty years! Moreover, even if the original writer was kept on for that long, he was never created with the intention that he would last that long. I'm sure if the creators had the slightest idea they were creating that sort of character they'd have configured the story differently. And DC at least has had a Crisis (or a few). Marvel's characters created in the 60s are still going strong, and again, were never designed to last this long. |
|
Søren
Full Member
I trademarked my name two years ago. Swore I'd kill any turniphead that tried to use it
Posts: 321
|
Post by Søren on Jan 18, 2018 15:15:43 GMT -5
Its the seemingly infinite timelines and universes that is putting me off getting into DC or Marvel stuff. I don't know how the hell anyone new to the stories is meant to know what is going on with who or what is 'correct'. What wrong with liner times? People age. I accept superheroes might age slower, or if setting is futuristic tech might help that but to keep relaunching a character seems silly. Fictional characters don't do anything automatically, including age. Just because comic books are published once a month (for instance) for production and marketing reasons, that doesn't mean that the characters need to age in real time. They are not real people. They are archetypes embedded in a particular setting, and the purpose of the story is to explore that setting. The Peanuts cartoon characters have been in kindergarten for decades. Bart Simpson is still in grade school since the 80s. That's fine for them; each character is a way to explore a wide variety of topics related to that circumstance, and the author loses that opportunity if the character leaves the circumstance that defines that character. There have been some good stories told in which the aging of the character is the story. Check out Kurt Busiek's "Superman: Secret Identity" story for a good example of this; it follows Superman from teen years into old age. Or look at how the film X-Men: Apocalypse (set in the 80s) and Logan (set in the near future) both contained Wolverine at substantially different ages, yet were released as films close together. As far as I know, no viewers were confused by this. I understand that (: My point above maybe should been separated more as being having more 'real life' time also (not very literally but like, the next story is set after the last?). Am I making sense? lol sorry if not. Neither are bad I don't think, just having so many of them for one character is confusing. Anyway, still say is if your knew to it, it hard to know where to begin and what storyline to follow and what is true where for that character. Marvel/DC crowd I found can be hostile too if you get info wrong. But im from literally just reading 2000AD which Dredd ages each year that passes, and stories are set after the last events that happened (unless stated its a flashback). There no other universes settings really for the characters. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 15:19:31 GMT -5
Its the seemingly infinite timelines and universes that is putting me off getting into DC or Marvel stuff. I don't know how the hell anyone new to the stories is meant to know what is going on with who or what is 'correct'. What wrong with liner times? People age. I accept superheroes might age slower, or if setting is futuristic tech might help that but to keep relaunching a character seems silly. Fictional characters don't do anything automatically, including age. Just because comic books are published once a month (for instance) for production and marketing reasons, that doesn't mean that the characters need to age in real time. They are not real people. They are archetypes embedded in a particular setting, and the purpose of the story is to explore that setting. The Peanuts cartoon characters have been in kindergarten for decades. Bart Simpson is still in grade school since the 80s. That's fine for them; each character is a way to explore a wide variety of topics related to that circumstance, and the author loses that opportunity if the character leaves the circumstance that defines that character. There have been some good stories told in which the aging of the character is the story. Check out Kurt Busiek's "Superman: Secret Identity" story for a good example of this; it follows Superman from teen years into old age. Or look at how the film X-Men: Apocalypse (set in the 80s) and Logan (set in the near future) both contained Wolverine at substantially different ages, yet were released as films close together. As far as I know, no viewers were confused by this. the difference between Peanuts and Simpsons and the Marvel and DC line of characters is that Schultz and Groenig weren't selling an ongoing story that progressed. Each Peanut strip or special was it's own thing, so there was no onogoing narrative. Each Simpsons episode is it's own thing. They can stand on their own. You can watch one episode or one hundred, read one Peanuts strip or fifty and the experience of each one is totally independent of any of the others. There's not an ongoing narrative , so the characters can be static. DC Comics did this (as well as many other publishers) throughout much of the Golden Age and early Silver Age. The characters could be statis because each story (and comics usually had several stories in each issue) was its own things and stood separate from any of the others. It works, but only when there is no ongoing narrative. Once Marvel introduced the concept of the ongoing narrative (and then the shared universe) the needs of the narrative preclude statis characters. The story was about how the events impacted the characters. With great power comes great responsibility, for example, only works if we see a growth and change in the character from irresponsible to responsible. If the character remains static, the narrative and it's incumbent thematic value fails. An ongoing narrative is not necessary for comics to work, but once you introduce an ongoing narrative and a shared universe (and DC eventually followed suit because of Marvel's success with that formula in the marketplace) it becomes necessary to abandon that static character concept as ongoing narrative and static characters are pretty much mutually exclusive concepts. Comics without the ongoing narrative and comics with an ongoing narrative are two entirely different types of stories with different needs to make the story work. I have no issue with static characters in comics, they work when the right type of story is used. But once you try to tell an ongoing story, the needs of the narrative become different. It's a form of opportunity costs-in choosing the ongoing narrative you mist forgo some options to make it work.. You get benefits from the ongoing narrative, but there are drawbacks as well. If Marvel and DC want to abandon the idea of an ongoing narrative, a single shared story universe, they can return to static characters that never change, and that may be the way to go to reach a wider audience, but the hardcore audience will never have it. They want it both ways, they want the ongoing narrative and never changing characters, and you really cannot have both. Once you eat the cake, it's not in your hand any more. -M |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 18, 2018 15:22:06 GMT -5
