[Comics] Are We in the New 90s?

[Scowling Dragon]

Now after talking with JayngFet for a while I realized that so many characters in comics are getting grittier, but not in the 90s OEGXTRM way but in a more general way.

Characters seem to be loosing their families, and everything is just darker and there is this general feeling of comics taking themselves too seriously.

Ok maybe its just a stupid thought from my side and I just really want to see batmite brought back (And not just as imagination).

Why not! The guy is awesome!

[Closet_Skeleton]

We never really left the 90s. On the upside, there was good stuff in the 90s too.

[erikun]

It is likely due to comics coming back into mainstream thought (Batman: Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers) and people writing comics wanting to vehemently avoid the old 50s-camp stereotype. Mind you, going extreme in the other direction isn't the way to go, but I certainly never accused writers of having amazing writing. :smalltongue:

I haven't read comics since the 90s, so I don't fully know what you are referring to.


And I agree with Closet; the 90s had some awesome stuff.
Poor Spider-Girl. :smallfrown:

[Ravens_cry]

God, I hope not.
I want more stuff like the Power Girl solo series.
Is it so wrong for superheroes to actually enjoy having superpowers?
To think "I can fly, lift buildings, and that's awesome!"?

[Eldan]

Well, the Avengers went in that direction pretty clearly. Or at least, more than the supergritty one.

[Jayngfet]

Just look at Captain Marvel for an example.

Really just look at him.

He's always been all about just being a good guy and getting rewarded for it, helping people when he can and doing it with a simple but cool looking outfit.

Now, New52 made him into a total jerk(because Geoff Johns claims he can't understand the idea of a nice child), gave him an overly elaborate costume that has none of the old one's charm, and pretty much removed every redeemable trait he had.

[Whoracle]

Well, I'd guess that the writers today were the fans in the 90s, so, that's kind of a given there, isn't it?

[Dienekes]

I think we have mostly tempered the 90s. Comic books have tasted grittiness and I don't think that will go away. But neither is it all pervading, actually as much as the 90s gets tossed around as the age of gloom grimdark and big guns that was hardly a universal standard. As someone who rather likes grittier story telling I rather like this, so long as the heroes themselves are not butchered or neutered to make the stories darker.

Of course, as with all things comics some times this works sometimes it does not. Now I haven't read much of New 52, but looking up what has happened to Captain Marvel (and no, I will not call him Shazam), that's just, wow, that's terrible.

[Aotrs Commander]

Actually, I would say we are far worse than the ninties, and this exact moment in time.

Or at least Marvel and DC are. I'm literally about two issues away from giving up altogether with the former (I gave up my limited DC stuff when they did the reboot) - and I started reading Marvel in the ninites (well technically, I started with Transformers generation 1 in the 1980s, but the late 90s was where I started getting X-Men and such.)

I am just fed up of the "gritty" which reads "kill off characters, derail/screw over or make unrecongisable the rest and/or remove from the series." My favourite character has been depowered, turned into a vampire and then written out, my remaining favoured X-Men are either dead, or have quit, and they've appeared to have neatly derailed the new Cyclops into a villain (which was one of the few characters left I liked, because of his and Emma's interactions (especially with Wolverine)); Rogue is completely unrecognisable from the character I was introduced to by the 1990s X-Men cartoon; Nightcrawler's dead, Colossus pretty much insane (and I didn't like him much to begin with) I've no idea what's going on with Beast, and with the upcoming death of his solo title and somewhat ropey stories leading up to the moment, even Wolverine can't hold it all himself. The only other character around I like is Pixie, but Marvel have already taught me not too like any characters, because they'll either kill/remove/do something horrid to her I'm sure fairly shortly (if for no other reason than she's ridiculously useful, as long-range teleportation is one o' them plot-breaking powers. I fear her time is limited).

Seriously, like a good half of the characters that were around when I started are all dead, often knocked off in some dreadfully contrived manner to show how "realistic and gritty" it all is. The 90s may have been XTREME and very silly, but at least in the X-Men is wasn't y'know, bored and apathetic because it's not worth connecting to any characters because they are likely to just off 'em.

I think the "gritty" phase of the 2000s and into this decade is every bit as stupid and silly as the worst excesses of the 90s or the camp of 60s or 70s. Heck, I wouldn't mind some camp; a decent comic series would have a good mix of both.

At the moment, Marvel have not got any good comic series... While I've riden out some crap before, because it has gotten better, as time has gone on, there's been more crap and less good. The Age of Heroes stuff I really liked, but now that's on the out, I think the last vestidges of the fires are going out.



I strongly blame the Ultimate Universe, because I swear that piece of purile nonsense has had an affect perculating through to the main universe; instead of the character death idiocy being confined to the UU, it seems as though that mentality has caught hold of the writers, and, encouraged by Ultimate to play out their wildest Stupid character-murder fantasies, they've appear to be trying to make the regular Marvel universe very almost as bad.

The thing that REALLY gets me, though, is that the heroes get screwed and screwed and screwed and screwed, but the bad guys NEVER, EVER, get equally fracked over; they just get beaten and if they're unlucky killed for a bit (because death always sticks, don't it...) I wanna see some of the bad guys get really, reallt broken in defeat for a change!



There is a certain ominous irony inticipant. If the My Little Pony comic doesn't last long, or is not very good, there is a very real possibility than Transformers Regeneration One - the continuation of the storyline that was my very first comic of any kind - may also end up being the last series I end up getting. It would be rather sad, after about a quarter century of comics of one stripe or another, to give it up if it comes to that, but if I did, at least there would a be certain symmetry to it all...

[Avilan the Grey]

Yes.

Which is something I started complaining about already over a year ago.
The fact that Rob Liefeld is back drawing mainstream comics AT ALL proves it.

[Sinfonian]

My first thought on seeing this thread: what might be the analogue to Image Comics?

[Avilan the Grey]

My first thought on seeing this thread: what might be the analogue to Image Comics?

Well since DC bought Image...

[Dienekes]

Well there's your problem. You're reading X-Men. X-Men is insane. It's always been insane as far as I have been able to tell.

This is a bit of a joke, and not really meant to be dismissive. But what I've read, hasn't really been that bad. Admittedly I tend to lag a few years behind what is actually happening in comics as I don't do monthly subscriptions.

[Ravens_cry]

Yes.

Which is something I started complaining about already over a year ago.
The fact that Rob Liefeld is back drawing mainstream comics AT ALL proves it.
It is a Sign of the Apocalypse! ! !:eek:

[Jayngfet]

It is a Sign of the Apocalypse! ! !:eek:

What's even worse is that Rob Liefeld voluntarily left.

Because their editorial and artistic practices weren't good enough for him.

Not only that, but he's only one of like a half a dozen people who left in just the past 12 months over the same thing.

The thing about the 90's is that they had some respect for the creators if nothing else. Even if your stuff wasn't that great most of it wouldn't be retconned out of existence the minute you left, and you weren't expected to do huge amounts of work just to get by or stay in good graces the way some artists, including Liefeld, are now.

Now though, look at say, the last Hulk run. It completley destroyed all the character development and removed all the new additions from the decade or so before it just to bring the Hulk closer to basics and do something based off that instead of continuing the work done since then.

[Smart_alec]

Now, New52 made him into a total jerk(because Geoff Johns claims he can't understand the idea of a nice child), gave him an overly elaborate costume that has none of the old one's charm, and pretty much removed every redeemable trait he had.

Yea... He does that. (Wonder Woman, Wally West and a large sub-section of the JSA. And post reboot we have, Superman, Aquaman and indeed Captain Marvel.)

[Aotrs Commander]

Well there's your problem. You're reading X-Men. X-Men is insane. It's always been insane as far as I have been able to tell.

This is a bit of a joke, and not really meant to be dismissive. But what I've read, hasn't really been that bad. Admittedly I tend to lag a few years behind what is actually happening in comics as I don't do monthly subscriptions.

I think the X-Men actually got away with being some of the better 90s stuff, to be fair (and I started after the worse excesses *cough*Liefeld*cough* had started being toned down), and at least it was still about advantures happening to the characters, and not a unending stream of Bad Things Happening, punctuated by character deaths.

And at least in the 90s, the massive crossover events were, y'know about the fighting the bad guys and not each other, Marvel, (which, when I think back on it, has pretty much been the impetus for the most of the more recent big events (House of M (where X-Men really started to go wrong), Civil War, AvX (I mean that's just blatent!) 'Cos I really don't care, Marvel, whether Ironman can take Wolverine in a fight or not, I just want to see them gang up and being the living snot out of Sabretooth and Mandarin or something! Is this too much to ask? Apparently so. (Certainly is if I'd like a group of consistently alive characters as well...)

[Scowling Dragon]

This past decade has been the decade of destruction.

It just seems to be destroying decades of continuity in quick swathes.

[Aotrs Commander]

This past decade has been the decade of destruction.

It just seems to be destroying decades of continuity in quick swathes.

That may be the most accurate summary of the past few years in comics that I think I've ever heard.

[GloatingSwine]

The thing about the 90's is that they had some respect for the creators if nothing else. Even if your stuff wasn't that great most of it wouldn't be retconned out of existence the minute you left, and you weren't expected to do huge amounts of work just to get by or stay in good graces the way some artists, including Liefeld, are now.


Not really. That's why the '90s saw the birth of Image comics, which was essentially a mass creator revolt because the real meat of "respect for creators", having any rights to control what you created, was all but completely absent in the '90s.

(It's also worth noting on that point that despite his abject inability to draw feet, people holding things, perspective, or anything not covered in pouches, Rob Liefeld really does stand up for creator rights in comics, his own and other people's)

Whereas now we have much more creator control over copyrights, and Vertigo is dedicated to publishing creator owned comics.

[Jayngfet]

Not really. That's why the '90s saw the birth of Image comics, which was essentially a mass creator revolt because the real meat of "respect for creators", having any rights to control what you created, was all but completely absent in the '90s.

(It's also worth noting on that point that despite his abject inability to draw feet, people holding things, perspective, or anything not covered in pouches, Rob Liefeld really does stand up for creator rights in comics, his own and other people's)

Whereas now we have much more creator control over copyrights, and Vertigo is dedicated to publishing creator owned comics.

Which is nice, but Vertigo has a very small share of the market and does way smaller numbers on average.

Meanwhile, look at what DC has done in the last ...six months to a year? About have a dozen people who quit have outright stated it was due to editorial controlling them too much, and at least the same amount has left but not said as such simply to keep up good appearances.

[Burner28]

*After reading this thread*

Wow, are things really that bad in the comic book world?!

[Scowling Dragon]

Don't worry. Animated versions (Dcs mostly) are doing everything in their power to tell interesting, fun and awesome stories.

And then CN is doing everything its power to shoot it in the kneecaps.

[GloatingSwine]

Which is nice, but Vertigo has a very small share of the market and does way smaller numbers on average.

True, Vertigo sells less because people are idiots who follow particular costumes whether the writing is any good or not, rather than making intelligent decisions in their comics purchasing.

I mean go to any comic related website and read all the pissing and moaning about how terrible something like Avengers Arena is, and then realise that it's coming from people who are going to buy it anyway, because their pavlovian conditioning means they can't do anything else, it's an Avengers book so that means they have to buy it, because they buy those books.

And that's only the latest one. Not only is the number of people who hate the **** out of One More Day but still reliably buy Spider-Man books nonzero, it's pretty much everyone who hates One More Day, or Civil War, or Infinite Crisis, or the DC reboot, or any of the other stupid stories that supposedly "shake up" the property but actually just kill off a few characters no-one cared too much about (frequently temporarily) and then leave everything an even more convoluted mess and even more impenetrable to anyone outside the loyal brandslave market.


The fact that Vertigo is doing what it's doing at all, let alone that it has the titles it does under its imprint means that the current market is leaps and bounds above what it was in the '90s, because at least there's a reasonably accessable alternative to the **** above. (Not to mention all the other child of the '90s publishers, like Avatar Press, that are still going and have all sorts of titles that are actually worth your money.

[turkishproverb]

I strongly blame the Ultimate Universe, because I swear that piece of purile nonsense has had an affect perculating through to the main universe; instead of the character death idiocy being confined to the UU, it seems as though that mentality has caught hold of the writers, and, encouraged by Ultimate to play out their wildest Stupid character-murder fantasies, they've appear to be trying to make the regular Marvel universe very almost as bad.

...Erm...Just to play Devil's advocate, Ultimate spidey was/is significantly LESS dark for dark's sake/event for event's sake than many of the mainline spidey comics (I'm looking at YOU sins of the past) at the same time.

[Avilan the Grey]

...Erm...Just to play Devil's advocate, Ultimate spidey was/is significantly LESS dark for dark's sake/event for event's sake than many of the mainline spidey comics (I'm looking at YOU sins of the past) at the same time.

Plus the whole Jean Grey thing :smallwink:
(When Ultimate Spidey ran into Ultimate X-Men for the first time). Hilarious!

[Metahuman1]

Well, Ultimate Spidey was like that, before they

Killed Peter Parker off to make the new spider-man. That was defiantly death for death's sake and event for event's sake. And the continuity in general appears to be suffering form it.

Mind you, this is from a guy who reads it all second hand these days just so he won't support this kinda crap with his dollars.


Playing Devils Advocit though, there are some things I thinkn the New 52 did right. I actually like Aquaman now. And while I admit it was a hell of a shock at first, SupermanxWonderwoman is growing on me. The current Supergirl and Animal Man comics are excellent form what I've scene.

Though yes, I do want to see more characters who can actually ENJOY there powers. What's so wrong about wanting to LIKE being able to dodge bullets? Out run race cars? Do light curls with Full sized 18-wheelers carrying a full load? Shoot lazers form your eyes/fingers? Fly? control an element (Or more then one.)?

And full disclosure, New 52 does have some things that royally piss me off, particularly in the Flash, Green Lantern, Batman and Teen titans Continuity's. (God, they've pretty much ruined all of batman's pro'tegee's except **** and Barbara, and those are only arguably not ruined, and weren't even my favorites.

[Scowling Dragon]

Its like every writer just BEGS to split Soups and Lous up and play matchmaker with wonderwoman.

So how is it going?

Cause now it reminds of all those **** elseworlds comics.

Does them banding cause volcanoes and earthquakes? :smallfurious:

[Friv]

...Erm...Just to play Devil's advocate, Ultimate spidey was/is significantly LESS dark for dark's sake/event for event's sake than many of the mainline spidey comics (I'm looking at YOU sins of the past) at the same time.

I would say, looking back over it, that the early Ultimate stuff was (with the exception of the Ultimates, who were kind of over the line) more mature without being out-of-control; characters died often enough to have impact without being so often as to be absurd (in Ultimate X-Men, f'rex, the count of dead major characters by the end of #65, five and a half years in, was two - Beast and Gambit. Both were treated well by the story, and had lasting impacts.)

Then things started to slowly go out of control in every line except Spiderman, and it set up a crazy spiral that ended in the utterly absurd murderfest that was Ultimatum.

After that, I assume things happened, but I wasn't reading the line anymore so I can't really speak to it.

[Metahuman1]

Its like every writer just BEGS to split Soups and Lous up and play matchmaker with wonderwoman.

So how is it going?

Cause now it reminds of all those **** elseworlds comics.

Does them banding cause volcanoes and earthquakes? :smallfurious:

It's actually being handled in a semi tasteful fashion for a change. And the idea that Lois doesn't like him all that much just sorta puts up with Clark when she must and Sups isn't THAT interesting to her makes it more logical that she hasn't figured out there the same person. She's just not paying close enough attention to either of them to catch it.

[Scowling Dragon]

I can't believe it but this whole thing reminds me of.....a High school musical song. :smallsigh:

Yes I hand in all my mancards, but listen to what song Im indicating (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBVUlgG8Lm8).

I just can imagine it like something:

"I want to stop killing people, and find redemption"

No, no, no, nooooooooooo
No, no, no
Stick to the status quo

Or

"I finally found the love of my life and I want to settle down, leave the crime fighting to some of the newer heroes"

No, no, no, nooooooooooo
No, no, no
Stick to the status quo


My problem with the Loius Superman breakup is that....I liked the relationship. It built up after the years and was very touching.

Destroying it just continues to point how nothing in comics matters. Nothing can ever be achieved.

[Selrahc]

Destroying it just continues to point how nothing in comics matters. Nothing can ever be achieved.

I'm sorry? You spend the majority of your post railing against the "status quo is everything" perspective, and then you say something like that?

Keeping a long running relationship just to prove there is continuity and things last, is being a slave to the status quo. Not all character growth is to make a character a more positive force.

EDIT: "Why won't they change things? Why won't they change things? WHY HAVE THEY CHANGED THINGS?!" :smalltongue:

[Jayngfet]

Destroying it just continues to point how nothing in comics matters. Nothing can ever be achieved.

Honestly, this is more a problem that DC has in particular now, and has had since the last time editorial got a new wave of members.

I mean, remember where we were this time ten years ago? The comic universe was a bit damaged from the death and return of superman, and from Batman coming back from his injuries by Bane, but other than that things felt more or less alive and dynamic. Our "new" green lantern had matured and developed and settled in, proving himself to be Jordans equal and with hints towards a new corps back and better than ever. Green Arrow had reverted SLIGHTLY, but still kept it's legacy characters strong and had just introduced a new character to take over the "damaged youth" slot once Roy managed to mostly work out his problems. Stephanie Brown was the screw up who inched along and managed to mostly help, Tim Drake was cementing his title of "best Robin EVER", and Jason Todd being alive is something that was being hinted at and hadn't grown into a stale joke.

Then DiDio and Johns and the rest come in. Team Arrow got a personality reset and half it's roster pruned back. Batman and Superman's lowest moments may as well never have happened. Stephanie Brown becomes the poster child for editorial screwing over a character for no real reason. Hal Jordan comes back and the storyline that'd been built with care for over three decades gets smashed to pieces. Tim Drake gets a bit of good stuff but as far as DC cares he is under no circumstances equal to Greyson or Todd in terms of how cool he is or how tough he is. This doesn't even TOUCH the New 52 and what it's done.

A connected world that goes on for decades can work, has worked, and at some point in the future will work again I don't doubt. It's just that right now, a company that controls a third of the entire industry is dead set on freezing everything the way it was in 1987 or so and doesn't care what happens or who gets burned doing it. Marvel uses cheap boosting tactics like temporary death and overblown events but these tend to at least change things long enough to feel like they have a weight to them.

[Scowling Dragon]

Its like one more day.

Peter changed, and his history changed.

But they couldn't let him retire with mary jane. NOOOOOOO

Lets knock him back to "Lives with aunt" even bring his friend back even when it doesn't make any sense.

This is similar.

Superman has EVOLVED as a character. Now its not as much knocked back to the status quo as remixed to be DAAAAAAARK!

It IS the new 90s. Except with less shoulderpads.

[Jayngfet]

Its like one more day.

Peter changed, and his history changed.

But they couldn't let him retire with mary jane. NOOOOOOO

Lets knock him back to "Lives with aunt" even bring his friend back even when it doesn't make any sense.

This is similar.

Superman has EVOLVED as a character. Now its not as much knocked back to the status quo as remixed to be DAAAAAAARK!

It IS the new 90s. Except with less shoulderpads.

