|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2023 10:36:34 GMT -5
Do people really want change? It’s a question that I have often wondered, and, of course, no-one can know the mind of everyone on Earth (or in comic fandom).
But at times, when thinking about any entertainment, it seems that not only do people not want change, but some who rallied for change are the first ones who complain when there is change. (I’m sure I’ve done the same)
It’s not just in comic fandom. Here are some examples.
Some wrestling fans will whine if a wrestler holds a ‘world championship’ for 2 or 3 years, but will then complain with equal vitriol (usually on social media) when another wrestler is given the belt.
The Friday the 13th film series did something different in one entry, which I quite liked, and there were rumours of a new direction, but fans reacted badly (as did some critics) if historical reviews are anything to go by, probably by some who had got bored with the formulaic direction the series had gone in. I’ll say no more in case anyone hasn’t seen the films.
The next entry of the Scream film series, which will be the sixth film, relocates the horror to the east coast, New York City in particular. One person I know is moaning about that, yet he was whining about how “samey” the film series had got. Why not give the east coast setting a chance? I am quite intrigued by the trailer, and the NYC setting may well give the series not only something different, but the chance to satirise the horror genre in a different way - or continue the meta-fiction commentaries.
So, onto comics…
I do like change. That doesn’t put me on a pedestal because I am sure I could recall instances in my life where I whined about change. On the whole, though, I think change can be good, doubly so if you’re following something for decades. When I finally got the chance to read Peter David’s Hulk run in full, I was impressed. From the reappearance of the grey Hulk to the merging of personas by Leonard Samson, I like that nothing remained static; when the Hulk led the Pantheon in the world’s trouble spots, I thought that was a good thing.
I’m not sure I could read a run that was *just* the Hulk battling the USAF and villains in New Mexico, but I pretty much sped through Peter David’s run because there was so much variety.
On a general note, I liked it when the JLA gained a new member. Or a member left. As one soap opera (UK) producer once said, when an actor decides to leave, it allows the writers to come up with a good exit storyline for them, plus you either allow other characters to shine, or bring in a new one. I try to be glass half-full. Captain Marvel leaving the Justice League was sad for me, but there are always opportunities to go in new directions.
I think the glass half-full approach is what keeps me interested in any form of entertainment. I know not who will dethrone WWE Undisputed Champion Roman Reigns, but whoever does will be fresh, and we’ll see new storylines. Cap or Iron Man leaving the Avengers (in any era) is sad but I prefer to focus on the opportunities that their replacements will bring. If a horror film series decided to relocate an antagonist to another city, country, planet or dimension, I’d rather focus on what new storyline opportunities will present themselves than go down the glass half-empty route of saying, “Damn, you mean the 30th Halloween film isn’t set in Illinois.”
There are two important points to remember: subjectivity and extremes. On subjectivity, there may well be people on Earth who didn’t like Peter David’s Hulk run, so it’ll always be down to personal preference. On extremes, well that is also subjective, but I would not be happy if Marvel announced that Spider-Man was going to lose body parts, gain cybernetic body parts, and be sent to enforce the law among a lawless community living on one of Saturn’s moons. That’d be change that wouldn’t appeal.
Really, though, and I know I am going to sound like a life coach/motivational speaker, I do like to see the opportunities in change. A move to a new home can be an opportunity. A person working for someone (as opposed to being self-employed) might see an opportunity in a transfer or promotion. An actor cutting ties with a studio or film series might disappoint people, but what about the opportunity and fun in seeing him or her going to another studio and entertaining us in a different way?
People’s mileage will vary. There are extremes. Some comic fans probably don’t want ANY change. Some probably would accept any change. Others might be in between. I’ll end by posting that out of all the changes that have occurred in comics, or rather the ones I’ve read, I’d say 80-85% of them have been exciting and appealing to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 6, 2023 10:45:41 GMT -5
The biggest thing to remember is that fans are generally terrible. There is nobody who hates, for example, Star Wars, worse than a "Star Wars fan."
