|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 21:22:22 GMT -5
Again I'll return to the point that if comics (specifically super-heroes) are the modern equivalent of myth and folklore, then there should be room for different tellings and different audiences for them. Little Red Riding Hood is actually a quite gruesome tale, not really children's fare, but it can be told in a manner appropriate for a younger audience, and no one clamors that the original Grimm versions shouldn't be out there because there are kid's versions of Little Red Riding Hood aimed at kids learning to read. It's the insistence of a mono-myth for these characters that makes it difficult to have multiple viable versions of the characters out there. No one seems to bat an eye at a Disney Hercules and a Herakles that ravished the Amazon queen co-existing, or a drug addled pugilist named Sherlock Holmes appearing in kids cartoons or classics for kids literature in modified format/interpretations. There's room for Bruce Timm's Batman and Frank Miller's. There's room for this new hipster Batgirl too, even if I don't like it and kvetch about it. Characters who become cultural icons can be versatile, but requiring this mono-myth for them, one version to rule them all of sorts, limits the character, the market, and the stories that can be told.
My issues are not with the interpretations per se but the manipulative mercenary tactics/motivations of the publishers exploiting the characters and the various properties they own/control.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 0:04:35 GMT -5
Little Red Riding Hood is public domain. Nobody is responsible for the protection of the intellectual property, and nobody has the right to protect the intellectual property. Everyone is free to tell it how they see fit.
The same cannot be said for Marvel and DC super hero comics. Someone is responsible for that intellectual responsibility. And I believe that responsibility includes two things Not sexualizing children's characters. Not marketing sexualized adult characters to children.
No matter how you spell it, one or the other is happening.
Also, I don't equate corporate mascots with modern folklore anyway. Folklore kind of happens organically. It's authored by many, over many lifetimes. It may be put to pen by a certain person on a certain date, but it's not owned by anyone. It's the culture of an ethnic people. That does not compare to Aquaman. This is why Red Riding Hood is folklore but Romeo and Juliet are not. There was no "lore." Just the story authored by the writer.
There doesn't need to be multiple versions of the character. If you don't like the character, create a new one. If you don't like reading kids comics, read an adult comic. If you like reading Wonder Woman, guess what? You like reading kids comics. Be adult enough to admit it, own it, and live with it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 0:31:39 GMT -5
Most modern super-heroes would be public domain in the corporate courts didn't keep moving the goal posts and they have been penned by many hands over many lifetimes (75 years for Bats & Supes, 50+ for the Marvel Silver Age characters, etc.) as you put it, the only reason they have not entered public domain and escaped the clutches of the gatekeepers is corporate greed. As for Romeo & Juliet, they have been interpreted several times in several ways and had their story added to, subtracted from, fleshed out, done for kids, done for adults, used by other authors in stories, etc. Shakespeare may have penned the play initially, but those characters have entered int the lore of our culture and transcended the author. Even Shakepeare himself (and Marlowe as well) have transcended themselves as writers and have become recurring characters in a lot of modern fiction, entering the cultural lore as characters. Most folklore has transcended its origins as stories of a people and become universal human stories, as have myths. Some of the super-hero tales are approaching that as well despite still being grasped firmly by corporate bean counters. The fan film linked by Shax in the Best live action super-hero costume thread shows people are claiming and using the characters in their own ways despite the corporate ownership, and despite several efforts to suppress that fan film in the decade since its been made by WB/DC, it's still out there flourishing along side Batman: TAS, Superfriends, Dark Knight Rises and other versions of the Bat, aimed towards different demographic age groups/consumer bases.
Even classic folklore sexualizes characters, as Sleeping Beauty is not woken by a chaste kiss in the original, yet Sleeping Beauty is a classic children's character now. Not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, it just is, and its not limited to comics, it didn't start with comics, and even if comics stopped doing it tomorrow it would be done with lots of things that reach a lot more kids than comics do.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 2:51:23 GMT -5
It's not simply about public domain though. It is, but not the way you think. Love it or hate it, the popular super heroes are controlled by one of two companies.
See, there isn't multiple versions of Mickey Mouse. There isn't a kid friendly one where nobody ever gets hurt and then a sexed up adult one where he kills bad guys. That would be irresponsible of Disney. It would be stupid. It doesn't stop fanfiction from happening, but that's where it should remain. Not in corporate funded and approved projects released with the endorsement of Disney. The same, in my opinion, goes for children's super heroes. And that's what we're talking about here. Kids heroes. You want a sexed up violent super hero comic? Fine, that's what Lady Death is for, right? Why does it have to be childhood heroes? I feel like all of Marvel and DC has been fanfic for the past twenty five years now, but it's not. These fanfic authors are actually employed by the companies, and they're releasing this stuff not only with the endorsement of the company, but at the expense of the target audience of the characters. And you can argue all you like that the target audience of Marvel comics isn't kids anymore, the fact remains that the target audience for Spiderman and Iron Man as intellectual property is still nine year old kids. Kids properties should be handled a certain way, and I don't believe current comics is the way they should be handled.