Fictional characters don't do anything automatically, including age. Just because comic books are published once a month (for instance) for production and marketing reasons, that doesn't mean that the characters need to age in real time. They are not real people. They are archetypes embedded in a particular setting, and the purpose of the story is to explore that setting. The Peanuts cartoon characters have been in kindergarten for decades. Bart Simpson is still in grade school since the 80s. That's fine for them; each character is a way to explore a wide variety of topics related to that circumstance, and the author loses that opportunity if the character leaves the circumstance that defines that character. There have been some good stories told in which the aging of the character is the story. Check out Kurt Busiek's "Superman: Secret Identity" story for a good example of this; it follows Superman from teen years into old age. Or look at how the film X-Men: Apocalypse (set in the 80s) and Logan (set in the near future) both contained Wolverine at substantially different ages, yet were released as films close together. As far as I know, no viewers were confused by this. I understand that (: My point above maybe should been separated more as being having more 'real life' time also (not very literally but like, the next story is set after the last?). Am I making sense? lol sorry if not. Neither are bad I don't think, just having so many of them for one character is confusing. Anyway, still say is if your knew to it, it hard to know where to begin and what storyline to follow and what is true where for that character. Marvel/DC crowd I found can be hostile too if you get info wrong. But im from literally just reading 2000AD which Dredd ages each year that passes, and stories are set after the last events that happened (unless stated its a flashback). There no other universes settings really for the characters. Some franchises shoot themselves in the foot by having complicated continuity. They try to have their cake and eat it too by inserting alternate reality versions of their signature characters. So you get not only Peter Parker Spider-Man but also Venom and Scarlet Spider and the Spider-clone and Spider-Gwen and... This kind of franchising of an existing title works OK for board games (Star Wars Monopoly! Walking Dead Monopoly! Chicago Monopoly! etc.) where the different brandings don't interact. But in a fictional universe, it's bound to confuse anybody trying to start halfway through the story, and new readers aren't going to put up with the suggestion that they start with the first Spider-Man story and read them all (plus all the crossovers along the way) until they catch up to 2018 stories. Did you start reading 2000AD from the beginning, or start partway? |
|
Søren
Full Member
I trademarked my name two years ago. Swore I'd kill any turniphead that tried to use it
Posts: 321
|
Post by Søren on Jan 18, 2018 15:32:59 GMT -5
I understand that (: My point above maybe should been separated more as being having more 'real life' time also (not very literally but like, the next story is set after the last?). Am I making sense? lol sorry if not. Neither are bad I don't think, just having so many of them for one character is confusing. Anyway, still say is if your knew to it, it hard to know where to begin and what storyline to follow and what is true where for that character. Marvel/DC crowd I found can be hostile too if you get info wrong. But im from literally just reading 2000AD which Dredd ages each year that passes, and stories are set after the last events that happened (unless stated its a flashback). There no other universes settings really for the characters. Some franchises shoot themselves in the foot by having complicated continuity. They try to have their cake and eat it too by inserting alternate reality versions of their signature characters. So you get not only Peter Parker Spider-Man but also Venom and Scarlet Spider and the Spider-clone and Spider-Gwen and... This kind of franchising of an existing title works OK for board games (Star Wars Monopoly! Walking Dead Monopoly! Chicago Monopoly! etc.) where the different brandings don't interact. But in a fictional universe, it's bound to confuse anybody trying to start halfway through the story, and new readers aren't going to put up with the suggestion that they start with the first Spider-Man story and read them all (plus all the crossovers along the way) until they catch up to 2018 stories. Did you start reading 2000AD from the beginning, or start partway? What you mean by beginning, first issue to now? No. Wasn't born until 1990, that be hard lol. Have all the Dredd Case Files so far though so his history I read from start, if reprinted versions lol Then i picked up other graphic novel reprinted stories of characters I liked so knew there backgrounds too and could easy follow the comic when I start reading. But there is less of it in total compared to Spider-Man or Batman. It not very hard depending on your level of obsessiveness |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 18, 2018 15:34:18 GMT -5
the difference between Peanuts and Simpsons and the Marvel and DC line of characters is that Schultz and Groenig weren't selling an ongoing story that progressed. Each Peanut strip or special was it's own thing, so there was no onogoing narrative. Each Simpsons episode is it's own thing. They can stand on their own. You can watch one episode or one hundred, read one Peanuts strip or fifty and the experience of each one is totally independent of any of the others. There's not an ongoing narrative , so the characters can be static. DC Comics did this (as well as many other publishers) throughout much of the Golden Age and early Silver Age. The characters could be static because each story (and comics usually had several stories in each issue) was its own things and stood separate from any of the others. It works, but only when there is no ongoing narrative. Once Marvel introduced the concept of the ongoing narrative (and then the shared universe) the needs of the narrative preclude statis characters. The story was about how the events impacted the characters. With great power comes great responsibility, for example, only works if we see a growth and change in the character from irresponsible to responsible. If the character remains static, the narrative and it's incumbent thematic value fails. All true. There were of course serialized, continuing stories in the Golden Age, as well as non-serials that carried over some notion of continuity from one individual story to the next. The Shadow, Tintin, etc. But between Marvel and DC, it was Marvel that developed first "book-length stories" (as opposed to a given comic book containing multiple shorter stories), and then continuing stories that developed over longer and longer scales. Perhaps this reflected Kirby's work on Sky Masters? |
|
Enjoy reading everyones opinions 