Honestly, I'd say since then Marvel has gotten really good at this, even if they have a whole lot of other flaws I could mention. OMD may have been bad, and civil war got a bunch of retconning, but they managed to keep a lot of stuff in continuity and won't go back on it anymore without at least trying to make it look natural. The X-Men are STILL dealing with crap from almost a decade ago. The current Hulk run may have reverted Hulk a bit, but everyone else still remembers what happened and references it as recently as last month. Avengers Academy made sure that even minor stuff like Sentinel and Runaways managed to keep up, even if Arena is messing with that in a very uncool way. Just this week Spider-Man has to deal with crap that happened a bit ago in Heroes for Hire and I don't really need to read the story to get what's going on. The Marvel universe, may not work well, but it currently works. It's connected, dynamic, functioning, and if you allow a small amount of timeline shennanigans to explain how Peter can be in the Savage Land AND fighting Hobgoblin at the same time, or how Wolverine gets to be on so many teams, you can make a vague amount of sense of it without having to clump it into little clusters like DC wants you to.

[ThiagoMartell]

Honestly, I'd say since then Marvel has gotten really good at this, even if they have a whole lot of other flaws I could mention. OMD may have been bad, and civil war got a bunch of retconning, but they managed to keep a lot of stuff in continuity and won't go back on it anymore without at least trying to make it look natural. The X-Men are STILL dealing with crap from almost a decade ago. The current Hulk run may have reverted Hulk a bit, but everyone else still remembers what happened and references it as recently as last month. Avengers Academy made sure that even minor stuff like Sentinel and Runaways managed to keep up, even if Arena is messing with that in a very uncool way. Just this week Spider-Man has to deal with crap that happened a bit ago in Heroes for Hire and I don't really need to read the story to get what's going on. The Marvel universe, may not work well, but it currently works. It's connected, dynamic, functioning, and if you allow a small amount of timeline shennanigans to explain how Peter can be in the Savage Land AND fighting Hobgoblin at the same time, or how Wolverine gets to be on so many teams, you can make a vague amount of sense of it without having to clump it into little clusters like DC wants you to.

This, so much this.
Marvel also has some kickass books ongoing - Future Foundation, Amazing Spider-Man, Daredevil and Avengers Academy are all pretty good.
Marvel Now will relaunch all of them, but I'm not sure how well it will go. Between losing Peter David's X Factor and Miguel O'Hara as Spider-Man... I'm skeptical.

[Aotrs Commander]

This, so much this.
Marvel also has some kickass books ongoing - Future Foundation, Amazing Spider-Man, Daredevil and Avengers Academy are all pretty good.
Marvel Now will relaunch all of them, but I'm not sure how well it will go. Between losing Peter David's X Factor and Miguel O'Hara as Spider-Man... I'm skeptical.

For me, the liklihood is that the relaunch will kill the last gasp of my interest as thoroughly as DC's reboot killed my interest in their comics (granted, I didn't get many DC titles in the first place, but even so.)

[ThiagoMartell]

For me, the liklihood is that the relaunch will kill the last gasp of my interest as thoroughly as DC's reboot killed my interest in their comics (granted, I didn't get many DC titles in the first place, but even so.)

Well, I was really bothered by the DC reboot. I still am. Teen Titans finally had a good run (for the first time in years) and they just... cancelled it. Lobdell then managed to ruin everything good about the Titans, Superboy and Starfire. I did read a few issues of Red Hood and the Outlaws, though, and once you get past Starfire (and Lobdell starts dropping hints that she is still herself, deep down), it's quite fun.
Brian Azzarelo's Wonder Woman is freaking amazing. I stopped reading when they changed artists, though.
I hate everything Geoff Johns ever wrote - except for the first few Aquaman issues. Very very cool. Then Johns gets lost and can't keep up.
Justice League Dark sucks and JLA just might be the worst comic I have ever read.
So - some good stuff, some bad stuff, as it has always been. I specially dislike how they ruined some of my favourite characters (Wally, Bart, Tim, Kon-El, Cassie, Barbara they even messed with Nightwing's uniform, for crying out loud) but they did improve on some other guys I liked (Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Jason Todd -- and N52's Roy Harper is a step up from Rise of Arsenal's Roy Harper. Then again, anything is a step up from RoA.)
Since Marvel is just relaunching stuff, not actually rebooting, I have more hopes for that. Cancelling Avengers Academy sucked hard and I will miss the current Daredevil series and Future Foundation... but they seem to know what they are doing, in a way. I hated Avengers versus X-men, but seeing Sunspot as an Avenger is cool enough to keep me reading. Also, freaking Miguel O'Hara.

[Aotrs Commander]

Well, I was really bothered by the DC reboot. I still am. Teen Titans finally had a good run (for the first time in years) and they just... cancelled it. Lobdell then managed to ruin everything good about the Titans, Superboy and Starfire.

Teen Titans was what I was reading at the time. Then they did the reboot, and I looked at the upcoming characters and said "actually, I don't like any of those to start with, and oh dear frag what have they done to Starfire, okay, bugger that for a game of soldiers, I'mma voting with wallet."

Which is more-or-less my problem with Marvel Now - I'm looking at the teams and going "nope, don't like any of them, you've just basically character-assassinated Cyclops who was at the only point I've ever liked him and you're bringing Jean back and you've screwed Jubilee up and marched her offinto lombo again (presumably to try to use her as a selling tool again, because that's all she is to you now, Marvel), so frag that." I'm literally giving the remaining two (out of FIVE) titles I'm reading about two issues to be good, and then I'll just cut my losses.

[Metahuman1]

Presently, here's what I can read and not have an all but uncontrollable urge to attack the writers and editors with in rolled up issue format ala Jason Born in the second movie.


DC

Aquaman
Supergirl (Honestly, form what I've scene here, I have an utterly insane against all odds hope that in a few years, she's gonna get older, and decide to put a bit of distance between herself and her cousin's legacy on earth and "become" Powergirl, and me mostly like the one form the pre-reboot solo series.)
Wonder Woman.
Batman (Solo Title. The one where all his team mates don't do very much or show up too often.)
Nightwing (Much as I loved Tim Drake and wish they had kept him more or less as was.)
Superman (It's slowly but steadily growing on me. Still not as good as it once was.)
Animal Man.


Marvel

Thor
Deadpool.



This should tell you something about how I feel about marvel. And yes, it did really start with Civil War for them, cause before that, I had no interest in DC's offerings, and was a loyal fan.

Though there's a chance I'm gonna have to start seriously looking for an independent/third company published Super hero universe to read about if they don't start tightening up at both company's.


Edit: Almost forgot. Batgirl. Though a big part of that is that I'm hoping that that's were will see Stephanie Brown or Cassie Cain show back up, or that eventually, she'll find some way to become as relevant as she was to the pre-reboot universe as Oracle again. Maybe by ditching the tights and actually getting her dad to let her be a Cop and then in her off time dusting off the Oracle ID, since we know pre-reboot she did maintain that Identity and a day job, if a different one. That way she get's some in the field action and still get's to be heavily linked into everything.

[ThiagoMartell]

Though there's a chance I'm gonna have to start seriously looking for an independent/third company published Super hero universe to read about if they don't start tightening up at both company's.

Kirkman's Invincible is quite badass.

[Thrawn183]

It does concern me that the people who will be taking over the comic industry soon, are those who stuck around through the 90's.

I have a friend from college (we're both 25 now) that I mentioned exactly these issues to and do you know what his was? "But capes aren't supposed to be happy." I'm not kidding, there are a lot of people out there that genuinely think writing a happy story or a story with a happy ending is bad/childish writing.

Also, Invincible is pretty dang good. It manages to not be depressing most of the time.

[Avilan the Grey]

"But capes aren't supposed to be happy." I'm not kidding, there are a lot of people out there that genuinely think writing a happy story or a story with a happy ending is bad/childish writing.

I guess it's soon time to stop reading comics again, for about 8 years.

[turkishproverb]

It does concern me that the people who will be taking over the comic industry soon, are those who stuck around through the 90's.

I have a friend from college (we're both 25 now) that I mentioned exactly these issues to and do you know what his was? "But capes aren't supposed to be happy." I'm not kidding, there are a lot of people out there that genuinely think writing a happy story or a story with a happy ending is bad/childish writing.

Also, Invincible is pretty dang good. It manages to not be depressing most of the time.

Hey, the 90's have some happy comics too. Like Impulse. And Young Justice started in the 90's. And....give me a minute...Part of Justice League international was during the 90's...

But yea, that friend is worrying.


Kirkman's Invincible is quite badass.

That it is.


I guess it's soon time to stop reading comics again, for about 8 years.

or pick up indies. :smallsmile:

[LeshLush]

Just to shine some light in the darkness: at least Neil Gaiman is bringing back Sandman next year.

[Avilan the Grey]

or pick up indies. :smallsmile:

I know... It's just that I am a shallow guy who prefer my mainstream superhero comics. And of course the Franco-Belgian classics (Astrerix, Lucky Luke etc)

[Metahuman1]

It does concern me that the people who will be taking over the comic industry soon, are those who stuck around through the 90's.

I have a friend from college (we're both 25 now) that I mentioned exactly these issues to and do you know what his was? "But capes aren't supposed to be happy." I'm not kidding, there are a lot of people out there that genuinely think writing a happy story or a story with a happy ending is bad/childish writing.

Also, Invincible is pretty dang good. It manages to not be depressing most of the time.

Yes, this is a very prevenlant Attitude among a lot of "Cultured" people (and I use the term loosely.) that has been picked up a lot by the hipster and academic community's. The hero is suppose to fail horribly, die trying, or achieve the goal at far greater cost then it was worth, or ultimately, at a complete sacrifice of himself. And that anything else is unacceptable, childish, lazy, "Mainstream" (Hipsters.) or giving up on true "Art" (Again, term loosely used.) to appeal to the masses as a means of "Selling out."

And Teen Titans had some happy stuff in the 90's. There was of course Teen Angst, but it was still there. Superman could still end on a happy note with his story arch's most of the time. X-men still gave you actual hope for the characters, as did the Avengers, and even spider-man when Todd Macfarlane wasn't running it.

And I'm not totally against dark characters. There's a place and time for things like Spawn, Punisher, Hell Boy, Batman (Pre-reboot.), Daredevil (Pre-civil War, particularly when he beat fisk into a coma and announced himself the new king of hells kitchen with the rule that you either cleaned up or got out. That BTW, is how you should shake up his continuity. ), And there's even a place for darker things to happen in other comics like Spiderman (failing to save Gwen Stacy, the angst over uncle Ben.) or the X-men (Jean Grey Dieing, Xavier stepping down form the institute after a student lead a bunch of others on a rampage against the teaching staff and other students in an effort to take over and ultimately dieing, leaving Xavier to feel he well and truly failed as a mentor and it was time to get out of the game.)

It's just that your also suppose to have Capes that win, that enjoy the life style, that like there powers and skills, that can have fun in there lives to balance it out. And that last part's becoming almost impossible to find.

And I'll have to look into this Kirkman's Invincible then.

[Gettles]

If people are recommending indies, can I make a suggestion for Atomic Robo?

Here he is fighting a talking dinosaur. (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2009/07/24/free-comic-book-day-2009/) (the website is the writers personal one so don't worry)

[Aotrs Commander]

Yes, this is a very prevenlant Attitude among a lot of "Cultured" people (and I use the term loosely.) that has been picked up a lot by the hipster and academic community's. The hero is suppose to fail horribly, die trying, or achieve the goal at far greater cost then it was worth, or ultimately, at a complete sacrifice of himself. And that anything else is unacceptable, childish, lazy, "Mainstream" (Hipsters.) or giving up on true "Art" (Again, term loosely used.) to appeal to the masses as a means of "Selling out."

And Teen Titans had some happy stuff in the 90's. There was of course Teen Angst, but it was still there. Superman could still end on a happy note with his story arch's most of the time. X-men still gave you actual hope for the characters, as did the Avengers, and even spider-man when Todd Macfarlane wasn't running it.

And I'm not totally against dark characters. There's a place and time for things like Spawn, Punisher, Hell Boy, Batman (Pre-reboot.), Daredevil (Pre-civil War, particularly when he beat fisk into a coma and announced himself the new king of hells kitchen with the rule that you either cleaned up or got out. That BTW, is how you should shake up his continuity. ), And there's even a place for darker things to happen in other comics like Spiderman (failing to save Gwen Stacy, the angst over uncle Ben.) or the X-men (Jean Grey Dieing, Xavier stepping down form the institute after a student lead a bunch of others on a rampage against the teaching staff and other students in an effort to take over and ultimately dieing, leaving Xavier to feel he well and truly failed as a mentor and it was time to get out of the game.)

It's just that your also suppose to have Capes that win, that enjoy the life style, that like there powers and skills, that can have fun in there lives to balance it out. And that last part's becoming almost impossible to find.

I completely agree.

I don't watch/read/play any form of entertainment to watch people being miserable. I don't find it even distantly enjoyable. I don't like, if you'll forgive me for using a possibly outdated TVtropeism, crapsack worlds at the best of times, and a lot of comics are going that way.

There's a WORLD of difference between "miserable" and "imperiled" and a lot of writers seem unable to be able to tell the difference (yes, Joss Whedon, this means you especially, even given how good you are when on top form otherwise).

I'm not so enamoured of superheroes generally that I'm really bothered about looking into new ones either. I got into comics completely by means of the animated shows, because I liked them and their characters; now that interest is fading, I think have other things I'd rather spend my money on (like the MLP comic, which I am sort of hoping is going to at least make a spirited attempt to be like the show...)

[turkishproverb]

I know... It's just that I am a shallow guy who prefer my mainstream superhero comics. And of course the Franco-Belgian classics (Astrerix, Lucky Luke etc)

Well, if you want some good superheroes not owned by the Big 2, I can give some recommendations. :smallsmile:


If people are recommending indies, can I make a suggestion for Atomic Robo?

Here he is fighting a talking dinosaur. (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2009/07/24/free-comic-book-day-2009/) (the website is the writers personal one so don't worry)

*Hugs you*

[JoshL]

Just to shine some light in the darkness: at least Neil Gaiman is bringing back Sandman next year.

I am so torn on this one. I loved Sandman. Still do. Even dig most of the spin-offs (Tessaly is awesome). But I also sort of loved that the Sandman ended. The character had a complete arc and it was good. Does the series NEED a prequel? Did anyone actually read Sandman and think the pre-capture story was the great untold story?

On the other hand, more Sandman! And Gaiman is and always will be an awesome writer. And if we get one more issue with the power of, say, 24 Hours, The Sound of Her Wings, Ramadan, etc, etc, then the world will be better off for it!

[Teron]

Well, if you want some good superheroes not owned by the Big 2, I can give some recommendations. :smallsmile:
Being firmly in the "love superheros, hate mainstream superhero comics" demographic, I would greatly appreciate such recommendations.

[turkishproverb]

Off the top of my head?
Zot.
Invincible.
Powers (kinda. Follows the police in a world with superheroes)
Umbrella Academy
Next Men
Empowered
and the aforementioned Atomic Robo. kinda.
Grendel (kidna. You...you have to read it to know why it's "kinda")
Irredeemable
Incorruptible
hellboy (Kinda. More Pulp-Hero Horror)

If you don't mind japanese superheroes, I can give you a few more, like Kamen Rider Spirits, Tiger and Bunny (Yea it's a show, but the comic is good too), and the old school Codename Sailor V and Sailor Moon.

Also IF you need more, or you can tell me what "kind" of superhero stories you like, I can get more specific/add items.

[Zrak]

I don't really like "happy capes." While it's somewhat distressing to learn that I'm some pretentious faux-cultured hipster, I'm honestly pretty comfortable with it, all things considered. :smalltongue:

Anyhow, I think there's a difference between the '90s XTREME GRITTY nonsense and the realization the people who live their lives lying to or keeping secrets from their loved ones to fight one life-threatening battle after another would have to have something seriously wrong with them to "enjoy the lifestyle." There's numerous other problems in comics, but I don't really feel like one of them is the inclusion of consequences, even serious ones, to the lives of characters whose occupation is based on serial mendacity and solving problems with violence, even with the best intentions and even/especially if those are their only real options. The execution of those consequences is often lacking, but I feel like talking about it from the perspective of how "dark" comics are is a kind of reductive look at what's really wrong with comics, nowadays.

Pluse, I mean, c'mon, we're nowhere near enough pockets-per-square-inch to be in the "New '90s."

[Yora]

I never got into superhero comics because everything I know and see about them says "angst wanking". I'm not a fan, but it doesn't suprise me that there are fans who feel the same.

[Scowling Dragon]

Pluse, I mean, c'mon, we're nowhere near enough pockets-per-square-inch to be in the "New '90s."

Its more boring then dark.

Thing is, you have to be willing to ignore some of the extra realistic stuff.

If heroes spend more time whining about the real life problems then just having fun adventures then why bother?

No superhero will TRULY exist in real life, so comics are great for ignoring some of the more realistic stuff to tell more fun exiting stories.

Real life is BORING. So why bother try to emulate it so much?

[ThiagoMartell]

Being firmly in the "love superheros, hate mainstream superhero comics" demographic, I would greatly appreciate such recommendations.

Just wanted to say, there are some GREAT mainstream superhero comics. Both Marvel and DC have learned that some times they should just get those really good artists go crazy and do whatever they want, no string's attached.

Dan Abnett's Annihilation (2006) is absolutely incredible. It brought Nova to the A-list. It was the starting point for Guardians of the Galaxy, one of the best team books ever written.

Mark Waid's run on Daredevil (2011?) is amazing. Swashbuckler stories and juggling the concept of secret identity really really well. It's a return to Daredevil's origins, but ignoring nothing about how much he evolved through the years.
Avengers Academy has fresh new characters with fresh new interactions and refreshingly new twists. It does angst, but it does angst very well and it's not a dark book.
Future Foundation makes Reed Richards be useful and the Fantastic Four seem like the most badass heroes around, which supposedly was their point all along.
Red Hood and the Outlaws is surprisingly good (if you don't know who those characters were before).
Brian Azzarello's Wonder Woman makes you realize how great a character she is and how much DC has ruined her since, well, ever.
I hate Geoff Johns with the power of a thousand exploding suns, but his first few issues of Aquaman are deliciously good.
Bendis seems to have gone crazy these last few years, but Ultimate Comics Spider-Man is still badass. Miles Morales is the most likeable character I've known since, hm, Peter Parker. :smallwink:

[Zrak]

Its more boring then dark.

Thing is, you have to be willing to ignore some of the extra realistic stuff.

I mean, I'm not asking for an issue about Tony Stark talking to his accountant or a plot arc about Donald Blake looking for a better provider for his malpractice insurance. I'm asking for the characters have some semblance of a non-sociopathic human psyche. I mean, unless it's, like, Deadpool or something. I'm sure he does enjoy being an (anti-)hero, since serial mendacity and wanton violence were his bread-and-butter before he (kind of) changed his stripes. I feel like there is a problem with, say, Spiderman's reaction to beating the living hell out of a bunch of guys, nearly dying, and keeping most of his life a secret from everyone he loves being largely the same as an in-universe psycopath's reaction to that lifestyle.

Being a superhero is stressful, often painful work, faced with a lot of difficult reminders about how Quixotic a dream it is. Or at least it should be; "With great power comes great responsibility," after all, and there's no hook or human element to the story without an at least somewhat verisimilar attention on the latter. Otherwise it's just a bunch of action scenes with colorful shapes that kind of look human, but otherwise aren't believable as such.