And I think we're disagreeing on what qualifies as lore, because Romeo and Juliet certainly do not in my opinion. They are the creation of Shakespeare. There may have been some offbeat interpretations due to it being public domain, but we all know the real story. I think I had to read it in 9th grade. Those other versions I've never read before, and I doubt they are required reading anywhere. When you say "Romeo and Juliet" everyone listening will think Shakespeare.
If we are to talk about modern folklore, I'd say the Chupacabra, the Roswell crash, the conspiracy theories revolving around Telsa and Jay Z and whoever else. That is modern folklore. It's organic, not a product created for profit and owned by businessmen.
|
|
|
Post by comicscube on Jul 14, 2014 4:43:32 GMT -5
When DC and Diamond let me read the entire book before deciding how I want to order it for the shop, I'll stop prejudging their books, but when I have to decide how to order these things for customers months before I (or they) get to see them, then the entire business model is based on prejudging books, so I have to go by track record and modus operandi of the current editorial regime at DC. I wish I didn't have to prejudge books, but since they basically print to pre-orders I have to decide ahead of time how many to order in for the shop and how it will sell, the month it comes out and for the next 4-5 months of the first arc based on what promotional materials are out there. If I am deciding whether to buy or sample a book for myself I can afford to wait and not prejudge. When I am deciding how the book will play with the customer base in our shop and filling out the recommended number to order for my local shop owner, I have to decide based on what I see before the book comes out. i.e. prejudge every book on the market. -M Fine. I get that. But there's this absolutely relentless negativity in comics fandom that is absolutely draining. "I hate what they're doing. But if they try to change it, I'll hate that because they changed it." "This book sucks, but I have to read it." "I can't read that it's not in continuity and not important." Overall, I find this less true with people hereabouts, but it's still there particularly with new books. In fact in some ways it's worse with new books because there's this horrendous "get off my lawn" streak. So there we are. Absolutely, I get it for retailers, because everything they have to get is based on educated guesswork. As a fan, though, I do make a similar decision. I can prejudge things and decde they're not for me, or give them a shot. This, more than anything else, has increased my tendency to buy TPBs. However, I will say that I rarely ever treat "sales gimmick" as an inherently bad thing. Bucky coming back would have been the ultimate gimmick, but it was a great story, and a great run of comics. I'm sure that when Simonson took over Thor and replaced him with Beta Ray Bill for a few issues, some hardcore fans thought it was for a cheap sales boost (especially given how it was on the brink of cancellation). Concepts designed to get your attention are not inherently good or bad; they're just that: designed to get your attention. Whether or not it succeeds, you can't really judge it unless you read it. I mean, yes, you can make educated guesses on how you would respond to it -- I only need to have read the first JMS Spidey TPB to know it wasn't gonna be for me, for example -- but just because it won't work for you doesn't mean it wouldn't work for other people. Sometimes an attention-grabbing idea is Bucky coming back, leading to one of the greatest runs on any character. Sometimes the attention-grabbing idea is Jason Todd coming back, leading to... well, nothing, really. And sometimes an attention-grabbing idea is the Death of Superman, leading to your standard slugfest with not much to offer (Death), a truly heartwarming storyline with a lot to offer (Funeral), and a return event that ends up introducing three characters that are still in use today (Reign). So it's a mixed bag. For my part, I can be positive about it and think that I'll enjoy it, or if not, other people will, or I can be negative, and I'm just done being negative.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 6:13:17 GMT -5
It's not simply about public domain though. It is, but not the way you think. Love it or hate it, the popular super heroes are controlled by one of two companies. See, there isn't multiple versions of Mickey Mouse. There isn't a kid friendly one where nobody ever gets hurt and then a sexed up adult one where he kills bad guys. That would be irresponsible of Disney. It would be stupid. It doesn't stop fanfiction from happening, but that's where it should remain. Not in corporate funded and approved projects released with the endorsement of Disney. The same, in my opinion, goes for children's super heroes. And that's what we're talking about here. Kids heroes. You want a sexed up violent super hero comic? Fine, that's what Lady Death is for, right? Why does it have to be childhood heroes? I feel like all of Marvel and DC has been fanfic for the past twenty five years now, but it's not. These fanfic authors are actually employed by the companies, and they're releasing this stuff not only with the endorsement of the company, but at the expense of the target audience of the characters. And you can argue all you like that the target audience of Marvel comics isn't kids anymore, the fact remains that the target audience for Spiderman and Iron Man as intellectual property is still nine year old kids. Kids properties should be handled a certain way, and I don't believe current comics is the way they should be handled. And I think we're disagreeing on what qualifies as lore, because Romeo and Juliet certainly do not in my opinion. They are the creation of Shakespeare. There may have been some offbeat interpretations due to it being public domain, but we all know the real story. I think I had to read it in 9th grade. Those other versions I've never read before, and I doubt they are required reading anywhere. When you say "Romeo and Juliet" everyone listening will think Shakespeare. If we are to talk about modern folklore, I'd say the Chupacabra, the Roswell