By and large most people want the illusion of change. Make it look like it's changing but keep it comforting and familiar. Why? Because humans are a superstitious and cowardly lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Mar 6, 2023 10:49:57 GMT -5
Here's the thing about change... it has to be change we (as a fan) likes... if it's not, we complain. Since obviously not every fan wants the same change, most stick with the illusion of change and then reset to the status quo.
Personally, I like PROGRESSION.. change with a logical purpose. Random change for changes sake, not so much.
I'll use Iron Man as an example...
Progression is going from a partying playboy to an alcoholic, to overcoming that and being a hero. His company went from weapons to energy. That's progression, and was, on the whole, pretty interesting.
Having him lose his company, only to build a new one in a year, like 4 times? Making him a teenager for a while? Killing him off then having him come back like 4 times with no real change? Cycling him through every female hero he's ever met for a 'girlfriend'. That's the illusion of change, as it always come back to Tony being rich with a big company and single.
Often such things overlap, but you can deal with changes for no reason if the progression still happens. When they just do a whole lot of nothing, it gets annoying.
The worst is when progression happens, and then is removed. Justice and Firestar are the best example of that. During the New Warriors run they were figuring out how to be a superhero couple, or not, and Angelica was deciding if she wanted to BE a superhero. They moved from the New Warriors to the Avengers, and then broke up because Firestar decided to retire. Really good stuff. Since? Firestar (after clearly being portrayed as an adult) was in college for a while and just bumming around as a part time hero..Now suddenly she's in the X-Men and uses her powers just to be warm on a snowy day, with no explanation. Justice reverted back to his NW days and spends what appearences he has trying to relive the past, and no one seems to remember he was an Avenger. Blech.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2023 11:00:16 GMT -5
Progression and logic is important. I feel Samson merging Banner’s persona with the Hulk personas was both logical and fun.
On Slam’s point, yes, I’ve come across that. I don’t like the illusion of change.
There are franchises which I feel could have used more change. The original He-Man and Thundercats cartoons were fine to me, and I get the whole toyline thing, but there were times I might have enjoyed a change, e.g. an Evil Warrior defecting to He-Man’s side, or a Thundercat sacrificing his/her life.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Mar 6, 2023 12:45:25 GMT -5
Here's the thing about change... it has to be change we (as a fan) likes... if it's not, we complain. Since obviously not every fan wants the same change, most stick with the illusion of change and then reset to the status quo. Personally, I like PROGRESSION.. change with a logical purpose. Random change for changes sake, not so much. ... Often such things overlap, but you can deal with changes for no reason if the progression still happens. When they just do a whole lot of nothing, it gets annoying. The worst is when progression happens, and then is removed. I agree 100% I like real change, but big life events which you know are going to be reset to the status quo afterwards ... one of the reasons I got bored with mainstream comics. |
|
|
|
Post by jason on Mar 6, 2023 13:45:58 GMT -5
Progression and logic is important. I feel Samson merging Banner’s persona with the Hulk personas was both logical and fun. On Slam’s point, yes, I’ve come across that. I don’t like the illusion of change. There are franchises which I feel could have used more change. The original He-Man and Thundercats cartoons were fine to me, and I get the whole toyline thing, but there were times I might have enjoyed a change, e.g. an Evil Warrior defecting to He-Man’s side, or a Thundercat sacrificing his/her life. You need to check out the Beast Wars series. Without giving too much away, you get both of those. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 6, 2023 14:04:36 GMT -5
I love it when subsequent films in a series do something completely different. And moreso than just changing the location. Like really going in an original direction. A good example of this is the Japanese Ring series, based on the novels of Koji Suzuki. The second film, Rasen (Spiral) adapted the second novel, which actually continues the story. And the general public, whoever they are, apparently hated it. Another sequel was done, which essentially rehashed the original story with new characters. And it's not bad. But it's the same. And Rasen is so disrespected that a recent box set of the series doesn't even mention it on the outer cover, but simply relegates it to the bonus feature of the second film. It pisses me off!
With comics... it's kind of a case-by-case thing... but generally, I like "the illusion of change." It's not that we are superstitious or cowardly; it's that if a character changes too much, it's not the character we loved any more. Comics are our comfort food, so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Mar 6, 2023 14:25:12 GMT -5
If you like what's going on, you don't like change.