[Scowling Dragon]

The greatest blast I had with Superheroes PERIOD was with the JL animated series (....Except maybe brave and bold). Even beating BTAs.

It had nearly no background happenings, and absolutely zero reflection on the human side of the mask.

But it had great (Or even amazing) plots without needing any of that stuff.

I didn't need character exposition. I FELT the characters. I understood how they would act and what kind of person they where.

I would even Say Question Authority is my favorite superhero related movie.

It dealt with real questions and real reactions of the government to the heroes and vice versa.

It was awesome.

[Dienekes]

I mean, I'm not asking for an issue about Tony Stark talking to his accountant or a plot arc about Donald Blake looking for a better provider for his malpractice insurance. I'm asking for the characters have some semblance of a non-sociopathic human psyche. I mean, unless it's, like, Deadpool or something. I'm sure he does enjoy being an (anti-)hero, since serial mendacity and wanton violence were his bread-and-butter before he (kind of) changed his stripes. I feel like there is a problem with, say, Spiderman's reaction to beating the living hell out of a bunch of guys, nearly dying, and keeping most of his life a secret from everyone he loves being largely the same as an in-universe psycopath's reaction to that lifestyle.

Being a superhero is stressful, often painful work, faced with a lot of difficult reminders about how Quixotic a dream it is. Or at least it should be; "With great power comes great responsibility," after all, and there's no hook or human element to the story without an at least somewhat verisimilar attention on the latter. Otherwise it's just a bunch of action scenes with colorful shapes that kind of look human, but otherwise aren't believable as such.

You basically just described the original Marvel comics and their attempt to humanize superheroes. Spiderman especially was a result of this as it focused on his daily problems with girls, his secret identity, and how stressful the whole things was.

But they balanced that out, rather well, with moments of hope and happiness. Yes, Spiderman goes through Hell on a daily basis. But you know what? At the end of the day he went back home to Mary-Jane and they were happy, oh they had their marital problems of course, but it was a light and a means for the reader to be attached to a character and their problems without growing detached and despondent to the hate-filled world the hero has to continually fight against. It's actually a very basic style of writing that has been around forever. There's a reason that the damsel in distress became a cliche, sure the hero will have to fight whatever monster is holding said damsel, but at the end there is the promise of happiness. Of course that cliche has numerous other problems that could take a whole separate thread to get into, but I'm just using it as a quick example here. The problem many here see is that the light has gone out. Parker no longer has MJ to go back to. Now his life just sucks and all we get to see is more of his life sucking.

This can work, actually rather well for the right sort of audience and the right sort of story. The problem is, the spiraling tunnel of horrible will drag down a long running established continuity, perhaps not as fast as an always victorious happy-go lucky camper, but still inevitably. Without threat, problems, and tension you have no story, but without overcoming the problems there is no resolution, or sense of accomplishment. You need both to have a continuing story that has lasted as long as most mainstream superheroes have.

So while I disagree that real life is boring, or that I want a superhero who is solely defined by how exciting and awesome they and their powers are as a few of the above posters have claimed. Going the other route can be detrimental as well.


The greatest blast I had with Superheroes PERIOD was with the JL animated series (....Except maybe brave and bold). Even beating BTAs.

It had nearly no background happenings, and absolutely zero reflection on the human side of the mask.

But it had great (Or even amazing) plots without needing any of that stuff.

I didn't need character exposition. I FELT the characters. I understood how they would act and what kind of person they where.

I would even Say Question Authority is my favorite superhero related movie.

It dealt with real questions and real reactions of the government to the heroes and vice versa.

It was awesome.

This is actually quite blatantly false. The JLA show did demonstrate the human side of superheroes, rather a lot. However they did it all in costume. We saw Solomon Grundy and Hawkgirl confront their views on religion. We saw Hawkgirl and Green Lantern suffer relationship problems. We saw Green Lantern try maintain himself as an African American role model, and deal with feelings of guilt over a wrong he committed. We saw Martian Manhunter struggle to fit in and sense a feeling of homesickness. This is the reflection of the human side and to me personally played a hugely important role in why the show was so successful.

[Scowling Dragon]

Augh! Thats not what I meant.

I meant that the standard Spiderman issue "WAAAAAAH! I don't want to be a superhero!" that seems to permeate the medium was not there.

I want tough issues for the characters, but goddamit stop it with the "WAAAAAAAAAAH! I don't want to be Spider/ Bat/ Super/ Pooper man".

Its possibly the biggest cliche in comic books.

[Zrak]

You basically just described the original Marvel comics and their attempt to humanize superheroes. Spiderman especially was a result of this as it focused on his daily problems with girls, his secret identity, and how stressful the whole things was.
Hey, man, I quoted Uncle Ben for a reason. :smallwink:


But they balanced that out, rather well, with moments of hope and happiness. Yes, Spiderman goes through Hell on a daily basis. But you know what? At the end of the day he went back home to Mary-Jane and they were happy, oh they had their marital problems of course, but it was a light and a means for the reader to be attached to a character and their problems without growing detached and despondent to the hate-filled world the hero has to continually fight against.
Well, yeah, but that's not a "happy cape," that's a guy who's a cape because he has a responsibility to be who's a happy husband/boyfriend as an escape from the trauma and stress of his job. In other words, Spiderman isn't happy, Spiderman is getting beaten around fighting something he'll fundamentally never defeat all day, while suffering the slings and arrows of an ungrateful world. Peter Parker is happy. Peter Parker has a loving family who remind him of why it's important that he has to keep being Spiderman because he can, and because Spiderman has the power to defend people like them for people like Peter Parker who, superhero or not, need their loved ones.

The problem here is selling both ends of it. Just coming home to Mary Jane and Aunt May and all his troubles going away is plain and simply lazy storytelling. They're a network of support that allows him to overcome those troubles, as you say, but like most writing, this goes back to a degree of "show, don't tell." When this is done well, it should show why guys like Spiderman even the much-more-traumatized Wolverine can kind of get by surprisingly okay in the world, while the Frank Castles mutter to themselves and keep deranged journals in grimy alleyways.


It's actually a very basic style of writing that has been around forever. There's a reason that the damsel in distress became a cliche, sure the hero will have to fight whatever monster is holding said damsel, but at the end there is the promise of happiness. Of course that cliche has numerous other problems that could take a whole separate thread to get into, but I'm just using it as a quick example here. The problem many here see is that the light has gone out. Parker no longer has MJ to go back to. Now his life just sucks and all we get to see is more of his life sucking.
Yeah, but a lot of the most successful, enduring, and memorable stories within a framework are those that break from it. The Arthur story hasn't remained as poignant and compelling throughout the centuries as it has in spite of, but because of the fact that neither Arthur nor Lancelot could really rely on that promise of happiness at the end. The fact that they did good and acted honorably, regardless, is part of what has made them such memorable heroes; the fact that they sometimes did wrong and acted dishonorably, as a result, is part of what has kept them such relatable heroes.

My point is not that taking away Mary Jane was a good decision, necessarily, or that it will improve the comic, but that I think complaining about the event and/or tone, rather than the execution, is the problem. Removing Mary Jane from his life, even in the kinda inane way it was done, could have taken the story in a lot of really cool directions that gave the reader a sense of the kind of hero Spiderman is -- and the kind of man Peter Parker is -- when his back is against the wall and the world is at its worst. The character could develop in a lot of new, interesting ways that not only tell a good story, but perhaps allow the character to address and provide a sympathetic analogue for even more personal trials and tribulations than before; we could see the same humanizing look at isolation and loneliness for adults that young Peter Parker sometimes gave us for teenagers, some time ago. Instead, we got (as someone else aptly put it) angst wank.

I guess what I mean is that I don't think it's constructive or even insightful to lambaste "darkness" (or whatever word one chooses) in comics without looking at the deeper problem, which is the execution that made the tone or plot decision ineffectual.


So while I disagree that real life is boring, or that I want a superhero who is solely defined by how exciting and awesome they and their powers are as a few of the above posters have claimed. Going the other route can be detrimental as well.

I agree with this essentially entirely.

[BRC]

I'm not a regular reader of mainstream comics by any means, so I'm not up to date with what Spiderman is doing, but I think part of the issue is the desire for writers to have character development, combined with a status quo that has been around for over half a century.

In the public consciousness, Spider Man is always going to be Peter Parker, singly guy living with his aunt, working as a photographer, fighting crime while dealing with the countless problems that can't be solved by sticking them to the wall with webbing.
Moving him on from that status quo can lead to great storytelling. But it's a tricky Status Quo. Part of the draw of big name superheros like Batman or Spider Man is that the general pop culture knows enough about them that a reader can jump into the start of more or less any plotline, and usually follow along as they go.

Everybody knows Peter Parker as a single guy working for the Daily Bugle as an unappreciated photographer. If a reader who hasn't been following along opens the pages and sees a married guy with a kid on the way , they'll just be confused.


Concerning "Darkness" In comics. One of my all time favorite series is The Goon, which I think handles it very well.

From a description, The Goon is a very dark setting. You've got monstrous fish people coming out of the harbor, a horde of zombies on Lonely Street, only held in check by the actions of the local Mafia (Which is basically The Goon, Frankie, and the Mud Brothers), who finance their operation largely through protection rackets. Law enforcement has only been shown twice, first working with the Zombie Priest, and the second time arresting the goon for fighting off an army of murderous robots (Long story).

And yet, Chinatown aside, The Goon remains largely upbeat and lighthearted. For the most part, problems exist until some combination of Punching, Shooting, or Stabbing is applied to them. The Goon may be living a life of heartache and misery, but at least he's living it to the fullest.

Mind you, I think part of that may be that The Goon dosn't wear a mask. Most superheroes are doomed to a life of loneliness (Crossovers and the extended bat-family aside). After a long day of killing zombies, The Goon can kick back at the bar and talk about it. Peter Parker has no such outlet.

[Rake21]

Didn't see it brought up, but, if you're looking for a fun series, Matt Fraction's Hawkeye is a friggin blast.

It basically follows Clint Barton and Kate Bishop on their days off from superhero work... and the absurd amount of trouble they tend to fall into. It's got some solid writing, gorgeous art, and the main charecters play off each other incredibly well.

Also, as mentioned above, Atomic Robo is pretty much the greatest thing ever.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6xjazpV_pIg/T1TkRHBdZMI/AAAAAAAAC-g/p_quT40ahaE/s1600/atomic-robo-6.jpg

And you should go out an buy all the trades.
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/1/15659/2166440-nikola_tesla_reason_for_alternating_current_atomic _robo_and_the_deadly_art_of_science_5.jpg

Right now.

http://www.spandexless.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/AtomicRoboShadow4_Crom.jpg

[BRC]

How could you forget about

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w284/airhikec001/AtomicRoboShadow4_SAGAN.jpg

[Jayngfet]

.

In the public consciousness, Spider Man is always going to be Peter Parker, singly guy living with his aunt, working as a photographer, fighting crime while dealing with the countless problems that can't be solved by sticking them to the wall with webbing.
Moving him on from that status quo can lead to great storytelling. But it's a tricky Status Quo. Part of the draw of big name superheros like Batman or Spider Man is that the general pop culture knows enough about them that a reader can jump into the start of more or less any plotline, and usually follow along as they go.

This is why they tend to have explanations as to what happened during the beginnings of most good storylines and it gets brought up a bit.

Why is Peter not working for Jameson? Because he's using his actual skills properly now and Jameson now has better things to do than harass this one guy. It takes about four sentences and you can follow along without them even if you don't see those four if you have any brains.

I am sick to death of that excuse. When I read my first comic, it was Plastic Man, in the middle of a storyline, and I didn't know who anybody was. I didn't get an explanation. I didn't need one, because I was capable of actually paying attention to who's saying what to who and was able to figure out their relationships from that. I had a great time. I was about eight years old and wasn't confused in the slightest.

Saying Spider-man needs to stick to the status quo so people won't get confused is akin to saying nobody who reads Spider-man can follow a plot. It's quite frankly insulting.

[Metahuman1]

This is why they tend to have explanations as to what happened during the beginnings of most good storylines and it gets brought up a bit.

Why is Peter not working for Jameson? Because he's using his actual skills properly now and Jameson now has better things to do than harass this one guy. It takes about four sentences and you can follow along without them even if you don't see those four if you have any brains.

I am sick to death of that excuse. When I read my first comic, it was Plastic Man, in the middle of a storyline, and I didn't know who anybody was. I didn't get an explanation. I didn't need one, because I was capable of actually paying attention to who's saying what to who and was able to figure out their relationships from that. I had a great time. I was about eight years old and wasn't confused in the slightest.

Saying Spider-man needs to stick to the status quo so people won't get confused is akin to saying nobody who reads Spider-man can follow a plot. It's quite frankly insulting.

This. Seriously. I remember my first exposer to Teen Titans comic book continuity was when I picked up a random collection at the library once many many years ago, and it was the Grant Morrison 90's/very early 2000's run on the franchise, and I had no idea at the time who Tim Drake, Bart Allen, Cassandra Sandsmark and Conner Kent were, and precious little concept of who Beast Boy/Changling, Raven, Cyborg and Starfire where, most of the latter coming form the Teen Titans Animated series. I followed just fine, I really liked it, I went back for quite a bit more.


First time I read Daredevil, it was the middle of the king of hells kitchen story arch. I figured it our pretty fast.

Really, it's generally NOT that hard if your interested enough to bother really trying.

[BRC]

For the record, I have rarely had trouble joining a comic series mid-plot. Often I'll encounter a few current issues, then track down the earlier ones and read those. For all their talk of convoluted continuity, in my experience, comics tend to be fairly accessible. You may not know that, in an arc a few years ago, Captain X betrayed The Incredible Y, but when X and Y meet on the page, you can appreciate that they don't trust each other without knowing the backstory.

I think the confusion only really comes in with iconic superheroes, the ones everybody already knows the stories too. Which brings me to this.

Saying Spider-man needs to stick to the status quo so people won't get confused is akin to saying nobody who reads Spider-man can follow a plot. It's quite frankly insulting.

That's not what I'm saying. Readers who have been following Spider Man can easily follow the plot. Readers who don't know spider man can jump in without too much trouble.

The trouble is readers who know Spider Man (Or at least the popculture status-quo version of him) but have not been following along. They get confused when the Spider Man they encounter on the page is not the one general pop culture has told them to expect.

I think that clinging to the status quo may also come from two other directions: the Writers, and the Buisness-types.

The Writers: Comic Book Writers become comic book writers because they want to tell stories. As a series gets passed from writer to writer, especially an iconic series like Spider Man, I can imagine a temptation to reset things and tell YOUR stories, rather than to deal with the baggage leftover by previous authors.


Alex is a kid, he grows up reading about Captain X and his battles against the dastardly evil Doctor Z. And, like any kid, spends his time thinking up new stories.

Bob is a comic book writer, while Alex is in his teens, Bob writes a story where Doctor Z sees the error of his ways and switches sides, teaming up with Captain X.

Alex is now an adult, and a comic book writer. When Bob retires, Alex is given control over the Captain X books. But he wants to tell stories about Captain X fighting Doctor Z, so he writes a story where we learn that Doctor Z was actually still evil, he just faked his redemption so he could learn Captain X's weaknesses.

and then the fans rage.


Also, don't forget about the business angle. If stories about Captain X punching Doctor Z have sold well for 30 years, even if the story of Doctor Z's redemption is very well received, there is always going to be a temptation to return to the tried-and-true formula. Especially if you're expecting a new wave of readers from, say, a movie (Which, like most superhero movies, features Captain X's origin story, and is therefore set before the redemption of Doctor Z).

And then the fans rage.

[Avilan the Grey]

In the public consciousness, Spider Man is always going to be Peter Parker, singly guy living with his aunt, working as a photographer, fighting crime while dealing with the countless problems that can't be solved by sticking them to the wall with webbing.

I have to protest on the first point. For a VERY large majority of spider man readers, who has followed the comic for many years, for about 20 years Spidey has been living together with MJ, not his aunt. One More Day screwed that up, because of what you say above, but I seriously contest the notion that Peter living with his aunt is the "default" situation anymore.

[Scowling Dragon]

And people: Tis the year of Wikapedias.

Tis an excuse no longer.

In fact Im MORE likely to get involved after finding out all these interesting things.

Possibly want to retroactively buy the comics for the things I find interesting to get better insight.

It was one thing to read about Superman Red-Son on wikapedia. It was another to read the comic book (that I bought)

Now think about that! What profits could be reigned if people started buying older issues of comics?

[Aotrs Commander]

I have to protest on the first point. For a VERY large majority of spider man readers, who has followed the comic for many years, for about 20 years Spidey has been living together with MJ, not his aunt. One More Day screwed that up, because of what you say above, but I seriously contest the notion that Peter living with his aunt is the "default" situation anymore.

More pertinently, this sort thing is screwing your EXISTING FANBASE that are the ones who have been buying your comic (for the last twenty years) in the vain hope of attracting new, different fans.

I often wonder what kind of thought runs through the minds of people who come up with this idea, as if they can make anything be mainstream enough to be, I dunno, Mars bars or something. If anything, you would have thought that keeping your grognards would be the best solution, since, fer cryin' out loud, they're likely to be buying stuff for years; steady money. But no, expansion to try to attract more customers (at the expense of your existing ones), that's a muuuch better idea, isnt it?

Comics aren't the only businesses being this fraktarded, of course; nor even the only entertainment industries - this was a known problem with a lot of ISPs and phone companies, where new customers got a better deal than long standing ones. Funnily enough, the businesses had to make A Thing about not doing that after a while, because loads of people started switching providers every five minutes to get the best deal. Because, funnily enough, if you don't show loyalty to your customers, they ain't gonna show loyalty to you.

[Kalmarvho]

your EXISTING FANBASE that are the ones who have been buying your comic (for the last twenty years)

This is part of the problem. What with the price of comics and the pants-on-head distribution system they're running, pulling in new fans isn't just a matter of revamping current properties. As you point out, their current market is pretty much exactly the same old market they've had for literal decades. The Big Two's fans grew up, and started preferring 'meatier' fare, even if essentially lacking in substance (Marvel's event-happy ethos and DC's REBOOT GODDAMN EVERYTHING ethos, for example). This, plus the continuity lockout, is why trying to pull in new buyers is a loser's proposition: the current model doesn't lend itself to new buyers, and any attempt to get new buyers is met with a loss of old buyers. And so the franchise stagnates.

[Yora]

I just noticed that almost all the american comic books I like are by Dark Horse. And they don't do classic superheroes.

It's not really an issue with american comics, but an issue of superhero comics.

[Kalmarvho]

It's not really an issue with american comics, but an issue of superhero comics.

The problem then being that the market is almost entirely dominated by superhero comics. Snyder's Batman outsells the entire run of Archie on a monthly basis due to the market share factor.

It's a shame, really. The big two have this propensity for revamping existing properties rather than expanding to incorporate new ones in this product line-up, under the misguided belief that non-capes don't sell. That's one thing that the Big Two could do to revitalize the industry - introduce more generic complexity into their line-ups. Rather than reducing cape books, they could, instead add, say, slice-of-life, romance, police procedural (one of the most popular TV genres, for example), etcetera.

But, they're too focused on producing the same cape books.

[Jayngfet]

More pertinently, this sort thing is screwing your EXISTING FANBASE that are the ones who have been buying your comic (for the last twenty years) in the vain hope of attracting new, different fans.

