comics, cognitive dissonnance and the man behind the curtain

[ctc]

So;

When I think about comics, I think about the fans a lot. One thing that I've been pondering is how the readers decide what's "real" in their comics. As a kid there's a tendency to accept everything that happens in a comic as "real." That is; whatever happens in the comic is official continuity. But as a reader gets older they become increasingly aware that there's a writer and artist behind the book, and that a story is influenced by stuff like "sales" and "trends." And with that knowledge you begin to see patterns; books padded for graphic novel compilations, capitalizing on trends, accquiescing to social mores other forces. The books themselves become a 50/50 combination of the stories themselves, and the expectations of the reader.

For a lot of hardcore fans there seems to be a lot of second-guessing; the mix isn't 50/50, but weighed a LOT more towards the real world side of the equation. Who's writing what, which books are "hot," technical bits.... the stories themselves become almost secondary. And with that comes a much stronger idea of the "right" way a given book should be done.

So I've been wondering how older, more experienced fans determine the "real/not real" cutoff point. If they're even aware of the process. Most folks HAVE a cutoff, but they may not be aware of how their subconscious determines it.

Don C.

[johnnystorm]

I think you hit it with the subconcious part...a comic needs to "feel right" to a reader.

For example, to me, the recent return to life of Bucky in Captain America worked. It was well written and seemed to come naturally to the storyline being written and the history of the characters. While it contradicted a long standing "fact", it actually "felt right" to me.

Contrast that with the "One More Day" storyline in Spider-Man. It "felt wrong" to me...the plot was intrusive, the execution rushed, the whole thing out of established behavior for the characters involved.

I think for long-term fans, the established continuity plays a factor. For me, the Jack Kirby versions of the New Gods will always be the "real" versions, and no matter how hard DC tries to convince me Grant Morrison's Final Crisis versions are the new standard quo, they will not seem real to me. The longer you are around comics, the more the iconic version is the "real" one.

And as a long time reader, I kinda "know" in the back of my head that All-New, All-Different versions eventually revert to the original status quo, after a run at being new, they find out that new wasn't better sales wise, so they revert to something very close to the original (which oddly then seems fresh & new).


Cases in point- Oliver Queen-Green Arrow...Hal Jordan -Green Lantern...Barry Allen-Flash. Superman's reboot- eventually everything has now come back that Byrne jettisoned (Krypto, Superboy, Supergirl, Kandor, Jor-El, even the klutzy Clark Kent). The 1970s Legion of Super-Heroes .

Oddly, by organically returning those things to their original status quo and not doing a jarring revamp or bizarre history reveal, this has made the "non-real" stories in between more "real". Does that make sense? Example, I was not a big fan of the Kyle Rayner GL era. Ignored most of it, same with the Parallax Hal Jordan stuff. That was not Green Lantern to me, it didn't "feel right" for that character to act that way. But in the current return to status quo, that era was explained and "corrected" in a well written, well thought out and executed way that appealed to me as a long-term reader. So now, to me, it does "feel right" and part of the established history of the Green Lantern.

I also tend to think that when a character such as Batman appears on a one-shot or mini-series, that appearance is less "real" than in the regular ongoing series. Maybe because the regular series writer has a direction going and most one-shots or mini-series feel like somebody is just "playing" with the character. Now that can depend greatly on how good the writer is (note I said GOOD, not CURRENTLY HOT). Example: The Killing Joke by Alan Moore feels right as part of Batman & the Joker's continuity. The Joker is portrayed as consistant with his behavior (such as it is), and the storylines produced surrounding Batgirl were then allowed to flow naturally from that point. On the other hand, Kevin Smith's recent Cacophany series with his bizzarrely sexed version of the Joker does not feel right as consistant with the established pattern. Not to say Kevin Smith isn't a good writer - he managed to do the return of Oliver Queen as Green Arrow in the same way that I spoke of above with the GL series. But in this case, he's trying to establish a new norm for the character that doesn't reflect on established past appearances, so no, it doesn't "feel right" to me.