crash, the conspiracy theories revolving around Telsa and Jay Z and whoever else. That is modern folklore. It's organic, not a product created for profit and owned by businessmen. Nope Mickey doesn't kill bad guys he just tries to kill himself.... And somebody created Hercules and Little Red Riding Hood and Snow White and on and on an on they didn't just spontaneously enter our consciousness and culture, but they transcended being a singular person's creation over time. It was quicker when human culture was part of an oral tradition and not a written one, but writing only slows the process of transcendence, it doesn't stop it. We tend to try to ascribe things to a singular creator at times (think the fictional persons like Homer), but ideas/characters/stories really cannot be owned and controlled any more than thoughts can. Corporations can try to assert control and create legal fictions to justify their attempts at control, they can create lawsuits and laws and felonies and misdemeanors in their attempt to control these things, but it doesn't stop them from entering the public culture. Laws do not change behavior, they create criminals. Their control is a matter of criminalizing the behavior, but the process of creations becoming part of the uberculture and transcending their creator happens nonetheless. There is no monomyth, the idea of the monomyth is the fiction. There is a plurality of myths with common themes throughout human cultures and stories/characters/ideas that touch on that/tie into it transcend a singular creator and any attempt to control that idea. -M
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jul 14, 2014 7:44:45 GMT -5
So I watched Star Trek Into Darkness ... Or I watched a rehash of Wrath of Kahn. At least with the ending the next movie won't be Search For Kirk.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 14, 2014 8:24:17 GMT -5
So I watched Star Trek Into Darkness ... [spoil]Or I watched a rehash of Wrath of Kahn. At least with the ending the next movie won't be Search For Kirk.[/spoil] In fact, with that ending, there's no reason any character needs to stay dead ever again. I'm pretty sure that's a particular can of worms that will promptly vanish from the mind of the producers.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jul 14, 2014 8:57:17 GMT -5
So I watched Star Trek Into Darkness ... [spoil]Or I watched a rehash of Wrath of Kahn. At least with the ending the next movie won't be Search For Kirk.[/spoil] In fact, with that ending, there's no reason any character needs to stay dead ever again. I'm pretty sure that's a particular can of worms that will promptly vanish from the mind of the producers. It wasn't enough to do the exact same thing that was done in Wrath of Kahn but with a different character. We have to make that whole scene redundant by quickly solving the dilemma and cut to happy ending. They just as soon keep Kahn on ice in the Enterprise and have a perpetual Ressurection machine so anyone can make a "sacrifice" and be a hero. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 14, 2014 10:28:16 GMT -5
Absolutely!
The reboot series is turning out to be some kind of mirror universe version: this time, it's the odd-numbered movies that are good!
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jul 14, 2014 10:52:50 GMT -5
And I really did enjoy the first movie. It was the only reason I watched this one. If there is another one to follow let's hope you are right and it will be a good one.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 14, 2014 11:08:47 GMT -5
I'm afraid I disliked the first Star Trek reboot movie intensely. It just didn't "feel" like Star Trek to me. I dunno, J. J. Abrams described himself as more of a Star Wars guy than a Star Trek guy prior to the movie coming out and it really showed I thought. The film just didn't have the heart or the thought-provoking philosophical message that good Star Trek should. A lot of the dialogue was cringe inducingly bad as well and Kirk was such an unrelenting douchebag throughout the whole movie that I couldn't really buy into him assuming the captain's chair and the crew following him when it happened...other than it had to happen for the sake of the plot. I have zero interest in the sequel or any future films with that cast/director.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
|
Post by Confessor on Jul 14, 2014 11:09:06 GMT -5
Oops! Nothing to see here.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jul 14, 2014 11:56:38 GMT -5
See, there isn't multiple versions of Mickey Mouse. There isn't a kid friendly one where nobody ever gets hurt and then a sexed up adult one where he kills bad guys. That would be irresponsible of Disney. It would be stupid. It doesn't stop fanfiction from happening, but that's where it should remain. Not in corporate funded and approved projects released with the endorsement of Disney. The same, in my opinion, goes for children's super heroes. And that's what we're talking about here. Kids heroes. You want a sexed up violent super hero comic? Fine, that's what Lady Death is for, right? Why does it have to be childhood heroes? I feel like all of Marvel and DC has been fanfic for the past twenty five years now, but it's not. These fanfic authors are actually employed by the companies, and they're releasing this stuff not only with the endorsement of the company, but at the expense of the target audience of the characters. And you can argue all you like that the target audience of Marvel comics isn't kids anymore, the fact remains that the target audience for Spiderman and Iron Man as intellectual property is still nine year old kids. Kids properties should be handled a certain way, and I don't believe current comics is the way they should be handled. Totally agree and felt this way for years. Unfortunately, the biggest thing that pushed "maturing" the flagship characters was a fanbase that wanted "serious" superhero stories and didn't want to be seen reading "stuff for kids."
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 14, 2014 12:42:47 GMT -5
And somebody created Hercules and Little Red Riding Hood and Snow WhiteNone of which were really kid friendly stories originally either.
|
|