I often wonder what kind of thought runs through the minds of people who come up with this idea, as if they can make anything be mainstream enough to be, I dunno, Mars bars or something. If anything, you would have thought that keeping your grognards would be the best solution, since, fer cryin' out loud, they're likely to be buying stuff for years; steady money. But no, expansion to try to attract more customers (at the expense of your existing ones), that's a muuuch better idea, isnt it?

Comics aren't the only businesses being this fraktarded, of course; nor even the only entertainment industries - this was a known problem with a lot of ISPs and phone companies, where new customers got a better deal than long standing ones. Funnily enough, the businesses had to make A Thing about not doing that after a while, because loads of people started switching providers every five minutes to get the best deal. Because, funnily enough, if you don't show loyalty to your customers, they ain't gonna show loyalty to you.

I think it's more a panic.

I mean, you see, they want to be as big as video games, but they don't want to put the WORK into it.

It's easier to just pretend you do something big like the New 52, change a few things nobody cares about, then go on with buisness as usual using the same writers, same tone, and in a lot of cases barely paying attention to the reboot. They'll just ship the comics to the same providers and use the same artificial collectors market variant covers and use the same overworked price point.

I mean, change is scary after all. It's so much easier to force it on others than to bear it yourself.


The problem then being that the market is almost entirely dominated by superhero comics. Snyder's Batman outsells the entire run of Archie on a monthly basis due to the market share factor.


Are we reading the same numbers? I mean outside the New 52, Archie's Double Digest regularly outsells Batman from what I've seen, at least going by averages, and does so by a comfortable lead.

[Kalmarvho]

Are we reading the same numbers? I mean outside the New 52, Archie's Double Digest regularly outsells Batman from what I've seen, at least going by averages, and does so by a comfortable lead.

We may not be. Archie's digests outsell many of DC's books by a large amount, but their singles do awfully. At least last I checked.

[ThiagoMartell]

We may not be. Archie's digests outsell many of DC's books by a large amount, but their singles do awfully. At least last I checked.

Young Monica's Gang sells 400 thousand copies a month, every month, with spikes of 500 thousand. That's only in Brazil, not counting international number. It outsells every comic in America.
One Piece's volume 60 sold 2 million copies on it's first week out. It outsells every comic in the world.
The best selling comics, both in America and in the world, are not superhero comics. Make of that what you will.

[Kalmarvho]

The best selling comics, both in America in the world, are not superhero comics. Make of that what you will.

Makes sense. We know for a fact that the American comic industry is in the deep doodoo.

Capebooks are just not the way to go, but it's not just a matter of generic variety, it's also the distribution system. I don't know about Young Monica's Gang, but I know for a fact that One Piece isn't slave to Diamond's tyrannical monopoly on the direct market, and thus doesn't suffer from it like the Big Two's books do.

Plus, you know. One Piece doesn't cater exclusively to an ancient and withered fanbase the way DC and Marvel do, although I may be wrong.

[Scowling Dragon]

I think its because of grocery power.

Thing is, even though I would normally not seek out Archie comics, I always get this big temptation to buy a copy whilst in line getting groceries. Cause its one of the only entertainment at the lines.

Its possible thats how the comics get a major boost:

Easier availability. Now comics are only sold in comic shops, forever preventing new customers.

But if it was available in common shops, the eye-catching covers would attract boys and girls all over.

[Avilan the Grey]

Makes sense. We know for a fact that the American comic industry is in the deep doodoo.

Capebooks are just not the way to go,

Well I sincerely hope some of them survive since it is basically the only kind of comics I am interested in. At least if you only count comics that are still being created (Asterix is, technically, still being drawn but the last album suxxorz to the degree that nobody considers it canon).

Speaking of Batman btw, am I the only one here that finds him incredibly boring?

[Kalmarvho]

I'm not really a fan of Batman, but some of my favourite books are Batman books. Modern Batman one of those characters - like the Punisher - who suffers when placed in the superhero context. It's hard to take a storyline like No Man's Land seriously, for example, when Superman is literally right over there - yet when he tries to help out, every one of his efforts fails for a contrived reason.

On the other hand, the Batman/Superman friendship is one of my favourite dynamics in cape books, so I really don't know what to think.


I think its because of grocery power.

Thing is, even though I would normally not seek out Archie comics, I always get this big temptation to buy a copy whilst in line getting groceries. Cause its one of the only entertainment at the lines.

That's definitely part of it. Comics nowadays are mostly only ever sold via subscription or in comic book stores*, places most people wouldn't spare a second thought for going into. There's no opportunity to attract casual readers at all, unlike with Archie books which are literally right out there or in the open tempting people to spend on them to see what's inside.

Diamond (which handles nearly all big name comic book distribution) is making the conscious decision not to do this, and I can't recall why. But seriously, major factor in why comic books don't reach more people.

* They ARE also sold as trades in bookstores, which is frankly a much more accessible way to handle comics

[Avilan the Grey]

That's definitely part of it. Comics nowadays are mostly only ever sold via subscription or in comic book stores*, places most people wouldn't spare a second thought for going into. There's no opportunity to attract casual readers at all, unlike with Archie books which are literally right out there or in the open tempting people to spend on them to see what's inside.

That is a big difference compared to here. Here all translated comics are sold on the same shelf (that means Spider Man and a few other superhero comics) as Disney, Archie, and kid comics.

[Lord Seth]

More pertinently, this sort thing is screwing your EXISTING FANBASE that are the ones who have been buying your comic (for the last twenty years) in the vain hope of attracting new, different fans.

I often wonder what kind of thought runs through the minds of people who come up with this idea, as if they can make anything be mainstream enough to be, I dunno, Mars bars or something. If anything, you would have thought that keeping your grognards would be the best solution, since, fer cryin' out loud, they're likely to be buying stuff for years; steady money. But no, expansion to try to attract more customers (at the expense of your existing ones), that's a muuuch better idea, isnt it?Absolutely. Sales skyrocketed after the DC relaunch.

[Yora]

Young Monica's Gang sells 400 thousand copies a month, every month, with spikes of 500 thousand. That's only in Brazil, not counting international number. It outsells every comic in America.
One Piece's volume 60 sold 2 million copies on it's first week out. It outsells every comic in the world.
The best selling comics, both in America and in the world, are not superhero comics. Make of that what you will.

In Germany, the monthly 250 pages Donald Duck comics sell about 250,000 copies by the latest number I've got. And we got significant less than half the population of Brazil with a significantly older demographic.

[ThiagoMartell]

In Germany, the monthly 250 pages Donald Duck comics sell about 250,000 copies by the latest number I've got. And we got significant less than half the population of Brazil with a significantly older demographic.

That's very impressive. It just further proves the model they use in the US simply does not work.

[Yora]

The format is very different, though. I havn't read any of the new ones in the past 15 years, but from the 70s to the 90s, each book was two or three big adventure stories of 80 pages or so and two shorter ones that still got 20 to 30 pages. In size they are about the same as manga books and the older black and white ones from the 70s also have similar production value. Now they are full color, but the amount of time that goes into a page and the cost for printing that page are much smaller than what I've seen from contemporary superhero comics.
http://www.yopi.de/image/prod_pics/5287/alternative/b/171987.jpg

The result is, that you get a lot more story and dialog for your monney. It suprises me how much effort recent superhero comics put into the artwork when you still race through the speech bubbles in a minute. Sure, it looks great, but it doesn't seem like good use of limited resourches.
With a 200 pages book, a kid can have a week of entertainment, or you can get through one long train ride. With superhero comics, I think you're through the whole thing in less than 20 minutes.

And that's not even going into the subject of putting the characters into interesting situations and experiencing exciting things. I'm not a superhero fan, but having a baddy show up, the heroes mumbling something about their inner torment, and muscled people in capes throwing each other around is not that captivating. Especially when the very same things happens next week.

[Kalmarvho]

Most people aren't too fond of the idea of spending three dollars for five minutes' worth of entertainment. And when you've got awful artists like Greg Land on the job, the art isn't worth it either.

And then you consider you're getting that five minutes's worth every month, well, it's no wonder the American comic book format isn't considered worth much.

They should either stick to trades or go with digests. The monthly format isn't conducive to a good story at all, and the whole rushjob nature of the whole mess is what presses formerly decent artists (like the aforementioned Greg Land) into tracing just to save time.

[Yora]

20 pages for $3 is insane. The Donald Duck comics I mentioned are 5,50€ for 250 pages. That's $0.15 compared to $0.03 per page with the same amount of content.

And that's nothing when you compare it to Japan, where the giants of the market have 500 pages for $3. Every week.
Yes, they are incredibly cheaply made and intended to be thrown away after reading them once. And great deals of the stories are garbage, but superhero comics are facing accusations of attrociously bad stories as well. It looks to me as if superhero comics pay way too much attention to the collectors value over the easily accesible entertainment aspect.

[Kalmarvho]

It looks to me as if superhero comics pay way too much attention to the collectors value over the easily accesible entertainment aspect.

That's an unfortunate remnant of the 90's, of course.

The true plague of the 90's wasn't the angsty, grimdark aesthetic that was smeared all over everything or the awful art. It was the obsession with the collector's market. Playing directly to that market - with all the SPECIAL EDITIONS and ISSUE 1 - as though, say, holographic foil covers had any inherent value in and of themselves helped bring the industry to its knees (which is partly why Marvel doesn't have the movie rights to Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, or Daredevil).

[ThiagoMartell]

Most people aren't too fond of the idea of spending three dollars for five minutes' worth of entertainment. And when you've got awful artists like Greg Land on the job, the art isn't worth it either.
Young Monica's Gang costs R$7,50 (around 4 dollars) it's out every month and sells a lot.
One Piece costs 500 yen (around 5 dollars) and it sells a lot more than any superhero comic. One Piece is published twice, actually - once in WSJ and once in tankobon format. Those figure are just for tanbokon.
Basically the problem is not price. It's the market.


And then you consider you're getting that five minutes's worth every month, well, it's no wonder the American comic book format isn't considered worth much.
The format used in the Unided States does not work well, but I don't think it can be called american. Brazil is in America and does not use that format, after all.


They should either stick to trades or go with digests.
Agreed. Japan does both.

The monthly format isn't conducive to a good story at all, and the whole rushjob nature of the whole mess is what presses formerly decent artists (like the aforementioned Greg Land) into tracing just to save time.
Not sure how I much I agree. There are plenty monthly comics that are great.
To me, the problem mostly comes from an artist working on more than one book at once. For both brazilian and japanese comics, you don't have a single person doing all the drawing, so that helps a lot, as well.

[Yora]

And then there's the whole thing with all the crossovers. From what I understand, all the stories take place in the same reality at the same time and are often interwoven. If you like batman, you don't really get to read batman stories, but have all other types of people moving in and out of the stories, and batman also appears in other stories that are not strictly batman-stories. It feels like you don't get to pick one, but only get the whole huge bloated package.

[Fragenstein]

I just came here to say that I'm really digging the current Earth-2 run. Actually, to the point where I want to have Solomon Grundy's love-child. It's like he decided to run for mayor of Silent Hill, and won.

[Aotrs Commander]

And then there's the whole thing with all the crossovers. From what I understand, all the stories take place in the same reality at the same time and are often interwoven. If you like batman, you don't really get to read batman stories, but have all other types of people moving in and out of the stories, and batman also appears in other stories that are not strictly batman-stories. It feels like you don't get to pick one, but only get the whole huge bloated package.

While too many crossovers are a massive pain - and I will certainly contend that Marvel is especially well into that territory - having the whole of the universe to draw from, and the characters interacting in same (with different villains and occasional team-ups) I think is a big thing. I have always loathed the whole "one superhero in the whole world" concept - it always has seemed stupid to me - and I think that the Marvel and DC universes together make for a richer tapestry to set stories on.

WHEN that aspect is not being overplayed as it is in current times, with all these ridiculous events.

Especially as I no longer even have a local comic store, so until my monthly order arrives, I have no idea about these things and I have given up bothering to trace the back-issue from ebay or somewhere or waiting another six months for the trade (as I did the last time).

Having Spidey or the FF show up to help the X-Men - on occasion - is fracking AWSEOME (indeed, were it not for the great stories during the Age of Heroes stuff Marvel did, I might have already given up). But it also, like every other literary tool, it must not be over-used, and further, the stories should be contained in one comic's run (e.g. X-Men-having-guest- stars), rather than half and half in two or umpteen titles, which tends to mean it's more a marketing ploy than a reason for a good story.

[Jayngfet]

Makes sense. We know for a fact that the American comic industry is in the deep doodoo.

Capebooks are just not the way to go, but it's not just a matter of generic variety, it's also the distribution system. I don't know about Young Monica's Gang, but I know for a fact that One Piece isn't slave to Diamond's tyrannical monopoly on the direct market, and thus doesn't suffer from it like the Big Two's books do.

Plus, you know. One Piece doesn't cater exclusively to an ancient and withered fanbase the way DC and Marvel do, although I may be wrong.

As we've mostly agreed, the problem isn't capebooks. The problem is that capebooks keep trying to appeal to collectors and to generate fake controversy. Not to mention the shoddy distribution.

On the first thing, look at Green Lantern issue 12 or 13. The one with the all black, ultra recognizable death of superman homage. Green Lantern wasn't even dead but they took the opprotunity to try to tell any lazy collectors "This is important, give us your money".

On the second. Look at Alan Scott. Hell, to use an example from this week, look at Shining Knight. This wasn't DC trying to be progressive and brave and making a new character with issues being tackled in real life. This was DC screwing over fans of a specific character with a lazy retcon, in a way that has no in story consequences but is expected to generate some kind of media buzz.

On the last, I'll just point this out again. Archie's Double Digest regularly outsells every single non event book.

[GloatingSwine]

As we've mostly agreed, the problem isn't capebooks. The problem is that capebooks keep trying to appeal to collectors and to generate fake controversy. Not to mention the shoddy distribution.


Hardly. The big two realised donkeys years ago that actual comic sales are basically pointless compared to the enormous quantity of money to be had licensing their IP out to movies and other media.

I very much doubt Marvel will get as much out of every comic they sell for the next decade, no matter what collector cheese they try, as they have out of the Avengers movie alone, for instance.

That's another reason why they care more about reconisable status quo than actual storytelling, because they care more about the viability of the franchise arrangements than the product itself.

[Jayngfet]

Hardly. The big two realised donkeys years ago that actual comic sales are basically pointless compared to the enormous quantity of money to be had licensing their IP out to movies and other media.

I very much doubt Marvel will get as much out of every comic they sell for the next decade, no matter what collector cheese they try, as they have out of the Avengers movie alone, for instance.

That's another reason why they care more about recognizable status quo than actual storytelling, because they care more about the viability of the franchise arrangements than the product itself.

You seem to be implying the status quo isn't older than the movie industry, or at least as old. I mean I highly doubt the reason One More Day came about was to match the movies. I mean sure, the movies play a hand but things reverting to the status quo doesn't have all that much to do with movies so much as it has to do with the fact that a lot of comics editorial hates change with a passion, so long as it changes a thing they liked.

I mean, Green Arrow has never resembled the TV Series. The last retcon didn't do it and the current run has him look and act completely differently. The X-Men didn't suddenly pump up Banshee to importance again when First Class came out.

Nah, it's the "hates change" bit that's screwing over the industry. I mean if you haven't, read Green Lantern/Green Arrow, the whole two year run with the two of them together. That was a series that changed things, beyond the two characters suddenly being buddies. It changed things, it brought the characters down to earth and had them really look at how they viewed the world at a fundamental level. Not to mention taking Speedy in a new direction and introducing John Stewart.

Stories that try to be that powerful are few and far between nowadays. I mean the only thing that even tried was ...Simon Baz? Maybe?

I mean, how can you expect the world to care about a medium when the bulk of the people working in it aren't writing like they care all that much about the world?

[BlackDragonKing]

I don't think it's a very popular opinion to have, but I sort of think the retcons, tonal shifts, reboots and general continuity ****ery is the comic book time problem reaching critical mass as time goes on. These characters enduring from as early as the '40s combined with every other character that has been introduced is, I think, part of the problem, because as someone said earlier, the new writers grew up with the same characters as the old ones but have very different ideas about what to do with them, whether it makes sense with what came before or not.

I believe Joe Quesada commented in defense of ending the spider-marriage, "next you'll want [Peter] to grow old and die!"

Most fans considered this an insane oversimplification of their defense for Peter getting to be an actual adult, but hearing that, I thought, "...Well, yeah, kinda."

Would things like One More Day happen if Peter Parker started to get old, raised a family, and then after let's say 25 or so years of stories retired and let his daughter haver her own storyline as Spider-Girl? We wouldn't be extremely vague on how old exactly Bruce Wayne is or how long he and the Joker have been at a stalemate if Bruce was eventually forced by advancing age to retire, letting **** Grayson take over as the new Batman, who would in turn fight a mostly different rogues gallery as Bruce's enemies ended up too old or dead to keep breaking out of Arkham.

It's sort of pointless to think about this now, because introducing the concept organically is impossible with how comics work, but I think that continuity and tonal consistency might be a lot easier if comic book characters had specific lifetimes and you weren't allowed a limitless snap-back to maintain the things you like and change something you didn't. It wouldn't be a conga line of conflicting ideas for generations of writers over how a character "should" work, but instead the writers tugging the legacy of the character one way or another.

I don't know if that'd help much, but I'd certainly rather Peter Parker be rocking the grey hair and living an easier life with his wife as a new Spider-Whatever takes up the mantle than see Satan banish him back to his high-school lifestyle without giving him his youth back.

[Aotrs Commander]

Well, I read the last issues of Uncanny X-Men and X-Men Legacy today. And I think I can safely say, for the X-Men at least; no, we are not in the new 90s, because even at their lowest ebb, the 1990s X-Men never made me not sorry that a series was ending.

In fact, out of the five X-titles I was getting only one appears to be not being cancelled, and frankly, if this is how it's going to go on... Well, I'm not sorry at all. (And I'm only going to give Astonishing until adjectiveless X-Men ends to not suck before I give up with that, too.)

It's so banal (Legacy) or outright bad (Uncanny - seriously the last few issues were total character derailement mixed with deus ex machina and a rather spiteful way of trying to get back to statues quo by removing all the positive character development, and leaving all the negatives in), I'm seriously considering going through my collection and then ditching the ones I don't like, they're that uninteresting.

I think M-day has buggered the X-Men completely narratively, because they've pretty much erased (or converted) their entir rogue's gallery; which might be why they're spending so much time fighting each other or the other heroes and not the bad guys. (And all the new bad guys they keep trying to use are all weird, crappy aliens or demons or something.)

[Scowling Dragon]

I don't know if that'd help much, but I'd certainly rather Peter Parker be rocking the grey hair and living an easier life with his wife as a new Spider-Whatever takes up the mantle than see Satan banish him back to his high-school lifestyle without giving him his youth back.

This is also exactly what I want.

I understand though, that heroes would not be as iconic as they are today if they died 20 years ago.

So I suggest an alternate time line where heroes age.

[Metahuman1]

above is more or less what I suggested. Although the idea of some characters just being timeless characters isn't impossible to work with.

As has been pointed out, the characters in the Archie Comics line are exactly the same as they were in the 1960's, and there outselling the capes.

[ThiagoMartell]

This is also exactly what I want.