If you don't like what's going on, you do like change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 6, 2023 14:32:41 GMT -5
I want stories that are entertaining, that make sense, and in the case of continuing series, that will hold my interest. If things are always the same, I'll doubtless get bored after a few years. If things change to such an extent that the original concept is lost, I may not find the new status quo to my liking.
The key, I believe, is to let long-lived series evolve in a way that feels natural. Not in a sudden way that has "editorial mandate" written all over it, and that gets old-time fans to view the "new thing" as usurping the initial concept instead of growing out of it.
Love & Rockets has been knocking it out of the ballpark for an amazingly long time, and it has yet to become redundant. As far as super-hero comics go, I believe that a good example was what was happening in the X-Men title until the mid-80s. Characters got older and retired; new characters were introduced and given a chance to grow into their own. DC tried it in the 80s and 90s by replacing Barry Allen, Oliver Queen and Hal Jordan with younger characters.
Not as much money in that than in "events" that will change everything forever for five minutes, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mormel on Mar 6, 2023 15:04:12 GMT -5
I want stories that are entertaining, that make sense, and in the case of continuing series, that will hold my interest. If things are always the same, I'll doubtless get bored after a few years. If things change to such an extent that the original concept is lost, I may not find the new status quo to my liking. The key, I believe, is to let long-lived series evolve in a way that feels natural. Not in a sudden way that has "editorial mandate" written all over it, and that gets old-time fans to view the "new thing" as usurping the initial concept instead of growing out of it. Love & Rockets has been knocking it out of the ballpark for an amazingly long time, and it has yet to become redundant. As far as super-hero comics go, I believe that a good example was what was happening in the X-Men title until the mid-80s. Characters got older and retired; new characters were introduced and given a chance to grow into their own. DC tried it in the 80s and 90s by replacing Barry Allen, Oliver Queen and Hal Jordan with younger characters. Not as much money in that than in "events" that will change everything forever for five minutes, of course. I really appreciate how natural the roster changes in late 70s and early-to-mid 80s X-Men felt. Kitty Pryde and Rogue in particular had interesting character arcs from their introduction onward, becoming part of the X-Men 'family'. Even though the Outback era perhaps didn't feature the greatest storylines, I do like how Claremont put the X-Men in a completely different setting. It was adventurous if nothing else! |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 6, 2023 15:07:48 GMT -5
I want stories that are entertaining, that make sense, and in the case of continuing series, that will hold my interest. If things are always the same, I'll doubtless get bored after a few years. If things change to such an extent that the original concept is lost, I may not find the new status quo to my liking. The key, I believe, is to let long-lived series evolve in a way that feels natural. Not in a sudden way that has "editorial mandate" written all over it, and that gets old-time fans to view the "new thing" as usurping the initial concept instead of growing out of it. Love & Rockets has been knocking it out of the ballpark for an amazingly long time, and it has yet to become redundant. As far as super-hero comics go, I believe that a good example was what was happening in the X-Men title until the mid-80s. Characters got older and retired; new characters were introduced and given a chance to grow into their own. DC tried it in the 80s and 90s by replacing Barry Allen, Oliver Queen and Hal Jordan with younger characters. Not as much money in that than in "events" that will change everything forever for five minutes, of course. I really appreciate how natural the roster changes in late 70s and early-to-mid 80s X-Men felt. Kitty Pryde and Rogue in particular had interesting character arcs from their introduction onward, becoming part of the X-Men 'family'. Even though the Outback era perhaps didn't feature the greatest storylines, I do like how Claremont put the X-Men in a completely different setting. It was adventurous if nothing else! That it was, and I have huge respect for Chris and his willingness to take a big chance on such a radical change in status quo. Alas, I didn't care at all for what the X-Men became after the Mutant Massacre; as far as I am concerned, it was a noble gamble that didn't succeed. Can't win 'em all! |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 6, 2023 15:24:13 GMT -5
For me, it depends on what changes and why and, most importantly, how. It's all in the execution.