I think we're seeing this happening now with the Shazam! family of heroes, and the changes being made are not "feeling real" to a lot of readers, which is why I think they will be headed back to something closer to original standard quo. Captain Marvel is an excellent example of a hero that never seems real unless he is done a certain way, and DC has certainly tried numerous times to "update" him, but they all fail. Same goes for Plastic Man and the Spirit. DC's comic version is closer to the iconic Eisner version and does pretty well...Frank Miller's film went down another path and did not do well.

[ctc]

>a comic needs to "feel right" to a reader.

That's the crux right there.... I've been wondering what it is that determines what's right and what's not. I don't think most readers really know, it's a gut feeling and not something they've ever really thought about.

>I think for long-term fans, the established continuity plays a factor.

It's often said that your first encounter with something.... like a comic.... becomes your formitive encounter; and subsequently the meter stick that every permutation is measured against. For comics it wasn't a problem 'cos fans had a "life expectancy" of around threre years. After that point they moved on and you could change stuff with little hue and cry. But by the 80's a lot of folks kept reading a LOT longer, and it became a problem. The writers and artists COULD change stuff, but had to do it in continuity so as to not frustrate the long term readers. By the 90's you had a new problem: long term readers who've seen pretty much every permutation you could do and still stay "on model."

But all that details a set of circumstances inherent to the READER and not the book. I've been wondering for a while now if this part of the "problem" with Marvel and DC: they're trying really hard to placate these people, even though it's impossible to do so. And by trying so hard they're alienating potential readers.

Don C.

[jds1911a1]

I don't envy the comic business people in the big 2. they have to try to come up with new slants on characters for their LONG term reader, while at the same time preserviing the history so readers brought over by other media exposure stay with it. At this point for me my initial exposure was late silver age and bronze age comic and I was a heavy comic reader thorough the 90's. I now get a few titles but basically I am willing to wait for a TPB on amazon or ebay sale so I am not "helping" the shelf sale month to month

[ctc]

>they have to try to come up with new slants on characters for their LONG term reader, while at the same time preserviing the history so readers brought over by other media exposure stay with it.

Definitely! And it seems like those fans are getting increasingly nit-picky all the time. (I've seen huge rants from folks complaining about how big the pointy bits on Batman's mask are....)

Don C.

[johnnystorm]

I'm not ranting here, just trying to explain my position. I think good stories can be told a number of ways, and continuity can and sholud be changed as necessary to create a better product. But I think there is a way to do it that works and a way to do it that doesn't. Let's take Green Lantern as an example, since I think it's one that works (for me).
Back in the early 60s, when DC revamped a lot of Golden Age characters, most readers, as you say, moved on from the Alan Scott version of 20 years earlier. There was not such a collector group of hard-core fans as you see today. So DC could just create a new version out of whole cloth, put it out there, no big deal. But today you are faced with the dilemma of having that character out there now for 50 some years or more. Generations have grown up now following that character. The Hal Jordan version has now become a COMIC BOOK ICON.
The other factors that now comes into play is merchandising & other media. DC has used this version to promote it's merchandise on lunchboxes, toys, cartoons, t-shirts whatever. To most of the non-comic reading public this is Green Lantern. They may not know his comic book backstory, but they recognize the character. The Hal Jordan version has now become a MERCHANDISING ICON.

This is what DC is attempting to do now with a lot of their characters: put out the iconic version that most people know- comic book readers & non-readers alike. Which is why we have something close to the movie Superman version in the comic now, Hal GL, Barry Allen Flash, the LSH, etc. People (including non-comic readers) expect those versions, and not only can it be used as comic story fodder, but also as fodder for other media.

Take Spider-Man as another example...99.9% of the non-comic following world knows Spidey from the movies. So Marvel has decided (probably wisely) that the comic book &and newspaper strip should relect that version to an extent. Ergo, Brand New Day.
The problem lies in the execution. DC's GL revamp seems to have been well thought out and allowed to flow. Brand New Day seemed forced and out of touch with what fans wanted. Do I think Peter & MJ should have stayed married? No, I actually think a single young Spidey could make for more exciting stories. The problem lies in the crafting of the story. Had Marvel (& DC with the Superman/Lois wedding) been a bit more careful with the stewardship of the heroes back in the 80s, then it would not be a problem they felt needed solving today. DC has been more laid back in the Clark/Lois marriage so far, but then they haven't been able to create a successful movie franchise with Superman recently either. I'm betting if they had scored with Superman Returns, the books would be re-written somewhat to reflect the movie version to attract those fans.