I understand though, that heroes would not be as iconic as they are today if they died 20 years ago.

So I suggest an alternate time line where heroes age.

Spider-Girl and Ultimate Comics Spider-Man

[Avilan the Grey]

I'm not a marketing guru, nor a comic book company (duh :smallbiggrin:) but my biggest problem is not that they don't age, I am fine with that. But to me it seems the reboots and rewrites tend to have three big problems:

1. They do it to the wrong characters
2. They do them in the wrong way
3. They do it way too often (especially DC).

A typical example of (1) is Barbara Gordon. If they had miraculously cured her say the first three years after the Crying Joke, people would have been extatic. As it is now, not only did DC piss off the diehard fans of the two new Batgirls (made them stop fighting eachother to unleash on DC, even) but they pissed off a HUGE group of disabled (especially paraplegic of course) women who truly saw her, and DC's choice of keeping her in the 'chair as a huge inspiration. Heck, it was just a few years ago Barbara was the first paraplegic woman to do a fanservice scene, which actually was recieved very well in that demographic because it portrayed a woman in that condition as someone who could be well... sexy, to put it bluntly.

As for (2) I have no proper example in my brain at the moment, but most reboots make me think "WHAT were they thinking", especially when the 90ies reboots came out (Blue, Red, Black superman for example).

And (3)... It seems there is at DC two Universe-wide crossover events every year these days, and about 33% chance that one of them also will lead to a complete reboot. What happened with those days when a comic could run 20 years without a reboot?

[Yora]

I think the entire point of rebooting a franchise is to get back to a clean slate free of all the entanglement that has build up over the years and do something fresh.
But with superhero comics, it seems that after resetting things, they immediately do the same thing again and have all the same characters return in crossovers, resulting in the same overcrowded mess they had before. That's not a new start, that's just introducing changes and immediately retconning them out again.

I never read batman comics, but I've seen many of the movies and the cartoon, and from what I remember there is just batman and the batman villains and never any mention that there's a superman or any other superheroes out there. There is a batman-universe that could be reinterpreted in many new ways. But it doesn't work when you have 20 or 30 such universes and you want to reinterprete all of them while keeping the connections and relationships between them intact.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think the entire point of rebooting a franchise is to get back to a clean slate free of all the entanglement that has build up over the years and do something fresh.
But with superhero comics, it seems that after resetting things, they immediately do the same thing again and have all the same characters return in crossovers, resulting in the same overcrowded mess they had before. That's not a new start, that's just introducing changes and immediately retconning them out again.

Exactly. It seems the first thing they do after "cleaning house" is to re-introduce every major plot element since the begining of the comic anyway (maybe to try to ward of critics saying they ruin the series). This is why starting a new universe is better (The Ultimate Spidey was REALLY good in the first run).

[ThiagoMartell]

This is why starting a new universe is better (The Ultimate Spidey was REALLY good in the first run).

It still is. Miles Morales is making it quite clear (like Wally West and Richard Grayson before him) that legacy characters are the way to go when it comes to comics.

[Man on Fire]

Now after talking with JayngFet for a while I realized that so many characters in comics are getting grittier, but not in the 90s OEGXTRM way but in a more general way.

Characters seem to be loosing their families, and everything is just darker and there is this general feeling of comics taking themselves too seriously.


I'm sorry but I cannot hear you over the sound of Scott Lang showing us hero can deal with the loss of your daughter without going all grim and gritty, Kid Loki pulling the Young Avengers together, Captain Marvel travelling back in time to fight Vietcong armed with Kree weapons, X-Facttor always delivering the fun, Black Lightning and Blue devil in a buddy cop show, Frankenstein doing crazy stuff and Demon Knights being awesome.

Seriously,I know DC has a lot of dark comics recently (through I have to say, most of their edge and dark lines are pretty good - I need to catch up on Wonder Woman, Ressurection Man, Animal Man, Swamp Thing and I,Vampire, but they were good where I left them) and a lot of Marvel stuff doesn't look that bad really - even most Avengers titles are looking at least promising - DeConnick's and Hickman's series to be specific, only Remender' kinda sucks ("With Charles Xavier's brain Red Skull will eliminate the mutant menance!") and Avengers Arena will blow. Still, 2 on 5 isn't bad for such disssapointing brand.

[Thrawn183]

As far as dark/depressing comics: my problem is when I stop caring about characters. I mean making an active/conscious choice to not care. When a new love interest is introduced and I say to myself "Don't get attached, he/she is just going to be killed off or driven away," it totally destroys the emotional impact that those events are supposed to carry. This, to me, is the essence of a failure on the part of a writer.

As far as reboots and the like: why keep wiping the slate clean to retell the same stories? I say either finish the stories, letting us see the end of the characters' lives/missions/whatever, or start telling new ones. Additionally, this gets to the point of established IP being valuable over established IP comic sales. Wouldn't it make sense to establish new IP that could then become potentially as profitable in the movie scene?

[Scowling Dragon]

As far as reboots and the like: why keep wiping the slate clean to retell the same stories? I say either finish the stories, letting us see the end of the characters' lives/missions/whatever, or start telling new ones.

I have to agree. Lets say the Giant just announced that OOTS would go on forever. You would say that would be the worst thing for the story.

[Kalmarvho]

I'm sorry but I cannot hear you over the sound of Scott Lang showing us hero can deal with the loss of your daughter without going all grim and gritty

Except why kill Cassie in the first place? No, the whole thing was a stupid mess that's probably just going to be an excuse to turn Iron Lad evil.

[Dienekes]

I have to agree. Lets say the Giant just announced that OOTS would go on forever. You would say that would be the worst thing for the story.

Which is a bit of a difference. OotS has been moving toward a definitive end the entire time. Most of the Supes comics have not been. I'm perfectly fine with a continuing story so long as a few things occur 1) the story is itself set up to have no hard ending. For instance, Watchmen, there should not be a Watchmen 2. It would not make any sense. But you'd better believe I'd read another book about Sherlock Holmes. 2) the stories being told are interesting. Retelling the same stories probably will in all probability not fit this criteria. They can (The Man Who Laughs is a retelling of the Joker origin, and I think it's better than the original. So was Year One.) but it's harder and generally needs to take things in a bit of a different direction.

[Scowling Dragon]

But I find OOTS a better story. So I guess its personal opinion.

[Tiki Snakes]

I'm perfectly fine with a continuing story so long as a few things occur 1) the story is itself set up to have no hard ending. For instance, Watchmen, there should not be a Watchmen 2. It would not make any sense.

Well, I both agree and disagree with this. On the one hand, there shouldn't be a Watchmen 2. Because the creators don't want there to be, and doing otherwise is perhaps a little rude. More importantly, any extrapolation of what would follow after the events of watchmen that didn't come from the original creator is essentially in my eyes less legitimate.

But conversely, I think a continuation of Watchmen would be incredibly simple to justify. It leaves you on the brink of a massive change of the status quo and with a factor about to undermine that at any second. The world continues to be just as compelling as before, if not more-so than the world actually described in Watchmen itself.

The biggest, cheapest joke in the whole watchmen thing is that the whole affair is cut off, just as events start getting capitol letter Important for the setting and we are left to imagine what comes next.

[Dienekes]

But I find OOTS a better story. So I guess its personal opinion.

Indubitably.


Well, I both agree and disagree with this. On the one hand, there shouldn't be a Watchmen 2. Because the creators don't want there to be, and doing otherwise is perhaps a little rude. More importantly, any extrapolation of what would follow after the events of watchmen that didn't come from the original creator is essentially in my eyes less legitimate.

But conversely, I think a continuation of Watchmen would be incredibly simple to justify. It leaves you on the brink of a massive change of the status quo and with a factor about to undermine that at any second. The world continues to be just as compelling as before, if not more-so than the world actually described in Watchmen itself.

The biggest, cheapest joke in the whole watchmen thing is that the whole affair is cut off, just as events start getting capitol letter Important for the setting and we are left to imagine what comes next.

Isn't that the point? We're left to decide for ourselves who was in the right and explore how we think humanity will react or not react to what is about to happen. Answering that for us would ruin that.

[Kalmarvho]

But I find OOTS a better story. So I guess its personal opinion.

It is a better story, but it benefits from its limited format.

For comparison, all of the best Superman stories are limited runs - Kingdom Come, Red Son, Superman For All Seasons - that similarly benefit from a limited format. It's almost as though the comics are only useful in that they serve to set up a status quo that can then be subverted in 'What-Ifs' and 'Elseworlds', which is quite frankly not ideal.

[Scowling Dragon]

It is a better story, but it benefits from its limited format.

For comparison, all of the best Superman stories are limited runs - Kingdom Come, Red Son, Superman For All Seasons - that similarly benefit from a limited format. It's almost as though the comics are only useful in that they serve to set up a status quo that can then be subverted in 'What-Ifs' and 'Elseworlds', which is quite frankly not ideal.

Kinda my thoughts as well. The best stories in capes either COULD be self contained or ARE.

Comics don't benefit in any way from unlimited runs. Just tumor like continuity and tons of weird morality.

[Tiki Snakes]

Isn't that the point? We're left to decide for ourselves who was in the right and explore how we think humanity will react or not react to what is about to happen. Answering that for us would ruin that.

It is possibly supposed to be the point. Hard to say. I'm not sure it's a point I have any urge to respect, though. It's just another facet of the piece that makes me wonder what could have been if the main creative driving force wasn't so inherantly hostile to his own genre of fiction.

Seriously, though, screw "You must decide how you think things will happen!" I would much rather have more awesome stories thanks. That is of course, just me.

[Man on Fire]

Except why kill Cassie in the first place? No, the whole thing was a stupid mess that's probably just going to be an excuse to turn Iron Lad evil.

That's kinda irrevelant, because her death was in completely different comics, made by completely different people than those, who will write Scott in FF and who already showed what approach for this they are going to take (FF is going to be a book for kids and is adversized that way, btw, everybody have high hopes this series gonna be fun, even if they aren't fans of Matt Fraction, all thanks to a short story about Scott Lang painting moustache on Dr. Doom's portrait). Also, Gillen's Young Avengers looks very promising and entertainign already.

There is a good stuff. You people just need to look pass the BIG UBER HUGE POPULAR NAMES to see it.

[Kalmarvho]

That's kinda irrevelant, because her death was in completely different comics, made by completely different people than those, who will write Scott in FF and who already showed what approach for this they are going to take

Which just spells out the problem. Writers don't have complete power over what they can do with their characters, because they're not their characters. Dwayne McDuffie suffered from this all throughout his stint with DC, and when he voiced his outrage, they had the nerve to fire him. George Perez never got the same freedom with Superman that the "big" names like Geoff Johns and Morrison (even though Perez is a legend and head-and-shoulders above Geoff Johns) and now he's gone.

Even Liefeld quit over editorial being its usual pants-on-head self, and Liefeld is LIEFELD, for chrissakes. The man has the integrity of a fish.

All of these writers, all of these continuities, interfering with each other. Office politics and marketing taking precedence over telling a good story. THAT'S what "the New 90's" really is.

EDIT: Just for the record, I'm definitely still a comic reader. But my favourite books aren't usually cape books, and when they are (like Kirkman's Invincible) they suffer from none of the problems that DC and Marvel books do.

[Metahuman1]

I never read batman comics, but I've seen many of the movies and the cartoon, and from what I remember there is just batman and the batman villains and never any mention that there's a superman or any other superheroes out there. There is a batman-universe that could be reinterpreted in many new ways. But it doesn't work when you have 20 or 30 such universes and you want to reinterprete all of them while keeping the connections and relationships between them intact.

Actually, there are nods given too it here and there. In at least one Noland verse batman movie, Metropolis is mentioned in the background, and in the Animated series, they mention it in the background again, along with Star Labs being mentioned once or twice for plot relevant reasons.

And superman did guest star in "Worlds Finest.". Then Batman and Robin Guest Stared in an ep of his series, and a Batgirl themed Episode of Batman had Supergirl show up.

And you know what? They were all really good episodes.

[Man on Fire]

Which just spells out the problem. Writers don't have complete power over what they can do with their characters, because they're not their characters. Dwayne McDuffie suffered from this all throughout his stint with DC, and when he voiced his outrage, they had the nerve to fire him. George Perez never got the same freedom with Superman that the "big" names like Geoff Johns and Morrison (even though Perez is a legend and head-and-shoulders above Geoff Johns) and now he's gone.

Even Liefeld quit over editorial being its usual pants-on-head self, and Liefeld is LIEFELD, for chrissakes. The man has the integrity of a fish.

All of these writers, all of these continuities, interfering with each other. Office politics and marketing taking precedence over telling a good story. THAT'S what "the New 90's" really is.

EDIT: Just for the record, I'm definitely still a comic reader. But my favourite books aren't usually cape books, and when they are (like Kirkman's Invincible) they suffer from none of the problems that DC and Marvel books do.

Your new 90s is, in many ways, the total opposite of 90% of the problems of the old 90s, namely creators having too much freedom and no editorial control over them, resulting in delays and messed up continuity. So even through I agree with you about the problem you mention here, as it's a reason why I'm not reading mot of titles from Marvel and DC (if anything, I stick to low-profile comics, where editors tend to give more creative freedom to the creators) I refuse to call it new 90s. Current era DOES have it's own share of problems, but trying to stick a label of 90s over them is really just hiding those problems behind nostalgia.

[Kalmarvho]

Your new 90s is, in many ways, the total opposite of 90% of the problems of the old 90s

Uh, yeah? Hence the quotation marks.

The major difference between the modern era of comics and the dark age of comics is that the entire market isn't likely to crash thanks to idiots like Bob Harras... yet both the big two are coasting by on life support from their movie deals and other properties. Independent creators like Kirkman get more out of their TV deals than the comic books that inspired them. The future of comics - whether mainstream or independent - is almost entirely onscreen.

[Jayngfet]

Uh, yeah? Hence the quotation marks.

The major difference between the modern era of comics and the dark age of comics is that the entire market isn't likely to crash thanks to idiots like Bob Harras... yet both the big two are coasting by on life support from their movie deals and other properties. Independent creators like Kirkman get more out of their TV deals than the comic books that inspired them. The future of comics - whether mainstream or independent - is almost entirely onscreen.

Traditional comics maybe. I mean, they've gotten themselves into a corner with the overpriced singles and being sold almost exclusively in specialty shops, everyone catering to the same audience that's probably under one million.

I'm thinking that, pretty soon, there's gonna be a shift away from what we see as "comics" entirely. That life support is going to run out and with the backlog of comics that already exist people are going to realise they don't actually need new comics. Not to mention with all the worthwhile talent that's leaving the big two fast.

Stuff like webcomics though? That is probably where things are going to progress to. In the last five years or so webcomics have pretty much gone to a whole new level in terms of technical ability, reader following, and technical ability. It's the kind of environment now where a decent number of professionals are working on stuff and have been and some of it has been reasonably successful. Heck, even people from way back in the early days who were basically just screwing around in their spare time have managed to make a decent amount of fame and money starting with their web work. It's a place where a creator doesn't have to answer to anyone unless they feel like it, and can do whatever they want. Obviously this means we get a lot of crap but there's also a lot of good stuff coming out.

[Kalmarvho]

Stuff like webcomics though? That is probably where things are going to progress to. In the last five years or so webcomics have pretty much gone to a whole new level in terms of technical ability, reader following, and technical ability. It's the kind of environment now where a decent number of professionals are working on stuff and have been and some of it has been reasonably successful. Heck, even people from way back in the early days who were basically just screwing around in their spare time have managed to make a decent amount of fame and money starting with their web work. It's a place where a creator doesn't have to answer to anyone unless they feel like it, and can do whatever they want. Obviously this means we get a lot of crap but there's also a lot of good stuff coming out.

Definitely, but the 'big names' are pretty well entrenched right now. Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik are extremely powerful in their spheres of influence, Tom Siddell is a critical darling, and Andrew Hussie presides over the juggernaut that is MSPA - not to mention the Giant, whose success we're all aware of. It's difficult to attain those levels of success, though. The contrast between the traditional format comics industry and the webcomic industry is more of an artificial barrier to entry - traditional comics has a much higher barrier to entry, but a chance at personal (if not industry) stability, whereas like many forms of entrepreneurship, the webcomics barrier to entry is extremely low, but the attrition rate is extremely high. And unlike in traditional comics, in webcomics there's less chance for a lateral entry - all motion must be upwards. A stable plateau has to be reached before it can start supporting itself.

Hence why for most people, webcomics -if they have one - are merely a hobby.

[Jayngfet]

Definitely, but the 'big names' are pretty well entrenched right now. Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik are extremely powerful in their spheres of influence, Tom Siddell is a critical darling, and Andrew Hussie presides over the juggernaut that is MSPA - not to mention the Giant, whose success we're all aware of. It's difficult to attain those levels of success, though. The contrast between the traditional format comics industry and the webcomic industry is more of an artificial barrier to entry - traditional comics has a much higher barrier to entry, but a chance at personal (if not industry) stability, whereas like many forms of entrepreneurship, the webcomics barrier to entry is extremely low, but the attrition rate is extremely high. And unlike in traditional comics, in webcomics there's less chance for a lateral entry - all motion must be upwards. A stable plateau has to be reached before it can start supporting itself.

Hence why for most people, webcomics -if they have one - are merely a hobby.

Yeah, but the thing is sturgeons law applies to web-comics and related media more aggressive than perhaps any other creative medium, and for good reason.

Lets be honest here, 99.9% of web-comics suck. If they're lucky they're only badly written OR horribly drawn OR update so rarely remembering to follow them is a chore. Getting two of the three is relatively rare and that shows you how bad things are in web-comics. Getting art on the level of even a mid tier big two produced comic can be hard for a lot of people simply because they aren't as good as the people there.

As well, if we're going by entrepreneurship we need to keep in mind that a lot of businesses take upwards of two years to actually turn any kind of profit. It's not a practice for the faint of heart no matter what you're investing into.

[Man on Fire]

On the second. Look at Alan Scott. Hell, to use an example from this week, look at Shining Knight. This wasn't DC trying to be progressive and brave and making a new character with issues being tackled in real life. This was DC screwing over fans of a specific character with a lazy retcon, in a way that has no in story consequences but is expected to generate some kind of media buzz.

I'm not up with last 1 or 2 issues of Demon Knights, what they did? You mean those refferences to her possibly being homosexual?

[Jayngfet]

I'm not up with last 1 or 2 issues of Demon Knights, what they did? You mean those refferences to her possibly being homosexual?



Shining Knight is full on transsexual and possibly intersexed now.

[Metahuman1]

Shining Knight is full on transsexual and possibly intersexed now.



Why, dear god, WHY!!!!???? :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious:

[Avilan the Grey]

Shining Knight is full on transsexual and possibly intersexed now.



I have never understood why they have to change existic characters with existing fanbases.
I see absolutely no problem with a transexual superhero. But it should be a new character.

[Metahuman1]

I have never understood why they have to change existic characters with existing fanbases.
I see absolutely no problem with a transexual superhero. But it should be a new character.

And Ideally not one who, if memory serves, has the back story of being one of King Arthur's Knights of the round table. The idea that it's acceptable now is fine, the idea that it would have been acceptable in the dark ages isn't.

[Avilan the Grey]

And Ideally not one who, if memory serves, has the back story of being one of King Arthur's Knights of the round table. The idea that it's acceptable now is fine, the idea that it would have been acceptable in the dark ages isn't.

