|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Mar 6, 2023 17:46:21 GMT -5
I don't understand why people fear change of characters. As the old time creators are dying out and younger and newer writers and artists and writing for new generations. And at this point, especially with Marvel and DC, 90% of their output is essentially fan fiction. We have writers and artists that had nothing to do with creating these characters and settings. Of course comics and characters are going to change. I would not doubt if some golden age creators clutched their pearls at what some of the silver or bronze age writers were doing with their characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 6, 2023 18:40:18 GMT -5
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? Yeah, like I said it depends. Not sure how I feel about Peter marrying MJ and her becoming America's top model, but I like that Peter and Flash eventually became friends. Still, did Peter/Spider-Man really change? He was still the same character in essence. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 6, 2023 18:41:07 GMT -5
And at this point, especially with Marvel and DC, 90% of their output is essentially fan fiction. Ya got that right. |
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Mar 7, 2023 11:42:59 GMT -5
A lot of this discussion is hinged on the difference between objectivism and subjectivism. The "change" for me that I cannot tolerate is a downgrade in quality.
I personally feel like Marvel and DC comics today are OBJECTIVELY worse in quality than comics pre-2011 or so. Now, a lot of that is maybe just my SUBJECTIVE opinion (difference in tastes, types of stories, etc.) but I believe it's at least partially based in objective reality. It IS possible to look at a comic and judge it objectively as to whether or not it's up to a certain quality standard in the editing, art and writing. My tastes vary wildly, and I have always had a very eclectic collection, but I can still look at something and say "That's just plain bad."
I don't have a lot of love for a majority of the comics of the 90's... The "Image" brand of storytelling has always been off-putting to me. Just a personal taste. But I can't look at most of those comics and say they are bad quality. Most were of excellent quality, for what they were. I can apply this same standard to Robert Crumb, the Hernandez Bros., Dan Clowes, etc. Super high quality, but not my cup of tea. But I find most modern comics to be of a lesser quality, either in story, art or both. Now there are exceptions, and still a lot of very talented people turning out competent work. But as a whole, I feel the average comic from Marvel or DC is tripe.
It doesn't mean I am old and unbending to change, but that I have a certain set of standards I expect.
It's no secret that Marvel, DC, and especially indy companies either have not (for most creators) increased page rates commensurate with inflation, or have reduced their rates over the past decades... this naturally leads to a loss of talent, a loss of quality, shortcuts being taken, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 7, 2023 13:50:04 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. Some readers want change with character lives, as it reflects the real world, and true to the nature of most people, stagnation represents a lack of growth and plain 'ol boredom.
Others seem to wish the same ideas, events and character reactions repeat themselves endlessly with little to no variation in any aspect of a title or strip. To me, that's the artistic equivalent of reading that one Bazooka Joe fold-out you obtained when you were 4 years old, and expect the same joy from that single gag over and over again.
Personally, I've always welcomed change if its in the nature of real world progression, and if necessary, not for sales, shock value (the kind that has no lasting, measurable impact on the characters, their lives or perceptions moving forward) or swapped out, flavor-of-the-moment gimmicks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2023 14:05:28 GMT -5
I always felt that John Byrne reflected what you stated in your second paragraph. He seemed to be grumpy and harsh with anyone who wanted any kind of change.
I must admit, and Byrne seemed to advocate this at times, I never bought into this whole five-year turnover of readers. Sure, some readers moved on, but I’d say of the conversations I’ve had with comic readers, 95%, if not more, started reading at a young age and carried on for decades. A former editor of a UK DC reprint title said, “The comic reading hobby has a way of staying with you for life.”
Quite frankly, the idea that you can recycle plots and change nothing, to accommodate a possibly apocryphal idea of a five-year turnover, seems a little silly. That may apply to The Beano, but I’m not sure it can apply to more sophisticated comics.
So if a lot of people stick with comics, and I’d say 100% of the members here are lifelong readers, we want change, surely?
This is just an opinion. Without running a poll of every comic reader on the planet, I can only make assumptions. But Byrne, who often has a very binary view of some comic-related topics, is one of many who seem to think the five-year turnover is a scientific fact. And that it means it’s best to keep things rigid for all eternity. If the majority of comic readers do stick around for their whole lives, then surely it makes sense for publishers to change things?