Obviously there is a fine line to walk between continuity and creativity. As mentioned above, in cases like Captain America it can be done. Marvel managed to:
A. Kill off an old character with a long backstory tying him to a war over 60 years ago (Ancient history!!!), to significant media advantage.
B. Revive another old character and change long-time established continuity.
C. Create a new Modern version of Captain America.
D. Continue to have a top-selling comic book that has fans eagerly waiting for the next issue.

Marvel also gets the advantage of telling stories of the Original Cap in a series of one-shots & mini-series that don't affect any established or current continuity. They can even use ICONIC Cap in movies cartoons etc. without violating what is going on in the "real" book.
This was managed this by excellent writing, good art, and allowing a natural flow to happen.

The Spider-Man event continues to be a sore point of contention, sales are slipping. Why- because it was forced, off kilter, and out of character for the established versions of Spider-Man, including the ICONIC version. Notice the difference between changing the comic book & the newspaper strip to the same Single Peter version. Comic had PP & MJ dealing with the devil. A lot of bad decisions such as revealing the secret id, Gwen's kids, etc leading up to it. Newspaper strip change: it's a flashback sequence that goes back to an unspecified time pre-marriage Spidey. Now granted, the newspaper strip has the same advantage that DC had with the Silver Age GL: passage of time between versions. This flashback story will drag out for 3-4 months in the newspaper, then will lead into another 3-4 month storyline, and a year from now this is the norm, forget about any flashback stuff. But it proves a point that execution is critical- what would Joe Average who casually reads the funnies think if they had run the Mephisto version in the daily strip? I'm suspecting huge outcry by some group- yet it flew by without much notice from the general public in the comic. Fans of the comic were not happy though, even if they felt the marriage should be gone as a plot element. Again, planning & execution.

Yes, I've been collecting & reading a long time. I've seen the changes come & go. I think however what is happening now in the industry that we haven't seen before is an increased expectation of instant success. Try something new to excite readers, and if it doesn't succeed right away, try something else. Never before have I seen such instant revamps of direction, citing series such as Countdown and Final Crisis as examples. There have been three series revamps to Hawkman in the last 6 years. They couldn't even keep the same version of the Death of the New Gods straight within a month of publication. This is a total reflection of lack of Editorial control, which is something both major companies are suffering from. Used to be there were editors for each comics family who guarded and guided not only continuity, but the ICONIC image expected of the characters. Today, no one seems to be out there doing this until after the fact. If you read some of the interviews with Dan Didio & Joe Quesada, there is a lot of back-pedaling to explain errors in publishing. I don't feel DC is placating me as a reader by publishing stories that make sense, do you? Should I feel cheated for buying & reading the Death of the New Gods story (which I liked) only to have it negated two weeks later by another writer who doesn't have to answer to anyone? And then to have the guy in charge try to tell me the death books were done as an tribute to Kirby not as continuity? That's not how it was sold to me originally, so of course, to get back to your original question, neither of these stories seem "real" to me now.

I think continuity must have a place in the storytelling if a series is to be successful, not only in comics, but in other media as well. Could Steven King's Dark Tower series be popular if he ignored Book one while writing Book Four? Would Lost or 24 be hits if they ignored Season One to write Season 3- and for a good example of trying to do just that I direct your attention to the series Dallas and the dream sequence fiasco. Look at comic book movies: Would Spider-Man 3 be a hit if they ignored Spider-Man 1? The original Batman franchise suffered greatly from doing just that...it's been a success so far by the second film building upon continuity of the first film and doing it right. Same goes with X-Men and the upcoming Wolverine movie. Brian Singer tried to do that with Superman Returns building off the first two movies, but it was done with poor execution and failed- my wife, who is NOT a comic book reader or fan, personally was put off just because the costume was the wrong color and his spit-curl went the wrong way- she said he "doesn't look like Superman". He didn't seem "real" to her.