Unless it's Camelot 3000 of course.

[Zrak]

I really don't get the hate for the Shining Knight move. I actually thought it was kind of cool.

I think it helps expand on the mythical sort of image Grant Morrison gave into the more eternal/timeless framework that Demon Knights has been going for. The character's gender ambiguity has been a recurring element since the start of Demon Knights, at least. Also, I'm not sure it would've been as much of a problem in the dark ages as people seem to think it would've been. Or, honestly, what is even meant by that.

[Tiki Snakes]

Shining Knight
Not knowing anything about the character at all, I read up on the Wiki.
The way the wiki describes the situation, it seems a lot less sensationalist and wtf than simply going from the discussion here in the thread. Given that it's explicitely a different person from a different time period than the other and/or previous Shining Knights, I don't think it sounds like such a major problem. I'm also not sure how accurate or not the description of Shining Knight being transexual is. The Wiki suggests that the character is doing the whole passing for a man to get away with having a man's job thing that you sometimes get characters doing (and in order to be with her true love, initially wasn't it?) rather than actually identifying as anything other than what they were born as.
But that's a very complex subject and I've never read a single issue, so I'll just leave it at this. :smallsmile:

[Jayngfet]

I really don't get the hate for the Shining Knight move. I actually thought it was kind of cool.

I think it helps expand on the mythical sort of image Grant Morrison gave into the more eternal/timeless framework that Demon Knights has been going for. The character's gender ambiguity has been a recurring element since the start of Demon Knights, at least. Also, I'm not sure it would've been as much of a problem in the dark ages as people seem to think it would've been. Or, honestly, what is even meant by that.



The problem isn't the move itself so much as the fact that the move is awkward and really badly done. I mean, there's no real finesse or good context for it. It was pretty much just dropped in the middle of a scenario in which big, important other things were happening, wound up being badly explained, and then glossed over to get back to important things.

Weather or not it should be, this is a big, weighty kind of issue that pretty much got hucked in at a random spot then glossed over. It's like if you're baking a cake and stick the eggs in first. Good cakes can have eggs and they can add a lot, but you need to stick them in at the appropriate time and consider how many eggs, if any you should use, and what kind of eggs. To extend the metaphor, they just jammed an ostrich egg into the bowl without care, and we all wound up getting a bit of shell on our plate.

[Zrak]

Shining Knight
Not knowing anything about the character at all, I read up on the Wiki.
The way the wiki describes the situation, it seems a lot less sensationalist and wtf than simply going from the discussion here in the thread. Given that it's explicitely a different person from a different time period than the other and/or previous Shining Knights, I don't think it sounds like such a major problem. I'm also not sure how accurate or not the description of Shining Knight being transexual is. The Wiki suggests that the character is doing the whole passing for a man to get away with having a man's job thing that you sometimes get characters doing (and in order to be with her true love, initially wasn't it?) rather than actually identifying as anything other than what they were born as.
But that's a very complex subject and I've never read a single issue, so I'll just leave it at this. :smallsmile:

That was under the last writer's run. The current writer revealed things are a little more complex than Ystina simply dressing the part. I think the relevant panels are up on a few blogs, but the gist is that the character says "I'm not just a man or a woman. I'm both" when another character mentions them settling down after the big epic battle is all said and done. The ambiguity has been present for the whole run, and I feel it's been hinted at pretty clearly, so I didn't really feel it came as much of a shock.




The problem isn't the move itself so much as the fact that the move is awkward and really badly done. I mean, there's no real finesse or good context for it. It was pretty much just dropped in the middle of a scenario in which big, important other things were happening, wound up being badly explained, and then glossed over to get back to important things.

Weather or not it should be, this is a big, weighty kind of issue that pretty much got hucked in at a random spot then glossed over. It's like if you're baking a cake and stick the eggs in first. Good cakes can have eggs and they can add a lot, but you need to stick them in at the appropriate time and consider how many eggs, if any you should use, and what kind of eggs. To extend the metaphor, they just jammed an ostrich egg into the bowl without care, and we all wound up getting a bit of shell on our plate.



See, I think the whole point was that this isn't a big, weighty issue. This is the way Shining Knight is, and that's all there is to it. I think the fact that a big deal wasn't really made of it was one of the best parts. A "very special episode" issue would have been hackneyed and trite, at best. What happened was all that was really needed; Shining Knight brought up what was relevant to whom it was relevant, when it was relevant.

I don't really understand what you're going for with the cake metaphor, both with regard to its application here and what you're literally talking about. Like, I don't know what you mean "stick the eggs in first." Stick the eggs in what? A bowl? That's fine, you can totally put the eggs in a bowl first. Baking specifics aside, I'm assuming "eggs" are the stand in for "weighty issues" or whatever? If so, I don't see this as an ostrich egg, and I think part of the point was that it isn't; Shining Knight is the same character, doing the same big, important things, just as effectively as ever. Regardless of the egg's size, I didn't really feel like I got any shell on my plate, while I'm pretty sure a "very special issue" would've basically been a plate full of shell.

[Jayngfet]

See, I think the whole point was that this isn't a big, weighty issue. This is the way Shining Knight is, and that's all there is to it. I think the fact that a big deal wasn't really made of it was one of the best parts. A "very special episode" issue would have been hackneyed and trite, at best. What happened was all that was really needed; Shining Knight brought up what was relevant to whom it was relevant, when it was relevant.

I don't really understand what you're going for with the cake metaphor, both with regard to its application here and what you're literally talking about. Like, I don't know what you mean "stick the eggs in first." Stick the eggs in what? A bowl? That's fine, you can totally put the eggs in a bowl first. Baking specifics aside, I'm assuming "eggs" are the stand in for "weighty issues" or whatever? If so, I don't see this as an ostrich egg, and I think part of the point was that it isn't; Shining Knight is the same character, doing the same big, important things, just as effectively as ever. Regardless of the egg's size, I didn't really feel like I got any shell on my plate, while I'm pretty sure a "very special issue" would've basically been a plate full of shell.

Ok. Lets break this down piece by piece for you hear.

First, it shouldn't be a weighty issue. It shouldn't need a very special episode. In an ideal world, it's just a detail that could exist and we'd be done with it. We don't live in that world. We live in a world where this is a hot button issue and DC comics has already gotten flak from the New 52 and character's sexual orientation. We live in a world where this kind of thing is debated about and not exactly readily excepted in even more cosmopolitan areas. A Very Special Episode would have been terrible, but the way it was handled here was also terrible. You unfortunately can't just claim something isn't a big deal when, in context, it's a big deal that'll get overblown. The only reason you can say there wasn't a controversy is really because Demon Knights tends to be one of DC's lowest selling books out of the New 52. If you handled the situation like this in like, Batman or Green Lantern things would be very different, because people would be actually paying attention.



As well, you seem to miss the entire point of "coming out". When someone comes out, they don't go through some kind of mystical change that alters their entire being. It alters the way this person is perceived, even if this was obvious to anyone looking. It's something that can change a whole lot of someone's life even if they themselves don't change. It can, if done clumsily, pretty much supercede everything else involved. I mean for example, this was a half a page thing. Nothing else in the issue is being discussed.

[Zrak]

So, wait, I'm confused. You contend that it's a topic which will necessarily create controversy because, in context, it's a big deal and it's bound to get overblown. Your evidence for this is that, in its context, it didn't really create a controversy or get blown particularly out of proportion? Forgive me if I'm unconvinced. :smalltongue:

More seriously, it happened in Demon Knights, not in Green Lantern. I don't see how what would have happened in Green Lantern is really relevant, at all. The decision was made for the plot, tone, and audience of Demon Knights. Maybe you're right about the controversy that would've ensued from something similar in Green Lantern or Batman, maybe not, but either way, it's not really relevant, here.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with the last part; I specifically noted that the character wasn't fundamentally, mystically changed. In fact, part of my argument was that the method chosen showed that Shining Knight hadn't undergone any sort of "mystical change," and was still the timeless, sword-swinging smartass from Camelot from we all know and love. Sure, the reader's perception has very probably changed, but right after changing the readers' perception, the writers give a reminder that, first and foremost, Shining Knight is still Shining Knight. Again, maybe not the same Shining Knight we knew before, exactly, or at least not the Shining Knight as we understood her, but still the Shining Knight in every way that counts.

I don't really think it's fair to argue that we aren't discussing anything else in the issue, since I'm responding to a specific criticism about the issue.

[Jayngfet]

So, wait, I'm confused. You contend that it's a topic which will necessarily create controversy because, in context, it's a big deal and it's bound to get overblown. Your evidence for this is that, in its context, it didn't really create a controversy or get blown particularly out of proportion? Forgive me if I'm unconvinced. :smalltongue:





Look, this topic is literally the first time I've seen a Demon Knights discussion on GITP. I've Tried talking about it a few times but this is the first time the discussion has actually taken root and gone anywhere.

Look over in the webcomics section to the Questionable Content thread for another example, then check out the rate of posts going on before and after the character in question came out.

This isn't a huge issue because nobody reads Demon Knights. The fact that it's an issue at all when nobody bothers actually talking about Demon Knights before hand shows exactly how this has gone over.






More seriously, it happened in Demon Knights, not in Green Lantern. I don't see how what would have happened in Green Lantern is really relevant, at all. The decision was made for the plot, tone, and audience of Demon Knights. Maybe you're right about the controversy that would've ensued from something similar in Green Lantern or Batman, maybe not, but either way, it's not really relevant, here.




On it's own, sure. But Demon Knights comes from the same company using the same editorial as a part of the same relaunch. You can't ignore context. This comes off as a clumsy attempt, among half a dozen other very recent clumsy attempts, to look progressive without needing to go to the work of making an entirely new character from scratch without a fanbase. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, but a large number of terrible writing decisions from DC in a very short amount of time(many of which were forced down by Editorial) have stripped away any kind of benefit of the doubt. DC has become, rather blatantly in the last few years, a mercenary endeavor they'll rather clearly tear itself apart for slightly higher numbers, and Demon Knights is governed by DC.





I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with the last part; I specifically noted that the character wasn't fundamentally, mystically changed. In fact, part of my argument was that the method chosen showed that Shining Knight hadn't undergone any sort of "mystical change," and was still the timeless, sword-swinging smartass from Camelot from we all know and love. Sure, the reader's perception has very probably changed, but right after changing the readers' perception, the writers give a reminder that, first and foremost, Shining Knight is still Shining Knight. Again, maybe not the same Shining Knight we knew before, exactly, or at least not the Shining Knight as we understood her, but still the Shining Knight in every way that counts.




Yeah, but again, readers perception is absolutely what's being discussed first and foremost, along with the actual motivation for writing it that way. We aren't discussing an actual person who can leave and go about buisness as usual where nothing has changed applies quite so fully. We're talking about a character who exists entirely in their perception by the readers. You can't separate the two except by artificial means.




I don't really think it's fair to argue that we aren't discussing anything else in the issue, since I'm responding to a specific criticism about the issue.


Yeah. Because no matter how many comic book threads come up nobody has discussed anything going on in demon knights. This entire thing came up due to one offhanded remark by me. Demon Knights may be a generally good book, but going by history this is pretty much the longest discussion I've ever seen on it. This is terrible, but true. Check yourself.

If you didn't want this to be the only thing discussed about Demon Knights, then discussing it in literally any other way at any other time before now would have been a good idea.

[Zrak]

Look over in the webcomics section to the Questionable Content thread for another example, then check out the rate of posts going on before and after the character in question came out.
Again, that's something entirely different. Firstly Questionable Content has been pretty much entirely based around the romantic and sexual politics of its characters since it stopped making music jokes. Secondly, it's been a while since I've read it, but if it's like it was when I gave up, I'm pretty sure any actual break in the status quo of any kind is pretty huge news in QC, at this point. :smalltongue:


This isn't a huge issue because nobody reads Demon Knights. The fact that it's an issue at all when nobody bothers actually talking about Demon Knights before hand shows exactly how this has gone over.

Eeh, maybe. For one, I don't think that's much of a sample size to base your conclusion on, all things considered. Similarly, it's not as though this is the only thing anyone, anywhere is talking about with regard to Demon Knights. If you mean here, specifically, with the exception of me disagreeing with your assessment, people have mostly been asking for clarification about what, exactly, happened.




On it's own, sure. But Demon Knights comes from the same company using the same editorial as a part of the same relaunch. You can't ignore context. This comes off as a clumsy attempt, among half a dozen other very recent clumsy attempts, to look progressive without needing to go to the work of making an entirely new character from scratch without a fanbase. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, but a large number of terrible writing decisions from DC in a very short amount of time(many of which were forced down by Editorial) have stripped away any kind of benefit of the doubt. DC has become, rather blatantly in the last few years, a mercenary endeavor they'll rather clearly tear itself apart for slightly higher numbers, and Demon Knights is governed by DC.

It's just as erroneous to assume it's a mercenary decision forced on the writers by Editorial as to assume it's not, therefore I'd judge it without presuming either to be the case. Taken in isolation, it's something which has been foreshadowed for pretty much the entire run, generally fits with the character design, arose at a sensible enough time in the story, and was handled appropriately enough, given the character in question. I mean, it would be one thing if it came out of nowhere, but this has been hinted at pretty much since Shining Knight was introduced in Demon Knights.
In other words, I'd read the decision for what it is, on its own, not with "benefit of the doubt" or through the lens of a certainly-justified dissatisfaction with DC's current editorial policy.



Yeah, but again, readers perception is absolutely what's being discussed first and foremost, along with the actual motivation for writing it that way. We aren't discussing an actual person who can leave and go about buisness as usual where nothing has changed applies quite so fully. We're talking about a character who exists entirely in their perception by the readers. You can't separate the two except by artificial means.

Well, without the author's word on the subject, we can't really be certain about the actual motivation. What I was saying was that I think it had the desired effect on readers' perception — if a reader's perception of the character was really shaken up, the shake-up was immediately followed with a reminder that, whatever pronoun is preferred, this is the same, awesome Shining Knight as before. In other words, Shining Knight says "I'm a man and a woman," and immediately afterwards acts like the Shining Knight, man and/or woman.




Yeah. Because no matter how many comic book threads come up nobody has discussed anything going on in demon knights. This entire thing came up due to one offhanded remark by me. Demon Knights may be a generally good book, but going by history this is pretty much the longest discussion I've ever seen on it. This is terrible, but true. Check yourself.

If you didn't want this to be the only thing discussed about Demon Knights, then discussing it in literally any other way at any other time before now would have been a good idea.
I'm a pretty new poster on these boards, and have yet to participate in any discussion about comic books on them with the exception of this thread. That point of order aside, I think that this, more generally, goes back to what I was saying at a little earlier, regarding the fact that several of the responses have been to ask for clarification. Keep in mind that your initial post on the subject didn't mention what happened in Demon Knights, just that it was "a lazy retcon" attempting to generate "fake controversy." Since, as you've said, not a lot of people read Demon Knights, compared to other titles, a lot of people aren't familiar with recent events in the book. Thus, in order to fully understand your argument, they would have to ask you to what events you were referring. In other words, it's not really that people in this thread have been making a big deal out of Shining Knight coming out, for the most part, but rather that they were asking what had happened in Demon Knights that you were making a big deal about.

As for people not talking about it more generally, that's kind of a bummer. Demon Knights has been one of the better things to come out of the New 52. I would totally talk about Demon Knights if I ever left the top two forums for anywhere but the online campaign boards.

[Man on Fire]

tl;dr version: People are so scared of having some serious issues in comics that they attack even a slight hint of some and throw the names at it, accusing the comic of "trying to be edgy" or "attention whorying for mainstream media".


First, it shouldn't be a weighty issue. It shouldn't need a very special episode. In an ideal world, it's just a detail that could exist and we'd be done with it. We don't live in that world. We live in a world where this is a hot button issue and DC comics has already gotten flak from the New 52 and character's sexual orientation. We live in a world where this kind of thing is debated about and not exactly readily excepted in even more cosmopolitan areas. A Very Special Episode would have been terrible, but the way it was handled here was also terrible. You unfortunately can't just claim something isn't a big deal when, in context, it's a big deal that'll get overblown. The only reason you can say there wasn't a controversy is really because Demon Knights tends to be one of DC's lowest selling books out of the New 52.

So you're saying that people shouldn't even try to handle topic like that, because no matter what they'll do, audience will react negatively, and even when they don't it's only because of "insert lame excuse here".

Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's pure bull@#$%. As I said many times, comics aren't just fluffy kittens and rainbows, there is a place for serious things there. Second, if no matter what you do somebody WILL be offended, then there is really no reason to not do it.

Also, the thing you're whining about can be seen really as a consequence, or rather, a part in a subplot that has been going through entire series, since the very first issue - how about you wait ti'll it's done, because right now we don't even know what that scene really meant. It would be pretty akward if, after all you said in this thread, it would turn out she meant something completely different, wouldn't it?

This discussion reminds me of a ****storm that exploded few years ago, when Paul Cornell, the same man who writes Demon Knights, was writing Captain Britain & MI:13 and wrote Muslim woman picking up Excalibur. He handed that pretty well and, despite fandoms initial reaction, made the character fan favorite, so maybe have a little faith in him?

@Metahuman1:

And Ideally not one who, if memory serves, has the back story of being one of King Arthur's Knights of the round table. The idea that it's acceptable now is fine, the idea that it would have been acceptable in the dark ages isn't.

Well ,considering that this is a comics where two princesses declare that once their capital city gets declared by Merlin New Camelot, they'll get married and even if it won't happen they will rule together and have no intention of marrying a man, and nobody even bats and eyelash (aside from madame Xanadu offhand comment she hopes regular women will get the ame rights) I don't think this comics is or ever was trying to even pretend it potrays dark ages accuratelly.

Also, Shining Knight in this version was a part of Camelot founded by Merlin and Arthur The Bear thousands year BC, so that's not even Dark Ages.

Merlin in this comics is founding Camelot over and over, there are multiple versions in different time pieroids, why are you asking?

[Jayngfet]

Ok. Let me clarify things. Comics, in general, can do this sort of thing and it could concievably be done way better.


DC, modern DC in particular, doesn't do this well. At all. You'd need to ignore a whole lot of stuff they've done to even get them to zero on the "have we been good about social issues?" meter. You'd pretty much need to ignore everything we've heard about what's going on behind the scenes recently and how everything before this has been handled.

DC comics specifically, not comics in general, cares more about spectacle and pulling short term numbers than anything else out there. They were pretty much willing to mess up their entire continuity with the New 52's very poorly thought out reboot; retconned Alan Scott into being gay, despite the fact that his only real recent impact on the book he started in through the last 20 years came from the fact that he was married and had children; and about a hundred other retcons that have either removed or completely changed characters that used to get involved in social issues in the last few years.

DC doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because DC burned through that a looooong time ago. Anything DC does is by default to be considered a stunt simply because literally every other example from the last few years has been treated as a stunt even if the original concept MIGHT have been brought up with good intentions.

[Man on Fire]

I would like you to read my psot again and consider many parts and points you ignored, starting with "we don't even know what she really meant yet"* and "Paul Cornell can pull out stuff like that well".

Consider that Marvel isn't really any better with hackling on gender, race, religion or sex issues. Consider that, as I said, there was the same reaction on Fraiza Hussein picking up Excalibur. Yet Cornell handled things very well and turned her into fan favorite. I'm not asking you to give DC benefit of doubt, I'm asking you to give benefit of doubt to this man and thi man alone.

