|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 2, 2024 5:43:19 GMT -5
Before I was self-employed, I worked in clerical jobs. And one thing I noticed over time was that when a new manager took over, sometimes people weren’t willing to give that person a chance. It never seemed personal, it was human nature being against change, especially if a former manager was well-respected. I also thought about this years ago when a neighbour of mine (who goes to church) seemed ambivalent and judgemental about a new priest who was joining the church; she had never met him, but her words were along the lines of, “I just don’t know if he’ll be as good as the previous priest, and I’m not sure his choice of hymns will be good.” You can apply this to entertainment, too: as a wrestling fan, it seems I’ve heard so many people say, “I wish we could have a new world champion.” And when WWE (or whoever) has a change of champion, some of those same people might say, “Oh, bring the previous guy back, I don’t like this change.” I have no anecdotes to share, but I wonder, back when Patrick Troughton became the Doctor, did a lot of viewers hate the change? Did they give Troughton a fair chance after a few years of William Hartnell? What about Bond? When Roger Moore took over, were many fans still attached to the Sean Connery run? Were people willing to give Timothy Dalton a fair chance after 14 or so years of Roger Moore? I’m not so sure. Naturally, I do not exclude myself from such a mindset (I’m only human). I give you this:  In 1990, The New Adventures of He-Man aired in syndication. And I hated it. It wasn’t “my” He-Man. The only surviving characters from “my” He-Man were He-Man and Skeletor. I hated the change of location, the change of looks, the new characters, etc. This had nothing in common with the toyline, comics, the Filmation series. It was an abomination. And then, years later, I watched it and said, “This is pretty good.” I thought they were going in an interesting direction, the changes were refreshing (why rehash the Filmation series?), and when I actually approached it and judged on its own merits, I was impressed. My initial prejudices were solely about being resistant to change. (But let’s agree it’s frustrating when a chocolate manufacturer changes a recipe, right?) Now, I’ve done topics before about change. We humans are a peculiar form of life who seem to demand and then resist change in all kinds of ways. And it’s always gonna be subjective. For every person willing to give, say, Timothy Dalton a chance as Bond, there were probably a dozen or so Roger Moore fans who considered it sacrilege. I was biased when The New Adventures of He-Man debuted, but it’s good when you can put your prejudices aside years later and enjoy something. So, my question is this: is there a comic character, concept or title that you dismissed in an extreme, uninterested way when it debuted, but which you later learned to try, accept and enjoy? |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 2, 2024 5:55:20 GMT -5
Any person or version of a property can win you over by being very good at what they do or by being sincere.
|
|
|
|
Post by commond on Jan 2, 2024 6:31:56 GMT -5
I don't like change even though it's inevitable.
For most of my adult life, I ignored contemporary culture in favor of works that were created in the past. That served me well for a long time, after all when you're dealing with decades worth of popular culture there's a lot to explore. My focus was mainly film and music. I went through a good 15 years where I didn't experience anything contemporary. I didn't have a TV, didn't go to the movies, didn't listen to new music. It wasn't that I was against modern culture. I was just having a great time uncovering the pop culture of the past. It wasn't really the past few years that I embraced the current pop culture scene. I think it started with me subscribing to Netflix while my family was overseas. Since then, I've begun to realize that there's a good 25 years worth of content that's just as interesting as the stuff that came before. I'm late to a lot of stuff I enjoy these days, but better late than never.
The best comic-related example I can give you is embracing post-2000 Marvel comics. I stopped reading Marvel around 1995 and literally didn't read anything after that until I joined this forum. 2000s Marvel isn't anyone's childhood Marvel (on this forum, anyway), but I have grown to appreciate it issue-by-issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Jan 2, 2024 6:51:46 GMT -5
I have no anecdotes to share, but I wonder, back when Patrick Troughton became the Doctor, did a lot of viewers hate the change? Did they give Troughton a fair chance after a few years of William Hartnell? What about Bond? When Roger Moore took over, were many fans still attached to the Sean Connery run? Were people willing to give Timothy Dalton a fair chance after 14 or so years of Roger Moore? I’m not so sure. Not certain about the viewer reaction to Troughton replacing Hartnell, but its fairly well-known that Roger Moore was not welcome with open arms when he began his stint as James Bond with 1973's Live and Let Die. Personally, I've only enjoyed a couple of Moore Bond films, and was more than happy to see Dalton take on the role, restoring an edge and inner conflict not seen in the character since Lazenby's criminally underrated take on the character. Probably Tim Drake as Robin; after the a-hole that was Jason Todd went bye-bye (until he didn't), I was not keen on the idea of another Grayson knock-off, but Drake was written as his own person, not motivated by any of the issues Grayson dealt with. Superhero sidekick replacements rarely work, but Drake was the exception, written to cut his own unique path, rather than serve as a glorified clone. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 2, 2024 8:46:58 GMT -5
I very well get what you are saying about change as human nature. What I can personally share isn't comic related, but related to reluctance to change. The job I have now I have had since 2019. In that time there have been six young ladies that have worked at the corporate office (that I interact with daily by phone or email). The last one quit just before Christmas. The present one started back in September. Every single one of these ladies I got to know and use to working with. Every one I tried what I could to convince them to stay when they said they were leaving. And every new one I was skeptical about that she couldn't possibly fill the role of the previous one. Yet every successor to that job role has quashed my doubts. You'd think after six times I wouldn't hold it against the present lady. I finally got to meet her in person after Christmas and she won me over. She is ever the hard working woman all the previous have been. I think it's far less resistant to change than thinking that by someone how embracing something/someone new we are saying goodbye to something old.