I don't think comic book companies are alienating new readers by having a story and sticking to it. I think that's expected of anyone's story, whether it be a comic, novel, movie, newspaper article... I think if anything, abrupt changes alienate the long-time reader and do little to attract new readers. Look at new Blue Beetle- actually a great book, I think the costume is very cool, it adapts well to other media as witness the Brave & Bold cartoon and the toyline. And the old BB wasn't a great character who was doing a whole lot anyway- again, the lack of stewardship in the 80s on the Justice League book had turned him into a joke. But DC did such a ham-handed job of creating the new character and getting rid of the old one that
nobody seems happy with how it went, the new diection has tanked, and suddenly old dead Ted Kord is showing up everywhere because DC realized he had some life in him yet and I'm betting now they're trying to figure out a way to use him again and still keep the new guy around for other things. Something Marvel accomplished with Captain America by planning it out better.

I also think that comic readers have always accepted out of continuity stories that were well-done if presented as such. DC ran many a fondly remembered Imaginary Story, many of which are considered classics that have inspired modern versions- look at Superman Red-Superman Blue. There are currently ACTION FIGURES of those versions out on the store shelves! Look at the ENTIRE RUN of the Brave & the Bold Batman team-ups. Not only out of continuity for Bats, but out of continuity for every single guest-star! And they still sell, as DC is publishing the Showcase volumes to great success...even the new B&B cartoon, no slave to the books is a hit, as was JLU. Successful series using ICONIC versions of the haracters- no one out there complaining the JLU Batman & the B&B Batman aren't the same guy, both doing well because a great deal of prep is going into the creation,with just enough of a nod to the long time fans to make it fun. Did you see the B&B episode last week with all the TV Batman villain cameos? A way give something to the fans as a little wink & a nod, yet not intrusive to the kids who've never seen King Tut or Shame. Execution, done correctly.

[ctc]

>I think however what is happening now in the industry that we haven't seen before is an increased expectation of instant success.

AHA! I think you're on to something here....

The 90's were a weird time for comics. There was a boom; but it was mostly a specualtor boom: comics were sold based on the celebrity of the artists (writers didn't seem to matter back then) or the marketability of the characters. And books were bought as investments, a practice that died off some time around the point people realized "The Death of Superman" wasn't gonna make them rich. But it seems that the attitude of those who produced the books lingered, hence the "it MUST be a hit right away!!!" attitude. That, and the expense of celebrity artists and writers; as well as printing full colour on super white heavy stock paper has priced the books themselves WAY beyond "impulse buy." So in a way they can't AFFORD to experiment any more. Or produce books that require a buildup of readership.

>no one out there complaining the JLU Batman & the B&B Batman aren't the same guy,

Well, THIS is kinda where I'm puzzled. ARE they different characters? I don't have a problem seeing them as the same guy in different situations. Superhero characters tend to be written in broad strokes, and as such are very malleable. (At least they SHOULD be; it's one of the strengths of the genre.) The idea that "Batman IS the Dark Knight. Period." is new. It seems to me that back in the day people didn't have a problem going from the "gogo checks" Batman to the darker 70's one. The readers didn't NEED a distinction. It was all Batman. The endless categorizing, critiquing and correlating came with the "educated" fans of the late 80's.... people who "knew" what the "real" Batman was like. The readers were more accepting of a less stratiated continuity.

But that changed, and it's that change that prompted this post.

>Take Spider-Man as another example...99.9% of the non-comic following world knows Spidey from the movies.

I think when you get into characters like Spidey, Batman, Superman.... the audience knows them WAY before seeing the movie. They're fixtures, and growing up everybody is exposed to them one way or another. For all but the most dedicated comic fan that knowledge may be minimal (Batman's parents were killed so now he fights crooks) but it's probably enough to know the story without being desuaded by the movie's changing the fiddly bits.

Don C.