Also, considering that I don't see DC blowing up the news about the thing, maybe it's not a publicity stunt? Have you ever heard of publicity stunt that doesn't get media coverage? Think hard, that's very philosophical question.


*
She could just mean that soul of original, male SK lives in her or hundred more things

[Zrak]

DC doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because DC burned through that a looooong time ago. Anything DC does is by default to be considered a stunt simply because literally every other example from the last few years has been treated as a stunt even if the original concept MIGHT have been brought up with good intentions.

I haven't been saying anything about giving DC the benefit of the doubt, I've been saying that the decision and its writing be judged on their own merits. On their own merits, I see nothing wrong with the decision and thought it was handled pretty well, really.

[Man on Fire]

Pretty much what Zrak said - I know that DC and Marvel both can handle stuff like that pretty badly and I know they did in the past. But that doesn't justify condemning every attempt at handlng that stuff from people at either one by default. Epecially when it's done by completely different people that the ones who screwed up previous times. And especially if those people proved they can handle thing like that with care before.

Also, Cornell will leave after next issue anyway, I'm more worried what new writer will bring. Anybody here had read The Surrogates or X-O Manowar?

[Zrak]

Also worth noting that Cornell tweeted that he was pleased about the lack of controversy.

[Yora]

DC, modern DC in particular, doesn't do this well. At all. You'd need to ignore a whole lot of stuff they've done to even get them to zero on the "have we been good about social issues?" meter. You'd pretty much need to ignore everything we've heard about what's going on behind the scenes recently and how everything before this has been handled.
I think in current western society, the problem with discrimination is not outright and hostile discrimination, but internalized and unspoken one.
It might have been a very different thing in the 60s and up to the 80s, but these days adressing social issues well is not done by telling people "look how these people have to suffer because of your hateful predjudices". Todays issues of discrimination are not about tollerance, but about acceptance. Which is much better handled not by pleading "don't lynch them, they have done nothing wrong", but by gradually making people see that minorities are not really that different from themselves and there's no need to feel uncomfortable around them.

There may very well have been a time in which it was progressive to have female superheroes in skimpy outfits. It's a symbolic example to show that women are able to do the same things that man can do, that they can take care of problems without supervision or guidance by men, and even that they can decide what outfits are appropriate for them or not.
But that was generations ago and now we have the social issue that women in fiction are always designed for fanservice and maximum eye candy. And such an issue is not adressed by giving speeches about treating women respectfully. This would be done by portraying women in a way that is both capable and competent and without the need of fan serivce. And you are not adressing the acceptance of gays by introducing storylines about homophobia, you introduce gay characters that are portrayed just like any other characters and show that the people around them also treat them like regular people and not make the issue an issue.

And admitedly, most times I hear about something in superhero comics it's about things that even the fans are outraged about. But it seems that the superhero comic world still works with big speeches and just isn't capable of subtle portrayals of normalcy. The genre seems to be all about overblown drama and with that you simply can't adress social issues well in the modern day.

[Zrak]

Well, in this case, Shining Knight comes out and everything goes on as it normally would, which is part of what I liked about it.

[Man on Fire]

Yora, I generally agree with your sentimes here, strongly even, but...have you read Demon Knights? because I have a feeling you didn't and try to stamp this pretty general describtion to that one specific comics. Comics that, quite frankly, avoids all you talked about. Hell, it's not even superhero comics, it's a fantasy comics with DC characters.

Also, as Zrak said:

Shinign Knight just comes out and really only because she wanted to be honest with teammate who was making moves on her and then story continues, it's not bought up as some very special episode and excuse for giving very special speeches. If anything, that scene served to show her more emotionally mature side and, that she respect Exoristos as a person.

[Jayngfet]

Yora, I generally agree with your sentimes here, strongly even, but...have you read Demon Knights? because I have a feeling you didn't and try to stamp this pretty general describtion to that one specific comics. Comics that, quite frankly, avoids all you talked about. Hell, it's not even superhero comics, it's a fantasy comics with DC characters.

Also, as Zrak said:

Shinign Knight just comes out and really only because she wanted to be honest with teammate who was making moves on her and then story continues, it's not bought up as some very special episode and excuse for giving very special speeches. If anything, that scene served to show her more emotionally mature side and, that she respect Exoristos as a person.

Yeah, but the moment chosen was completely inappropriate. It was a scene where everybody is running around and the stakes are high and important things just happened and were about to happen and everyone was about to do even more important things.

For two characters to just kinda stop moving for a bit and have a conversation is rather jarring, don't you think? I mean, they weren't just sitting around. They were in hell they were trying very hard to escape. This wasn't the time nor the place for that discussion.

If this was done before or after, when things were a little slower, with a couple more lines, that'd probably have been much, much better. Right now, it was just jammed between two much more plot relevant scenes and sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Zrak]

See, I think the moment chosen was entirely appropriate:
Exoristos gives a typical "if we make it out of here" speech not in spite of but because they are in a very dire situation; if Exoristos didn't say something then, she might never get the chance. It's a pretty common trope that appears in a huge variety of media. Shining Knight just responded as was necessary.

[Man on Fire]

As Zrak said, it was "If we get out of this alive" moment, those happens in situations like the one DK were then and Shinning Knights response was also appriorate.

And turning back to say few words to other person during the march* - nothing innpriorate at it at all.

* - And no, they weren't running. At that point they weren't even attacked or anything.

Sorry Jayngfet, no offense, but I get the impression that you just simply dislike this idea and try to hammer some excuse for hating it into the comics, even if things you talk about are clearly not there.

[Jayngfet]

As Zrak said, it was "If we get out of this alive" moment, those happens in situations like the one DK were then and Shinning Knights response was also appriorate.

And turning back to say few words to other person during the march* - nothing innpriorate at it at all.

* - And no, they weren't running. At that point they weren't even attacked or anything.

Sorry Jayngfet, no offense, but I get the impression that you just simply dislike this idea and try to hammer some excuse for hating it into the comics, even if things you talk about are clearly not there.

I don't hate the idea because, and this is a thing I believe I mentioned once before, I've been mostly positive on the way it was done elsewhere. As well, implying I have some sort of prejudice that excuses my arguments is a low, low blow and you should be ashamed of yourself.


But this didn't strike me as an "if we make it out of here" thing either. Mostly because there wasn't any urgency to it. There was no "In case we die soon", they didn't say it while they kept moving(this was the ONLY time they stopped during that sequence), and there was no real rhyme or reason given for why. You can assume it was an "in case we make it out of here" thing, but the fact of the matter is that going by context, wording, facial expression, and general body language that wasn't the case.

[Fan]

As Zrak said, it was "If we get out of this alive" moment, those happens in situations like the one DK were then and Shinning Knights response was also appriorate.

And turning back to say few words to other person during the march* - nothing innpriorate at it at all.

* - And no, they weren't running. At that point they weren't even attacked or anything.

Sorry Jayngfet, no offense, but I get the impression that you just simply dislike this idea and try to hammer some excuse for hating it into the comics, even if things you talk about are clearly not there.

*knock knock*

Mr.Reality here, coming at you with some hard truth.

I've dated trans girls / men before, and have many trans friends. The whole idea of Shining Knight, a character I followed as far back as the JLU cartoon when I first got into comics, doing the trans thing is latching onto a similar concept done in Fate / Stay Knight and the reception of "Arturia" in that, and the general alternate mythology they built up being so well received. The media buzz a semi recognized character gets from a change in identity, and the associated audience they can draw in with a character that they can relate to that they couldn't before.

"Sir Justine", is by no means well written, I understand that he is a D list character, C list on his best day, but the random injection of minorities and alternate life styles into comics is being shoe horned for the purpose of having them rather than integrating them into the existing character. New 52 or not, they changed a lot of things that shouldn't be changed. They took Jon out of the Justice League, put Cyborg in while removing him from the Titans to replace him with a less iconic character, and New Superboy is somehow worse than Emoboy Prime.

I also know Jayng personally, there's no prejudice there, it's criticism approaching the direction they've taken with the comic, and with the character. New 52 in general has been preforming poorly, and writing quality has taken a huge hit even since Flash Point with the exception of a few good comics that have maintained my faith throughout.

[Kalmarvho]

Uh, Emoboy Prime and Superboy have no connection. New Superboy is basically the new52 incarnation of Conner Kent, the clone Superboy who emerged after the death of Superman, and who died fighting Emoboy Prime during the Infinite Crisis.

[Fan]

I...

I..

I never said that they were related.

I just said that the new Superboy was WORSE than the Superboy he was.

[Kalmarvho]

Of course you didn't say they were related. But making a comparison between two characters the way you did implies some kind of causal link.

And anyway, this is more in line with what a comic book thread should be: arguing about trivial junk born of misunderstanding.

[Man on Fire]

*knock knock*

Mr.Reality here, coming at you with some hard truth.

Considering rest of your post, I say you are not Mr. Reality.


I've dated trans girls / men before, and have many trans friends.

And that makes you an authority on the subject and I should abide to your wise words? Tony Harrirs is nice for his wife and other women from his family. Didn't change a fact he's a sexist, women-hating prick.


The whole idea of Shining Knight, a character I followed as far back as the JLU cartoon when I first got into comics, doing the trans thing is latching onto a similar concept done in Fate / Stay Knight and the reception of "Arturia" in that, and the general alternate mythology they built up being so well received. The media buzz a semi recognized character gets from a change in identity, and the associated audience they can draw in with a character that they can relate to that they couldn't before.

I think you are confusing few things here. First of all, if you really followed Shinning Knight from cartoon to comics, then I think you should know that Shinning Knight was a crossdressing woman since Grant Morrisson's Seven Soldiers from 2005. If anything, I also sinicerly doubt that they are or were trying to cash in on reception of female King Artur in fate/stay night. First, because they're things aimed at two differend audiences and second, because I honestly doubt anybody at DC even heard or gives a damn about Japanesse Visual Novels market. Just because one thign reminds you of another doesn't mean that they're copying each other. Etrigan, Ghost Rider and Devilman are three demonic superheroes who were all created in the same year and all were well-recived by their respective audiences are you going to tell me that Jack Kirby tried to rip-off Go Nagai?


"Sir Justine", is by no means well written, I understand that he is a D list character, C list on his best day, but the random injection of minorities and alternate life styles into comics is being shoe horned for the purpose of having them rather than integrating them into the existing character.

So in other words you say that character i badly written, because of being made a minority/alternate life style while they previously weren't? I say you are just nostalgic.


New 52 or not, they changed a lot of things that shouldn't be changed. They took Jon out of the Justice League, put Cyborg in while removing him from the Titans to replace him with a less iconic character, and New Superboy is somehow worse than Emoboy Prime.

"Because completely different people on completely different books changed things in a way I don't like, therefore that means that all change is bad", that's what you're saying here.


I also know Jayng personally, there's no prejudice there, it's criticism approaching the direction they've taken with the comic, and with the character.

From how it sounds it's criticism based only on the fact you liked the previous incarnation of the character and hate the idea there even was a change in the first place, not the execution.


As well, implying I have some sort of prejudice that excuses my arguments is a low, low blow and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I did not tried to imply you are prejuiced, I said you hate the idea, not that you hate transexuals or anything like that.


But this didn't strike me as an "if we make it out of here" thing either. Mostly because there wasn't any urgency to it. There was no "In case we die soon", they didn't say it while they kept moving(this was the ONLY time they stopped during that sequence),

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you a man who complains about comics he clearly didin't read. Sorry, but at that point you are saying things contradicting what happened in the comics in question. I that situation I'm done arguing with you - I have better things to do than talking with somebody who rejects reality and tries to force his own version on me.

[Jayngfet]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you a man who complains about comics he clearly didin't read. Sorry, but at that point you are saying things contradicting what happened in the comics in question. I that situation I'm done arguing with you - I have better things to do than talking with somebody who rejects reality and tries to force his own version on me.

After checking through the page in question a third time, I'll concede I made a minor slip up. Though I emphasize minor. Because, and this is the thing, the entire thing was stupid. You are stuck in the middle of hell. You shouldn't stop moving to have a conversation.



As well, It's probably for the best you stop talking very quickly. Your posts are moving further and further into personal attacks and you aren't exactly coming off as looking intelligent.

[Kalmarvho]

I also sinicerly doubt that they are or were trying to cash in on reception of female King Artur in fate/stay night

Especially since 'female King Arthur' is a lot older than Fate/Stay Night.

[Metahuman1]

Especially since 'female King Arthur' is a lot older than Fate/Stay Night.

Ok, I'll bite. Where the heck else other then the Fate Franchise has that been done?

[Kalmarvho]

Ok, I'll bite. Where the heck else other then the Fate Franchise has that been done?

Jane Yolen's Camelot anthology dates to 1995, for one.

[Metahuman1]

Jane Yolen's Camelot anthology dates to 1995, for one.

Huh, curious.

Any others come to mind?

[Kalmarvho]

Huh, curious.

Any others come to mind?

Not out of hand, no, not in fictional annals. But it's an idea that has some memetic inertia.

There's this, for example.

http://avalonhighfanclub.webs.com/Avalon%20high.bmp

Which is awful. It dates from a few years after Fate/Stay Night, but there you have it. Arthur reincarnated as a woman.

[Selrahc]

Lionheart from Marvel also covered a "Female King Arthur" figure, in that she was Captain Britain, who is basically King Arthur.

[Fan]

Considering rest of your post, I say you are not Mr. Reality.



And that makes you an authority on the subject and I should abide to your wise words? Tony Harrirs is nice for his wife and other women from his family. Didn't change a fact he's a sexist, women-hating prick.



I think you are confusing few things here. First of all, if you really followed Shinning Knight from cartoon to comics, then I think you should know that Shinning Knight was a crossdressing woman since Grant Morrisson's Seven Soldiers from 2005. If anything, I also sinicerly doubt that they are or were trying to cash in on reception of female King Artur in fate/stay night. First, because they're things aimed at two differend audiences and second, because I honestly doubt anybody at DC even heard or gives a damn about Japanesse Visual Novels market. Just because one thign reminds you of another doesn't mean that they're copying each other. Etrigan, Ghost Rider and Devilman are three demonic superheroes who were all created in the same year and all were well-recived by their respective audiences are you going to tell me that Jack Kirby tried to rip-off Go Nagai?



So in other words you say that character i badly written, because of being made a minority/alternate life style while they previously weren't? I say you are just nostalgic.



"Because completely different people on completely different books changed things in a way I don't like, therefore that means that all change is bad", that's what you're saying here.



From how it sounds it's criticism based only on the fact you liked the previous incarnation of the character and hate the idea there even was a change in the first place, not the execution.



I did not tried to imply you are prejuiced, I said you hate the idea, not that you hate transexuals or anything like that.



Ladies and gentlemen, I present you a man who complains about comics he clearly didin't read. Sorry, but at that point you are saying things contradicting what happened in the comics in question. I that situation I'm done arguing with you - I have better things to do than talking with somebody who rejects reality and tries to force his own version on me.

Now you're calling me a Woman hating Prick? Even if not directly stated, you're making a direct comparison to me and then to someone who you say is as much, making it a targeted insult with an attempt to circumvent the obvious rudeness of making a direct one.

I'd say you're the one who's forcing their version of reality on people bub, also two different audiences? Manga in general was spawned from American comics, and the two bases often merge with one reading the other, and so forth. They are a VERY similar demographic as well age, and interest wise.

What are you even talking about?

Also Captain Britain being King Arthur?



http://cdn.ifanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/CaptainBritain.jpg



This guy?

While it isn't a one of, as far as I'm aware Fate / Stay is the only recent one in the same demographic, with the exact same application, with the near exact same target fan base, in more recent years.

Also, I didn't like it when Grant Morrison did it either. If you want to make a trans character, make them trans from the start, introduce one that is solely that properitary, and make them on their own merits. Change can be great in characters, but it needs to have a reason, and none was ever given for changing who was formerly a blonde haired knight into..



http://www.gaystarnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/400xY/Shining_Knight.jpg



This, the entire point of the character is circumvented to present an issue the character has no place presenting, nor did he ever have a reason in his initial back story to be as much, they're changing a D-Lister because they can get away with it, like I said, and trying to appeal to a demographic they didn't have previously.

"Nostalgia" here, is a desire to keep a character as that character, and not have him changed so radically as to not even slightly resemble the character he used to be, the character literally having been destroyed and replaced with one that only barely resembles it.

I also explicitly said that I don't mind change, ffs, so long as it's done well and makes a good story. Also, Devilman is a vastly different character with a vastly different powerset. Shining Knight is a Knight of Camelot (Check), and USES THE EXACT SAME SWORD WITH THE EXACT SAME NAME FOR THE EXACT SAME PURPOSE.

Yeah, I'd say they're similar enough in intent and in delivery that it counts as cashing in on a popular concept. You also seem to imply that hating any change that happens ever is bad because we're stuck in our old ways, and nothing that comes before could have ever been better.

[Man on Fire]

Now you're calling me a Woman hating Prick? Even if not directly stated, you're making a direct comparison to me and then to someone who you say is as much, making it a targeted insult with an attempt to circumvent the obvious rudeness of making a direct one.

i'm pointing out that the fact you dated transexual people does not mean you are some voice of authority and understanding on the subject. I drew that comparision to show that being nice to people of the minority/whatever subject we're talking about


Manga in general was spawned from American comics, and the two bases often merge with one reading the other, and so forth. They are a VERY similar demographic as well age, and interest wise.

Except being aimed at citizens of completely different countries. manga by rule of thumb is aimed at Japanesse audience first and multinational audience second. American comic books are aimed at American audienc first and any profit from othr nationalitis is just an addition, to th point that even huge sales in Great Britain won't save the book from being cancelled because of low sales in USA.


Also Captain Britain being King Arthur?



http://cdn.ifanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/CaptainBritain.jpg



This guy?

What he has to do with anything?


While it isn't a one of, as far as I'm aware Fate / Stay is the only recent one in the same demographic, with the exact same application, with the near exact same target fan base, in more recent years.

Except it was aimed at Japanesse audience and I strongly doubt DC heard or even cares about it's existence. It's not even that popular as you make it to be.


Also, I didn't like it when Grant Morrison did it either. If you want to make a trans character, make them trans from the start, introduce one that is solely that properitary, and make them on their own merits. Change can be great in characters, but it needs to have a reason, and none was ever given for changing who was formerly a blonde haired knight into..



http://www.gaystarnews.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/400xY/Shining_Knight.jpg



"This character cannot be trans, because I like him, it was created and exist only to pander to me and nobody else and only my way is the only good way of writing the character" - that's what you're saying here.

Losing one square-jawed blonde-haired blue-eyed arian-ideal flat-personality white male, while there are hundreds of them in comics, for the sake of introducting somebody other groups of people can relate to and has actual personality, is an acceptable loss for me.


This, the entire point of the character is circumvented to present an issue the character has no place presenting, nor did he ever have a reason in his initial back story to be as much, they're changing a D-Lister because they can get away with it, like I said, and trying to appeal to a demographic they didn't have previously.

"Nostalgia" here, is a desire to keep a character as that character, and not have him changed so radically as to not even slightly resemble the character he used to be, the character literally having been destroyed and replaced with one that only barely resembles it.