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Mar 7, 2023 15:16:00 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. Some readers want change with character lives, as it reflects the real world, and true to the nature of most people, stagnation represents a lack of growth and plain 'ol boredom. Others seem to wish the same ideas, events and character reactions repeat themselves endlessly with little to no variation in any aspect of a title or strip. To me, that's the artistic equivalent of reading that one Bazooka Joe fold-out you obtained when you were 4 years old, and expect the same joy from that single gag over and over again.
Personally, I've always welcomed change if its in the nature of real world progression, and if necessary, not for sales, shock value (the kind that has no lasting, measurable impact on the characters, their lives or perceptions moving forward) or swapped out, flavor-of-the-moment gimmicks.
You will never hear me complain about this. I know that a lot of the long running characters back at their start weren't possibly to be expected to last as long as they have by their creators. But the tragedy of Uncle Ben dying and Peter being in high school for 10 years worth of publishing without any growth to him as a character in the progression of time is boring to me. Reed and Sue having absolutely no marital stress as if saving the world wouldn't ever do that. This blissful ideal marriage despite all they face. Ben never ever find life as a human thanks to Reed fulfilling his promise to Ben because Thing is popular to readers. But things like Johnny Blaze stepping away from being Ghost Rider and Danny Ketch taking the mantle. It's still Ghost Rider, but there was a progression. You may have long time Johnny fans refusing to buy it but you might get even more new readers that didn't like Johnny and want to give the new book a chance. DC did well with it (just right around the time I started buying comics) bringing in a new Green Lantern, Flash and Green Arrow. But what happened eventually? They all came back in some way. Hal albeit a villain, but still. To me it's a bit frustrating but it's the way, at least Marvel and DC, have been doing it. Add the constant events and it's one of the reasons I have 99% given up on modern comics from them two publishers. Marvel might snag me with the Aliens title depending on how well they handle it. And like you said, that's how life goes. I can tell you that for sure, as I myself am going through some mid-life things and in many aspects am a very different than I was one, two or three years ago even. I'd like to see that in comics. Did anyone think Deadpool or Harley were going to absolutely saturate even corner of every market that Marvel or DC puts them in? I remember people saying, at the time, Deadpool premiered that he was just a fowl mouthed Spiderman that kills. To me trying to anchor your entire publishing company on four or five long time characters/titles in the hopes that if there are no changes thaT the same readers will keep reading seems like a waste to the possibilities for newer readers. I still don't think within the publishing division of each respective company that they underestimate the influence of comics in other markets and to the general population. Yes there will be some MCU watchers that WILL never read comics. But there is some that might. If 10 years ago I said Green Lantern to a non-comic reader they wouldn't know what I am talking about. Mention him now and they will probably at least know "oh that guy Ryan Reynolds played". It's a start. And stop with the retcons you two!!!! Aunt May died, it was touching and and tasteful and it was well done by both writer and artist. Let's go for some progression and change. I like pizza as much as the next but I would not want to eat it for dinner every night for five years. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 7, 2023 16:29:56 GMT -5
An historical aside: The five-year turnover in readership was indeed a reality of the comic book industry (in America, anyway) until at least the early '60s, with lifetime and/or adult readers like Roy Thomas or Jerry Bails being a tiny fraction of the audience. But by the mid-'70s, that model had almost completely changed, with comic books no longer being a ubiquitous part of American childhood for numerous reasons including, but not limited to, competition from television and the music industry (Archie being the key exception thanks to shrewd marketing and a steady stream of preteen female consumers) and the Big Two becoming increasingly dependent on a teenage and adult customer base that demanded content that reflected their fannish tastes. Over the following decades, the customer base continued to shrink and the publishers continued to narrow their focus to appeal to their hardcore followers while banking on licensing their IP to other media and merchandising to stay solvent, until we arrive at today's niche market where to find anything remotely original you have to look to the indies. I trust mrp to correct me if I've oversimplified or otherwise erred in any of the preceding.
Cei-U!