[johnnystorm]

Yes, I think the constant upgrading of paper, cost of talent, etc. has affected the buying of comics, and sadly, it's probably done so to little effect on increased sales. Having a "Big-Name" Hollywood writer or Prestige Artists on a book may attract a few people...but the lack of professionalism on many of them prove detrimental in the long run: Superman, Batman & Wonder Woman's recent re-launches come to mind, endless delays and unfinished stories. Me, I'd just prefer somebody who shows up for work and does the job right. And the gimmicks of the '90S continue to rear their shiny variant heads, again to little effect except short-term gains for a select few..Witness this week's Barack Obama-Spider-Man debacle. A perfect chance to expand the readership and get your prodct into the hands of a very willing public, and yet Marvel has turned this opportunity for many into a $125.00 freak show. Wasted good will for what? A chance to gouge retailers on the 2nd printings two weeks after the event? I think that many decisions being made are short sighted and not planned to further broaden the industry. Look at the amount of specials & crossovers being launched currently. Both companies are contemplating raising the standard price to $3.99 per book. And in the midst of the worst financial era to ever hit our world. Instead, they should be trying to find a way to offer a lower priced product, a product with value. Bring back the reprints backups. Go back to a cheaper paper. Lose the digital coloring effects.

The other problem is that now both Marvel & DC are simply parts of a huge entertainment conglomerate. They must continually show a quarterly profit increase to justify thei existance. Therefore the constant pushing of product. Yet done by hucksters who are not salesmen, businessmen with no sense of business. Instead of nurturing an audience and keeping it, they need to turn products, just as McDonalds needs to turn tables. the books now exist as media fodder, not an industry unto itself.

On to Brave & Bold-JLU: No, they are not different characters, but yes they are different. A good point you had about the malleability of a well-created character. Obviously they are not the same Batman...one is darker, grimmer...the other lighter, more humorous. They have all the same Bat-Trappings, yet the B&B guy appeals to me more than the JLU one does. A good character is adaptable to the needs of the story without being stretched out of shape. And it's not just Bats who's done differently, it's also the world around him. Obviously it matters to the creators as well as they've made the attempt to do it a specific way. And even in the comics it matters and always has, or else why imaginary stories, multiverses, parallel worlds?

And finally, the public's perception of most famous charcters is probably set in stone and cannot be changed easily if at all. It's been 20 odd years since Jack Nicholson played the Joker, Dark Knight just won numerous awards and I guarantee you that more than one news article about the Golden Globe awards led with the words HOLY SPOTLIGHT, CAPED CRUSADER or a variation thereof, followed by the words BIF! BAM! POW!. Forget Dark Knights, Forget Killing Jokes, Forget Final Crisis- Adam West is Batman to these folks now & forever and nothing is changing that no matter how grim & gritty Batman gets. It's not just Batman...I'm sure the same applies to Tarzan, Lone Ranger, Sherlock Holmes, and Mickey Mouse. There is a fixed public persona that will define that character forever in the minds of Joe Average. Which kindsa leads back to my earlier statements about Iconic versions that cannot be changed drastically from the norm.

[The Toyroom]

I think however what is happening now in the industry that we haven't seen before is an increased expectation of instant success. Try something new to excite readers, and if it doesn't succeed right away, try something else. Never before have I seen such instant revamps of direction, citing series such as Countdown and Final Crisis as examples. There have been three series revamps to Hawkman in the last 6 years. They couldn't even keep the same version of the Death of the New Gods straight within a month of publication. This is a total reflection of lack of Editorial control, which is something both major companies are suffering from. Used to be there were editors for each comics family who guarded and guided not only continuity, but the ICONIC image expected of the characters. Today, no one seems to be out there doing this until after the fact. If you read some of the interviews with Dan Didio & Joe Quesada, there is a lot of back-pedaling to explain errors in publishing. I don't feel DC is placating me as a reader by publishing stories that make sense, do you?

Editorially, DC has been a mess these last several years, which coincidentally, is around the same time that Dan DiDio took control. It's been one circle jerk after another. If only they could hire The Ghost of Julie Schwartz...

[The Toyroom]

....Joe Quesada's success rate has been a little better, but not by much IMO.

[ctc]

>Having a "Big-Name" Hollywood writer or Prestige Artists on a book may attract a few people...but the lack of professionalism on many of them prove detrimental in the long run

Not just that; but I've always felt it draws attention away from the book itself. Hence the "man behind the curtain" comment; instead of ignoring him, he becomes the focus. Noticed this in the 80's, but it became problematic in the 90's when books became "Jim Lee's X-Men" er.... "WildCATs," and the like.