|
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Jan 2, 2024 10:15:17 GMT -5
Robert Anton Wilson used to postulate that people can be divided into 2 categories-neophiles and neophobes. One group is always looking for and embracing the new-new developments, new technologies, new innovations, new situations, or whatever, and the other is always fearful and rejecting of the same. Whether it is hardwired into people as part of their make up or instilled through experience, I don't know, but there is an element of that divide apparent in the behavior of people on the whole. As the OP noted, there are a lot of people who are resistant to change and skeptical of it just because it is different from what they are used to, but there is a similar amount of people who look forward to change and who are always on the look out for what is new, fresh, or different. And I am sure there are a fair amount who sit somewhere in the middle, who like some changes and are resistant to others.
But change is pretty much the only constant in life, and it's adapt of die whether you like it or not. You can't take a snapshot of the world the way you like it and expect it to stay that way forever, it just doesn't work that way. If something isn't changing, it's stagnant and dying. Stability is good, stagnation is not. Life is always moving forward until it is not. Change is scary because it means we're moving farther from the beginning and closer to the end, but that happens whether we like it or not. But endings are often scary, sad, or bittersweet. But beginnings can be exciting. A lot of people really like the "honeymoon" phase of relationships, discoveries or what have you when everything feels fresh, new, exciting and full of possibilities. Others prefer the comfort of the familiar, the feel of a worn in pair of shoes versus having to break in a new one.
But the reality is, whether you like it or not, whether you want it or not, change is going to happen and people will need to adapt and cope. To quote Herbert's Dune-fear is the mind killer and fear of change just makes dealing with the inevitable change more difficult.
As Chaucer is attributed as saying "Time and Tide wait for no man."
-M
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Jan 2, 2024 10:24:03 GMT -5
When I was growing up in the early '90s, the Avengers was that title that everyone acknowledged had been around forever but which no one actually liked. Having now gone back and read the whole thing up to #300, I still don't love the Avengers, but I at least see the merits of the franchise and have some favorite eras.
I absolutely judged anyone who was a Deadpool fan back in the day. I still have no desire to ever read the comics, but I enjoyed the first movie (still haven't seen the sequel).
Light-hearted Atom Age comics (see profile picture). The stupidity was so off-putting when I was younger and always yearning for more serious reading material. Now, as an older and mellower guy looking for more escapism and innocence in my life, I embrace on a whole different level those simpler comics attempting to depict a simpler time.
And really, non-superhero comics in general. They all seemed so unworthy of my time two decades back. Now most of my absolute favorite examples of sequential art have nothing to do with the genre and format with which I started my love for comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 2, 2024 23:16:44 GMT -5
Closest I come is the updated Battlestar Galactica. I was a big fan of the original (not 1980, though the Return of Starbuck was pretty darn good, even if it was a rehash of Hell in the Pacific...most of the best original episodes were ripoffs of something else). I had read Richard Hatch's continuation novel and didn't think much of it and the more I heard of people trying to redo or revive it, the less I wanted to see it. Then, after it had been on a bit, I kept hearing good things and added the mini-series to my Netflix list and greatly enjoyed their approach to it.
I didn't mind Moore, as Bond, as I was familiar with the Saint and enjoyed it. I still say he wasn't Bond; he was Simon Templar masquerading as James Bond.
Doctor Who did win me over, with Peter Davison. I had tried watching Tom Baker, but always seemed to catch it in the middle of a serial and the cheapness of things was kind of off-putting. I did watch the transition to peter Davison and continued watching and found I enjoyed it. When our PBS station started rebroadcasting, from Jon Pertwee back to Davison, I watched it regularly with some friends, in college, as it was broadcast weeknights, at 10:00 pm and we would watch it, then MASH (on the local CBS station, after the news). I grew to become quite a fan, especially the Pertwee era, with UNIT. That doesn't mean I don't skip or fast forward through some of the lesser serials.
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jan 3, 2024 10:15:10 GMT -5
I pay almost everything with plastic now so I don't worry about change nearly as much as I used to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Jan 3, 2024 11:16:37 GMT -5
I read somewhere long ago that people want things to stay the same, but get better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 3, 2024 12:46:19 GMT -5
So, my question is this: is there a comic character, concept or title that you dismissed in an extreme, uninterested way when it debuted, but which you later learned to try, accept and enjoy? Oh, yes. Chief among them are the post-Zero Hour Legion of super-heroes and Dark Horse's Conan. In both cases, I had invested a lot of fannish devotion and emotional attachment to earlier versions, and saw no point in starting over with something new carrying the same name. But as Icctrombone said, things that are done sincerely and with talent can win you over. The so-called "Archie Legion" may have relied a little too much on retelling classic storylines, but it recaptured the spirit of the early Adventure Comics days and I liked it pretty much onstantly when I gave it a try. As for Conan, under the aegis of Kurt Busiek, it managed quite a feat: it was true to the original material, was just as good as Roy Thomas's early years, but also never felt like something we had seen before. I was a nay-sayer at first ("who needs a new Conan series?") but became a big fan. |
|