For example, Spider-Man graduating from high school and starting college or Batman closing up Wayne Manor and moving to downtown Gotham refreshed their series without changing their basic concept. Those changes worked for me. Iron Man falling so deeply into alcoholism that another man had to wear the armor or Jonah Hex being transported through time to a dystopian future drove me away from their series. Updating X-Men and Teen Titans turned mediocre books into great ones. The same idea ruined JLA in the Detroit era. Likewise, Burne's Superman revamp didn't work for me but Perez's Wonder Woman revamp did. But in every one of those cases, it was the execution that made the difference.
See what I mean?
Cei-U!
I summon my two pfennigs' worth!
|
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 6, 2023 16:24:24 GMT -5
I'm gonna be honest and say that I like the illusion of change. Usually the standard in the big 2 is for a writer to come in and whatever he does, return everything to the status quo when he leaves.
As reviled by some people as Bendis was on the Avengers run, all the people that died were returned to life when he departed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2023 16:34:27 GMT -5
I love it when subsequent films in a series do something completely different. And moreso than just changing the location. Like really going in an original direction. A good example of this is the Japanese Ring series, based on the novels of Koji Suzuki. The second film, Rasen (Spiral) adapted the second novel, which actually continues the story. And the general public, whoever they are, apparently hated it. Another sequel was done, which essentially rehashed the original story with new characters. And it's not bad. But it's the same. And Rasen is so disrespected that a recent box set of the series doesn't even mention it on the outer cover, but simply relegates it to the bonus feature of the second film. It pisses me off! With comics... it's kind of a case-by-case thing... but generally, I like "the illusion of change." It's not that we are superstitious or cowardly; it's that if a character changes too much, it's not the character we loved any more. Comics are our comfort food, so to speak. This is kind of similar to how I felt about Friday the 13th. Turn away now if anyone truly doesn’t want anything spoilt, but the fifth film was a new beginning with a pretty good twist - and the ending did suggest a new direction, but I read that it was negatively received so we were back to the formula of Jason butchering people at Camp Crystal Lake. Fine, but we had already seen that many, many times. I know it might be counter-productive for any form of entertainment to move too far away from the core concepts. With anything. I don’t particularly want to see my favourite pop singer change their appearance and start recording thrash metal songs exclusively. But a little bit of subtle reinvention here and there works. As I have stated many times, though, people’s mileage will vary. I just think if you’re gonna keep repeating things, what’s the incentive to buy new stuff? I believe the original run of The Amazing Spider-Man lasted 441 issues, from 1963 until 1999. If 440 issues were all the same as the first issue, why would I buy the trades? Why not just acquire the first issue and re-read that once a week? If every Halloween film is exactly the same as the first, why would I not just choose to own the first film on DVD and save myself the expense of buying the sequels? Returning to comics, could 441 issues of Peter Parker being tormented by Flash, berated by Jameson, worrying about Aunt May and then battling a villain have been as compelling as seeing changes such as him leaving high school, marrying MJ, seeing an opponent killed, etc? I like to think most change can be an opportunity. |
|
|
|
Post by DubipR on Mar 6, 2023 17:18:09 GMT -5
The biggest thing to remember is that fans are generally terrible. There is nobody who hates, for example, Star Wars, worse than a "Star Wars fan." By and large most people want the illusion of change. Make it look like it's changing but keep it comforting and familiar. Why? Because humans are a superstitious and cowardly lot. This is pretty much on point with how I see things as well. The old farts of the collecting age are afraid that their beloved comics or whatever is going to outlive them, going into places where their minds didn't want to go or thought it should be going. Humans like familiarity and want things back to status quo. I'll admit there's somethings I don't care about todays Big 2 comics. It's more of the severe dark outlook that's in their books but as for characters changing, orientation or introduction of new legacy characters, I don't give a flying f**k about that. New writers and artists will bring their vision to the characters. It might hit; it might sink. Vote with the wallet has always been my motto when it comes to comics. I'm trying to not to make this political but a lot of the new comics deals with this; but change hurts the fragility of their old collecting bones. Star Wars fans. Comic Fans. Whatever small niche of collecting has been weaponized for the worst. |
|