>they should be trying to find a way to offer a lower priced product

Yeah, this is a biggie. Ideally, comics should be at the "impulse buy" level. That way folks won't be reluctant plunking down some cash for a new book. But I bet actual production cost precludes lowering the price. That, and the volume being down.

>A good character is adaptable to the needs of the story without being stretched out of shape. And it's not just Bats who's done differently, it's also the world around him.

Sometimes. Superheroes can do this 'cos they're usually based around really broad concepts and painted in big strokes. There's definitely room for different types of story. But I find that since the 90's there's been a tendency to define characters really narrowly. But that's the "kids playing soccer" school of executive planning. "Dark Knight Returns" sold a lot, so everyone chased THAT ball for a while. And it's only been the last few years that anyone's really tried anything different. Mostly in the cartoons, and that's probably mostly due to the limits placed on cartoon content; but it's kind of hopeful.

Until one of the cartoons hits, and then EVERYTHING becomes the '66 Batman again.

>If only they could hire The Ghost of Julie Schwartz...

That sounds like a silver age DC story....

Don C.

[johnnystorm]

You are correct sir...a celebrity guest always detracts from the main show cast and can overshadow them. Whenever I hear that Writer X from the hit series Lost Vampire Battelstars is going to be taking over as series writer of Superman, I cringe. Because that usually means a 1 +year delay in seeing the storyline run it's course, the possibility of not even seeing it end after it starts(!), and a bizarre new direction/power/supporting cast/attitude/all of the above for our hero contrary to EVERYTHING ever done with him in the past 70 years. And at some point, Mr. Director will make this pithy statement:
"I've never really ever read the Superman comic book, but I'm a big fan and have always wanted to tell a story about him!" HUH? You're a big fan but have never read the book?

In the words of Gob Bluth, "C'MON!"

And you're right- by hiring a big-name guy it sometimes seems like the company has so little faith in the character's ability to sell the title that they've resorted to this to boost sales.


As far as production costs prohibiting lowering the price, I disagree. I think it's more of we made $20,000 profit on this book per issue last year, but this year we lost 30,000 issues in sales so we need to increase the price to have a profit on sales this year. Instead of thinking, if we could find a way to get this book out there for a dollar less cover price, we could expect to gain 50,000 issues in sales and show a smaller but solid profit with an increased possibility of maintaining readership into the following year. Volume, volume, volume as they used to say on the TV commercials for car stereos.
The problem lies in two things that cannot be changed easily if at all. Firstly, the lack of sales outlets created by the onset of the direct market/comic retailer system. But I can't see how they could change this easily, since most of the stores that sold comics on spinner racks are long gone...except for the fact that almost every store still has a magazine section, just no comics on it. Many of them do have comic material such as Shonen Jump. Solution is to create a similar ADVERTISING DRIVEN thick magazine that magazine dealers would stock. They carry all the comic related material such as Wizard etc. With a heavy dose of ads I could see a magazine format book similar to the DC Showcase trades selling well, even if it's ads & some reprints filling it out in B/W.

Secondly, there is no competitor to Diamond Comics as a distributor, so basically there is no one out there to negotiate price. As a monopoly (aren't those illegal?) Diamond gets a cut of the sales, they obviously have no incentive to see a lower priced item. Plus no returns = all profit for them.

These things of course the comics industry did this to itself, again with the short-term gain theory. I truly believe that the leaders of the comic book companies live with the idea firmly planted in their heads that this is all going to end next spring and they need to gather as much cash while they can and hide it before the crash comes & wipes out the whole shebang. Ergo the continous gimmicky ploys to suck cash out of the few readers left instead of trying to figure out a new business model that grows the industry.

I think you're correct about the narrowization of our heroes, but maybe it just seems that way because we tend to see them in more places these days through various media. Or maybe we just got old and think too much about it.

I think that all the main characters have had a defined persona per era of publishing- take Batman for example, because he's probably one of the most sharply contrasted. In the 40s he was a tough guy vigilante, then came Robin and he was more of a boy scout big brother hero into the 50s & 60s. In the 70s he went back to the tough guy again, the 80s made him tough & nasty, and the 90s to now made him tough, nasty, & neurotic. Is DC poised to lighten him up again to 70s era Bats (where he was tough but still somewhat friendly to at least the other members of the Justice League)? Or will he go deeper into his vigilante crazieness?