I summon the hasty summation.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Mar 7, 2023 19:19:25 GMT -5
So if a lot of people stick with comics, and I’d say 100% of the members here are lifelong readers, we want change, surely? I'm actually curious if there's anyone on this site who's been reading the same books for their entire comic reading life. I mean, is there anyone who's been continuously reading Batman for 30 or 40 years? The longest run I had was reading the X-Men for five or six years. |
|
|
|
Post by majestic on Mar 7, 2023 19:28:51 GMT -5
So if a lot of people stick with comics, and I’d say 100% of the members here are lifelong readers, we want change, surely? I'm actually curious if there's anyone on this site who's been reading the same books for their entire comic reading life. I mean, is there anyone who's been continuously reading Batman for 30 or 40 years? The longest run I had was reading the X-Men for five or six years. Sure. Maybe not continuously but with a few short breaks. Mostly the big names like Batman and Spider-Man. Things do change and get rebooted over and over. Sometimes it's done well with a new twist and sometimes it's not. |
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Mar 8, 2023 3:36:14 GMT -5
As someone who thinks the single worst thing that ever happened to the Marvel Universe was that it stopped operating in real time, my answer's obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Mar 8, 2023 3:56:45 GMT -5
So if a lot of people stick with comics, and I’d say 100% of the members here are lifelong readers, we want change, surely? I'm actually curious if there's anyone on this site who's been reading the same books for their entire comic reading life. I mean, is there anyone who's been continuously reading Batman for 30 or 40 years? The longest run I had was reading the X-Men for five or six years.
Do European comics count, because in that case I have some titles that I've been reading for over 40 years, it's just that they only have 1 or 2 issues appearing a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2023 13:00:24 GMT -5
So if a lot of people stick with comics, and I’d say 100% of the members here are lifelong readers, we want change, surely? I'm actually curious if there's anyone on this site who's been reading the same books for their entire comic reading life. I mean, is there anyone who's been continuously reading Batman for 30 or 40 years? The longest run I had was reading the X-Men for five or six years. Not sure I can quite make that claim, but giving something up can be about a lack of funds or something practical. From childhood until 2020, I continually read Spider-Man (the pandemic hit my finances, not that I am alone in that). Some of those were UK reprints, but I was pretty consistent, although I doubt I could claim an uninterrupted run. Sometimes life goes fast and you realise you may have missed a week or month. From 1988 to 1995, a company here called London Editions Magazines had the DC licence. (Their parent company, Egmont, had been reprinting DC annuals and comics for years prior to 1988) Anyway, my pocket money ensured that I probably didn’t miss an issue, it was a sad day when DC reprints ended. In fact, between 1995 and 2003, no DC reprint titles were published. Then, in 2003, Panini began reprinting DC stuff. I knew someone who had read the Eagle (the original and 1982 resurrection) for their entire runs. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 8, 2023 13:47:48 GMT -5
So if a lot of people stick with comics, and I’d say 100% of the members here are lifelong readers, we want change, surely? I'm actually curious if there's anyone on this site who's been reading the same books for their entire comic reading life. I mean, is there anyone who's been continuously reading Batman for 30 or 40 years? The longest run I had was reading the X-Men for five or six years. I read Batman and Detective pretty much continuously for 15 years. But I haven't read an issue of either in over 25 years. It's pretty rare that I'll read a new book in either DC or Marvel's mainstream universes. Once in a great while if it looks like someone is actually don't something interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 9, 2023 9:04:45 GMT -5
You will never hear me complain about this. I know that a lot of the long running characters back at their start weren't possibly to be expected to last as long as they have by their creators. But the tragedy of Uncle Ben dying and Peter being in high school for 10 years worth of publishing without any growth to him as a character in the progression of time is boring to me. Thankfully, The Amazing Spider-Man's creatives had Parker graduate high school, and enter college. While his time in college was nearly on Archie levels, at least there were sub-plots involving Parker's professors complaining about his declining grades and unexplained absences, and he was not simply the eternal student with a life free of consequences caused by his alter-ego. To me, that was playing the comic world closer to reality, as college can be unforgiving of students who are not holding up their end of the deal. Now the Thing issue is--of course--all about marketing, because people want the monster (or the tights with other characters), not a regular person. Its the reason Bruce Banner was never going to be completely cured of his other side, and in the MCU, the Hulk is now Banner/Hulk (at least since Endgame), with the idea that his original self will never be seen again (at least until the next Big Bad of 30 films zaps him back to regular Banner, and in a "dramatic" moment, Banner sacrifices his chance for normalcy to "Hulk out" again, thus returning him to the Banner/Hulk state). While Deadpool and Harley have never been favorites, I can sort of see how they brought a different edge to their respective universes, while other characters? Not so much. But in so many cases, its a bad start. If the Reynolds Green Lantern, DC's CW TV series or many MCU films are the gateway for potential comic book readers, that gateway might be closed by the viewers themselves, as too many comic book movies and TV series are poor-to-horrible adaptations, which no one would want to follow into expensive floppies. Agreed! |
|