I think, at least in the cartoons, there is an attempt to make him more friendly from time to time, certainly to a greater extent in the B&B series. I don't know if that's due to limits on cartoon content, I think it's more a concious direction the creators want to go. Certainly they were under no obligation to adapt the Dick Sprang look for Bats. But I don't think using the character as defined in the JLU version would allow for decent team-up stories. It usually doesn't amount to much of a team-up if the main hero is constantly complaining about the other guy being there.


Finally, I think I remember that Silver Age story about Julie Schwartz..isn't that the one where Perry White keeps yelling "Great Schwartz's Ghost!" at Jimmy Olsen?

[Airdave817]

Wowzers!

Before I chime in with my lame, pathetic two cents let me just say what a cool read this thread is. Probably going to be even better the second time over. Just like a good back issue.

If it hasn't already been mentioned - aren't we talking about branding? That's basically what we bought into from the beginning. I bought into Bruce Wayne as The Batman, and the path he took to becoming the World's Greatest Detective (and escape artist). That's why it's very difficult to see Jean-Paul Valley, Dick Grayson, Jason Todd, or just about anyone else taking over the role of Batman, without a very good reason, because every time it has been done, it was only done to protect the Bruce Wayne/Batman secret identity. Batman changed over the years along with the times and eras and trends to stay current and relevant in those times. Superman and Wonder Woman were able to do the same thing, but some other characters just weren't able to.

To me, the difference between Kyle Raynor and Hal Jordan becoming Green Lantern and it feeling right, was that Alan Scott wasn't around. Hal (Jordan), Barry (Allen), Katar (Hol) and Ray (Palmer) were able to bring their namesakes back from "limbo". None of them went rogue, or made the ultimate sacrifice. Their adventures just stopped being published.

As compelling a character as each one of them might be, Kyle will never be able to overcome the branding or brand recognition that Hal Jordan cemented. That might be the hallmark of the Silver Age, is the start of the brand. It took and caught on and lasted. It been a successful curse.

How do you keep characters like that - or Spider-Man, The FF, Avengers, X-Men, or Wolverine or Punisher fresh?

You might not like anything else bendis is doing or that the book is so blatantly geared toward the trade collection, but what I like about Ultimate Spider-Man is that Peter Parker is a high school kid that works part time for the Daily Bugle. He has a hot girlfriend, and a crowd that he hangs out in now. The book feels right. And even thought the stories are stretched out for the trade, it still feels right. Marvel Adventures Fantastic Four captures the essence of the Lee-Kirby stories for me. I started reading the MA Super-Heroes and Avengers titles just for the fun.

But, that's just me...

[The Toyroom]

>If only they could hire The Ghost of Julie Schwartz...

That sounds like a silver age DC story....

Exactly! I'd love for the Big Two to return to the Silver Age style of just telling a good story, yes with some continuity but not at the expense of it. Everything doesn't have to be this long drawn-out "never-ending battle", with mini-series leading into mini-series after mini-series of constant angst and woe for our super-heroes. Sure we like to have the odds stacked against them (that's why there are always more villains for a hero than heroes for a villain)...but let 'em win the good fight once in a while for pete's (or Julie's) sake. Seems as though the constant death and destruction in both the Marvel and DC universes the last several years is driving away the long-time reader who is basically fed-up with the trampling of our iconic images and they're not pulling in the new readers because you still need a continuity checklist to keep up with what's gone before.

At DC for example, we've gone from "Identity Crisis" (heroes begin to distrust each other and the bad guys start to unionize) to "Infinite Crisis" (the bad guys up the ante, the "multi-verse" is restored, and the heroes suffer even more loss) to "52" (a world without Supes/Bats/Wonder Woman for one year) to "Countdown" (no quick sentence synopsis can do this disaster justice ) to "Final Crisis" (both heroes AND villains are succumbing to the power of Darkseid, supposedly the day evil wins) and that will lead to another examination of the world without Supes/Bats/WW and then into "Blackest Night" where the dead (heroes and villains) come back to life. If I was a hero in the DCU I'd keep hitting the snooze button on the alarm clock every morning cause it sooooo ain't worth it to put on the cape and lace up the boots.

Marvel isn't any better...."Avengers Disassemble" to "House of M" to "Civil War" to "Secret Invasion" to "Dark Reign".... Being a super-hero lately must really suck!

[johnnystorm]

I think branding is a good term, I used iconic but in probably the same spirit. The problem seems to lie in the fact that the comics industry does not do a good job anymore of protecting their brands. And by that I don't mean protecting it from illegal use by other parties. I mean that they don't choose an image and back that up no matter what by saying to whatever writer or artist "This is how Superman acts. This is how Superman looks. Tell a great story but remember these two things".

Once upon a time they did that. Remember back when Jack Kirby drew Superman and they redid all his faces to make him look like the official image? I'm not saying that was right, I love Jack's work, but that was how the powers that be felt they needed to protect their brand. You could write a story where Superman & Lois get married, move to Mars, turn purple, and grow ant heads, just so long as the status quo was back in place in the final panel. So a writer had to actually think a bit about the plot.

Now it's perfectly ok for a writer to come in and arbitrarily change some key fact in the origin, change some strong personality quirk long established, and nobody says "This is NOT how Superman acts- it's wrong, change it".

Case in point, and if you haven't read it and actually care, a spoiler warning:

In this week's Final Crisis, Batman goes after Darkseid with a gun. Now it's been a long standing fact that Batman will not fire a gun because of the trauma of his parent's deaths. There have been more than a few stories that revolved around this fact at some point. But it was all wiped away by Grant Morrison writing in the line, "Just this once I'll make an exception". Baloney- did Morrison do this for shock value? Are we to believe the situation is so dire that Batman will break his personal convictions because the end justifies the means? No he did it because no one said " No, Batman does not do this. Use a batarang, use a rock, use a blowdart, use a slingshot, but you can't use a gun. Change it." Because then li'l Granty would run away and cry boo-hoo and not write big name comics for DC. AS IF THERE ARE NO OTHER TALENTED WRITERS IN THE WORLD THAT WANT A JOB. And DC, hey guess what? Eventually Grant will leave your company and go elsewhere, so why are you coddling him? Face facts people, all big name books, writers, artists, etc are replaced. Grant will leave, but will you still have an iconic Batman brand to give the next guy if you continue to allow this?


Only in this industry do we see this lack of stewardship for the brand. When a novel writer is hired to do a new Conan book, do the Robert E. Howard title owners not critique and demand changes to keep it in line with their character guides? Does George Lucas allow any deviation from his vision of Star Wars? No, they have a guide, a view, and they zealously guard it. No matter how big you may be, you cannot write a story wherein Luke Skywalker does something that Lucasfilm thinks he should not do. And they will make you change it.

Now in some cases they do this. I think Marvel has done this with Spider-Man to protect the brand of the character as the public sees it, ala One More Day. The execution was poor, but the spirit was there. In fact, Marvel has created the film arm of their company in an effort to control the characters look and feel to keep them in line with the company image, especially after the Ang Lee Hulk mess of a film. And they've managed to add and update a character like Iron Man very successfully and still keep the basic tenents of his story intact.

Warner/DC on the other hand, allowed Superman Returns, Catwoman, & Constantine to go out there as far from what the original material was. The bigger they are....

As for keeping things fresh- well, l I think good writers can do that without sacrificing quality. If it's too hard to do the job as asked, well maybe writing ain't for you kid. Try the many opportunitys available in the food service industry, prima donna. That way we won't have to ever read the words "I'm the G**D*** Batman!" again.

To be a bit positive here, I don't believe this applies to all writers. I think there are a few talented folk out there doing a good job, stretching the limits but not breaking them. Ed Brubaker on Captain America & Iron Fist, James Robinson on Starman, Geoff Johns on JSA & Green Lantern. I like all those books. JSA in particular surprises me, as I'm a big Golden Age heroes fan, and yet he's managed to fill that book with replacement heroes that have not irritated the heck out of me (with the exception of the smoking Wildcat kid). Booster Gold is a fun book. Spider-Girl was interesting, an old-time 70S feel to that. Bendis' Avengers book has been good, although I'd prefer it if he just got to the point already.