I also explicitly said that I don't mind change, ffs, so long as it's done well and makes a good story.

Well, considering that change here wa done well and so far made not one but two good stories, I call bullmanure on your last sentence, especially as it comes after two paragraphs of complaining that the change happened at all.


Also, Devilman is a vastly different character with a vastly different powerset. Shining Knight is a Knight of Camelot (Check), and USES THE EXACT SAME SWORD WITH THE EXACT SAME NAME FOR THE EXACT SAME PURPOSE.

Do not use capslock on me, it's considereng equal to yelling at somebody.
Also, vastly different character with a vastly different powerset? You mean the guy who was bonded with powerful demon (check), can transform into him and use fire-based powers and encanced physical abilities to fight other demons?


Yeah, I'd say they're similar enough in intent and in delivery that it counts as cashing in on a popular concept.

And I say you are making assumptions based on completely nothing except that they look similiar to you. We don't even know if Grant Morrisson or anybody at DC even knows what Fate/Stay Night is.


You also seem to imply that hating any change that happens ever is bad because we're stuck in our old ways, and nothing that comes before could have ever been better.

Yes, hating any change that happens ever does mean being struck in our old ways, and things needs to evolve and move foward. Old ways were good when they were created, now we need new ones. Comics cannot be struck in mindset formed in the 60s.

[Tiki Snakes]

Well, it's not like it's a changed character. It's an entirely different person from an entirely different time period. Just using the same, I don't know, Legacy/Codename/General Identity that some other guy used at some point.

I thought that happened like, all the time in DC?

[Fan]

i'm pointing out that the fact you dated transexual people does not mean you are some voice of authority and understanding on the subject. I drew that comparision to show that being nice to people of the minority/whatever subject we're talking about



Except being aimed at citizens of completely different countries. manga by rule of thumb is aimed at Japanesse audience first and multinational audience second. American comic books are aimed at American audienc first and any profit from othr nationalitis is just an addition, to th point that even huge sales in Great Britain won't save the book from being cancelled because of low sales in USA.



What he has to do with anything?



Except it was aimed at Japanesse audience and I strongly doubt DC heard or even cares about it's existence. It's not even that popular as you make it to be.



"This character cannot be trans, because I like him, it was created and exist only to pander to me and nobody else and only my way is the only good way of writing the character" - that's what you're saying here.

Losing one square-jawed blonde-haired blue-eyed arian-ideal flat-personality white male, while there are hundreds of them in comics, for the sake of introducting somebody other groups of people can relate to and has actual personality, is an acceptable loss for me.



Well, considering that change here wa done well and so far made not one but two good stories, I call bullmanure on your last sentence, especially as it comes after two paragraphs of complaining that the change happened at all.



Do not use capslock on me, it's considereng equal to yelling at somebody.
Also, vastly different character with a vastly different powerset? You mean the guy who was bonded with powerful demon (check), can transform into him and use fire-based powers and encanced physical abilities to fight other demons?



And I say you are making assumptions based on completely nothing except that they look similiar to you. We don't even know if Grant Morrisson or anybody at DC even knows what Fate/Stay Night is.



Yes, hating any change that happens ever does mean being struck in our old ways, and things needs to evolve and move foward. Old ways were good when they were created, now we need new ones. Comics cannot be struck in mindset formed in the 60s.

I don't think you understand how niche comics are, Superman and Batman being outsold by ARCHIE DIGEST regularly. Nor do you understand how marketing is done. They market things to age demographics, and interests with occasional nods to nationality due to a modern global approach focused in the areas of highest purchase, but again, irrelevant.

So, I'm not ALLOWED to dislike a change made to a character? If I do say that I dislike it, it automatically means that I'm forcing my view on it on everyone else?

I do believe the only reason I even came in on this discussion is because you were attacking another forumite who I happened to know on an issue I happened to follow.

My example wasn't given to make me an authority, it was to prove I don't have prejudice, which I don't, against anything with the exception of Prejudice, and unabashed hatred.

I'm fine with changes being made so long as they construct a decent character.. which it hasn't, which while debatable is something I am allowed to say however "stuck in the past" I am. I am allowed to dislike new things, new things are not always better, the "Aryan ideal" character that Shining Knight was represented a struggle of a displaced man throughout time, and someone who had difficulty adjusting to modern ideas and culture. It was a solid character design. The new one creates a different character entirely, literally destroying everything it was before, to replace it with this publicity stunt. There is no reason to say that this is a dislike for new things, no, the old does not need to move over for the new, and sometimes what came before was better.

By your logic, Twilight is empirically written better than The Lord of the Rings, and "The Last Airbender" is an infinitely more deep, and psychologically compelling story than The Lord of the Flies. Just because they're "newer", and they present different characters than white men. There's nothing wrong with a character being any ethnicity, gender, or identity so long as it's presented well.. which it isn't in this case at all.

It makes no sense, and has no place applied to modern media.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well to be fair Lord of the flies is kind of simpler when it comes down to "deepness". Its a story thats kinda made to only be interpreted in one kind of way. Each character is just a rather blatant symbol for something dressed up in some clothes.

Better stories with subtext allow for different interpretations.

[Kalmarvho]

Yeah, but the textual density of Lord of the Flies as compared to, say, the Long Walk or Battle Royale - all stories, on the surface, about desensitization to violence and the loss of civilization - is in part increased because of its age. Discounting physical reality in favour of reading the text of itself, in itself - while admirable and correct from a formalist perspective - just won't do. Lord of the Flies has decades of history behind it, and to discount those when doing a reading is unwise.

[Scowling Dragon]

I don't understand what your quite saying.

[Kalmarvho]

Basically, this: Lord of the Flies is a simpler work than Avatar: the Last Airbender. But when you read it, you're also dealing with the readings and values imposed on it by the readers before you. Any well studied work has that kind of density, which doesn't render studying it moot - it, in fact, increases the possible complexity of readings.

Take comics. The Dark Knight Returns is less textually complex than Batman: Odyssey, but because of its impact on history and the countless readings done of it, it has a literary texture all of its own - one that it wouldn't have if it were published only today. This is because TDKR has informed today in a way Batman: Odyssey hasn't (despite the fact that TDKR isn't bat**** insane).

[Avilan the Grey]

"This character cannot be trans, because I like him, it was created and exist only to pander to me and nobody else and only my way is the only good way of writing the character" - that's what you're saying here.

No, what he is saying is that making radical changes to a character and expect the fanbase to be quiet is... rude. And dumb. It really has nothing to do with transexuality. It is just as bad to suddenly have them change ethnicity for nor reason for example. If you INSIST that character X must be changed in such a way. KILL THE CHARACTER OFF and replace him or her.

[Jayngfet]

No, what he is saying is that making radical changes to a character and expect the fanbase to be quiet is... rude. And dumb. It really has nothing to do with transexuality. It is just as bad to suddenly have them change ethnicity for nor reason for example. If you INSIST that character X must be changed in such a way. KILL THE CHARACTER OFF and replace him or her.

This. Changing something quite like that is rather jarring. Other radical changes have been a major turnoff for existing fans, and cumulatively makes it look like DC doesn't care about anything put down on paper beforehand so long as they can do whatever they want.

For an example that's as far removed from the trans issue as possible, look at New 52 Guy Gardner's backstory. Back during Year One, Gardner's backstory was so complex and three dimensional it basically needed about five issues to be told properly. He was a guy who grew up in an abusive, uncaring household that turned him into a punk, but then forced him to become something more, eventually sending him down a life where he tried to help people as a case worker and schoolteacher when he wasn't a hero.

Now, that story cuts off about a third of the way in and it wasn't nearly so dramatic or involved. Instead of being told in five issues the first time now it only took one, with the actual size of the issue being like 5-10 pages smaller than one of the old ones.

Gardner isn't a college educated, resourceful guy who's proven himself even without powers a hundred times over now. He's a dumb thug who only survived because he was too stupid to be afraid.

[Wolf_Haley]

So someone wanna explain how Shining KNight possibly being trans is a total betrayal of the character and somehow ruins everything involving the character that happened before and was nothing but a publicity stunt when in no way shape or form has it been played up for plubicity.

EDIT: I mean holy ****, other than possibly being Trans SS in DK and SS in 7S still have all the hallmarks of being a Shining Knight, the wrapping is just different and slight changes to personality and circumstance. It's not like the legend of the SS has suddenyl been destroyed, it's been enriched by having these widly different people take up the mantle and fight for what the Knight emobidies, Arthur and the defense of Avalon. If the KNight had gotten the Firestorm treatment or worse the treatment Shiva has gotten you would ahve a point.

[Fan]

So someone wanna explain how Shining KNight possibly being trans is a total betrayal of the character and somehow ruins everything involving the character that happened before and was nothing but a publicity stunt when in no way shape or form has it been played up for plubicity.

EDIT: I mean holy ****, other than possibly being Trans SS in DK and SS in 7S still have all the hallmarks of being a Shining Knight, the wrapping is just different and slight changes to personality and circumstance. It's not like the legend of the SS has suddenyl been destroyed, it's been enriched by having these widly different people take up the mantle and fight for what the Knight emobidies, Arthur and the defense of Avalon. If the KNight had gotten the Firestorm treatment or worse the treatment Shiva has gotten you would ahve a point.

The wrapping in this case is changed so drastically as to appear entirely different, with motivations, goals, and only.. everything else about the character aside from the "Shining Knight" as interpreted most literally rather than taking the moral implications or challenges associated with maintaining the morality that the character fails to maintain in New 52 that such a name would represents.

It's just like the Captain Marvel change. Suddenly, no one is pure of heart, despite people like Superman and Batman existing who are ACTUALLY THAT MORAL. The entire point of Superman is to be the guiding light of humanity, to be the ideal which we are supposed to strive for, and suddenly what he is, and who he is counts for nothing? No.

[Wolf_Haley]

Except Supes and Batman never have and never will be pure hearted, ye they do good and always will but they have moments where they get close to or let themselves lose control and have to deal with that. Billy being a bit of a douche buggedme at first but reading what they want to do with him, starting out jaded but over time growing to see how much light is in the world and how much good can happen seems to good to pass up. And motive wise what the hell is different about the current Shining Knight that he/she is nothing like the previous incarnations? I mean **** you keep souting all of this crap without explaining why and jsut keep saying "Not my SS!" when for all the important reasons she is the SS.

[Kalmarvho]

What's wrong with the new Captain Marvel (sorry "Shazam")? His backups were the best thing about an otherwise awful book.

[Tiki Snakes]

The wrapping in this case is changed so drastically as to appear entirely different, with motivations, goals, and only.. everything else about the character aside from the "Shining Knight" as interpreted most literally rather than taking the moral implications or challenges associated with maintaining the morality that the character fails to maintain in New 52 that such a name would represents.

It's just like the Captain Marvel change. Suddenly, no one is pure of heart, despite people like Superman and Batman existing who are ACTUALLY THAT MORAL. The entire point of Superman is to be the guiding light of humanity, to be the ideal which we are supposed to strive for, and suddenly what he is, and who he is counts for nothing? No.

Except as I understand it, this particular character is an entirely different person, whereas those are existing characters who have had their personality/etc changed.

Or am I missing something?

[Wolf_Haley]

What's wrong with the new Captain Marvel (sorry "Shazam")? His backups were the best thing about an otherwise awful book.
Simply not being exactly like the Billy of old, who I loved but I don't mind seeing a new take on a old character I loved.

And more on the Supes stuff, yeah Supes is the ideal of who we should be, it's not because he's this pure perfect being, it's because he's this flawed individual like all of us who just simply does the right thing because it is what should be done. Hell Garth Ennis of all people seemed to have gotten that more than anyone else and is regarded as one of the best Supes writers ever off of only two stories, Superman/Hitman and JLA/Hitman.

[Metahuman1]

No, what he is saying is that making radical changes to a character and expect the fanbase to be quiet is... rude. And dumb. It really has nothing to do with transexuality. It is just as bad to suddenly have them change ethnicity for nor reason for example. If you INSIST that character X must be changed in such a way. KILL THE CHARACTER OFF and replace him or her.

I would augment this with "Or, even better, write an epilog, retire the character, or at least semi retire them so that we can still see a bit of them here and there once in a blue moon, even if only for a page or two and there not getting any action scenes. "

[Kalmarvho]

Garth Ennis writes the most genuine, human Superman I've seen, which is a way better take than Morrison's new one.

But yeah, I don't really understand all the resistance to change, whether good change or bad. This wouldn't be a problem at all if continuity weren't fetishized to such a ridiculous degree in the reading of comics, but there we have it.

[Fan]

I love Grant Morrison's new Superman, I loved it when he did Allstar Superman which was one of the most compelling and beautiful Superman stories ever written. He writes great heroes, but his villains are.. well to be entirely honest crappy. Though I still maintain that there's not enough continuity in New 52 AT ALL for it to be considered it's own universe in. It needs to make it past the second year, especially with all the negative press it's getting.

Back on topic though, Grant handles the good side of morality well, but he doesn't make a compelling villain at all his run of The Joker was simply embarrassingly bad.

[The Troubadour]

Garth Ennis writes the most genuine, human Superman I've seen, which is a way better take than Morrison's new one.

Garth Ennis can write any character at all as a human being? I'm genuinely surprised. :-)


But yeah, I don't really understand all the resistance to change, whether good change or bad. This wouldn't be a problem at all if continuity weren't fetishized to such a ridiculous degree in the reading of comics, but there we have it.

The problem, I think, isn't with change or with continuity, but with the way these things are handled. I like continuity, and I also like seeing a character grow up because of it. I would dearly love it if super-heroes were allowed to truly evolve, by growing old, having children and passing on their legacies, or by dying, or simply retiring from the good fight. Instead, what I get is a rehash of old plotlines, meaningless changes to conform to the newest trend, cheap death-and-resurrection plots...

[Kalmarvho]

But... All-Star isn't quite new. I was more referring to Grant's Action Comics run. It has some pretty neat stuff, granted.

[Fan]

But... All-Star isn't quite new. I was more referring to Grant's Action Comics run. It has some pretty neat stuff, granted.

I like the Action Comics run.. somewhat.

It could be better, that much is for sure, and it needs direction in the form of a compelling villain which is just something he can't write.

[Kalmarvho]

Well, Lobdell's Superman seems to be pushing Kryptonians closer and closer to, well, Viltrumites, complete with what is effectively a pre-reform Nolan/Omniman.

It's an interesting direction, certainly.

[Zrak]

You can assume it was an "in case we make it out of here" thing, but the fact of the matter is that going by context, wording, facial expression, and general body language that wasn't the case.

You are aware that the conversation in question begins with the phrase "If we get back to Earth," right? The fact of the matter is that, going by wording, the scene in question literally begins with a paraphrasing of "if we make it out of here."

[tbok1992]

The problem, I think, isn't with change or with continuity, but with the way these things are handled. I like continuity, and I also like seeing a character grow up because of it. I would dearly love it if super-heroes were allowed to truly evolve, by growing old, having children and passing on their legacies, or by dying, or simply retiring from the good fight. Instead, what I get is a rehash of old plotlines, meaningless changes to conform to the newest trend, cheap death-and-resurrection plots...

It's my belief that change works for a character when it keeps a character faithful to their core and feels like it was always there rather than being a jarring change or an unnecessary tack-on to the Mythos.

The multi-colored Lantern corps and Kingpin becoming a Daredevil rather than a Spiderman villain are good examples, they feel like an addition to the mythology that works well and feels faithful to the concept's core. Superman Red/Superman Blue and "No more mutants." on the other hand are changes that detract from the series core.

This also applies, IMO, to characters becoming darker. Captain Marvel becoming a darker character by making Billy Batson a jerk= Terrible idea.
Introducing a darker, good-hearted but far more bitter and cynical Captain Marvel from a future where Dr. Siviana took over the world and started ruling it as a dictatorship= Great Idea!

[turkishproverb]

This also applies, IMO, to characters becoming darker. Captain Marvel becoming a darker character by making Billy Batson a jerk= Terrible idea.
Introducing a darker, good-hearted but far more bitter and cynical Captain Marvel from a future where Dr. Siviana took over the world and started ruling it as a dictatorship= Great Idea!


The crappy version of Captain Marvel is due almost entirely to Geoff Johns being in power at DC and having already made clear he hates children and doesn't think one can be good or likable.

[Wolf_Haley]

Geoff johns sucks eggs, he's a prime example of why people shouldn't go hog wild when they get to write their favorite characters. Still mad because of him Wally got put on a bus and Hal is back to being the great white hope. Oh well at least Flash and New Guardian's before they broke up the orignal team are good.

[tbok1992]

The crappy version of Captain Marvel is due almost entirely to Geoff Johns being in power at DC and having already made clear he hates children and doesn't think one can be good or likable.

Well that's dumb. If I were at DC I'd not only make Captain Marvel the saint of the entire damnable DCU, but I'd try and get the rights to Beck and Binder's obscure character Fatman and put him in there because, darnit, I actually read that comic and liked it, and he'd fit in perfectly tone-wise. I like goofy comics is what I'm sayin'

[Jayngfet]

But yeah, I don't really understand all the resistance to change, whether good change or bad. This wouldn't be a problem at all if continuity weren't fetishized to such a ridiculous degree in the reading of comics, but there we have it.

The problem is that the general changes of the New 52 overall have been badly planned and kinda blatantly made up either on the spot or so soon beforehand it may as well be the same thing. In the first couple of months Tim was a robin as identified in comics, then he was suddenly never a robin, then he was suddenly never even Tim Drake. Even though flashbacks show early on he wore the exact same suit he did as robin instead of his current weird jetpack one.

A lot of Green Lantern is canon. Except a lot of characters that weren't GL's that were heavily involved have been retconned out, but the stuff they did still has physical effects like place names and appearances, so it leaves gaping questions about how it came to be. Not to mention that a lot of comics just retread old ground. The entirety of Kyle's current training seems dumb, simply because Kyle already channeled rage and fear through his green ring enough to cause planet scale terror attacks and fight off whole armies and multiple JL-tier heroes at once.

The old Teen Titans team got referenced in Outlaws, but the Teen Titans just came together right then. In fact, she couldn't possibly have known at least half the people she apparently did, because Vic went straight into the Justice League and Garth couldn't have been around as beast boy in any real sense in a fashion they could have interacted in.


Geoff johns sucks eggs, he's a prime example of why people shouldn't go hog wild when they get to write their favorite characters. Still mad because of him Wally got put on a bus and Hal is back to being the great white hope. Oh well at least Flash and New Guardian's before they broke up the orignal team are good.

This, a hundred thousand million billion quintillion times over. Green Lantern is treated as his personal playground where old concepts either get mangled and revamped in crazy ways or unceremoniously dropped so he can introduce a cast of OC's so bloated the last six or seven years matches about 50 years worth of GL characters introduced all combined. The way Green Lantern power works has been retconned from it's basic level(I mean beyond just the whole yellow thing), the way the Guardians of the universe do things ignores literally every single thing done with them since their introduction, and if you liked say, Fatality or Boodikka, you're SOL since now they got their personalities rewired entirely by MAGIC SPACE ROCKS. God help you if you like Percival or Torquemada since they're both characters that by all rights should have at least a minor part in what's currently going on but Johns really doesn't like the idea of Lanterns he doesn't like being that powerful or important.

Just... screw that guy. He's an immature manchild who, judging by his twitter, has the attention span of a gnat, the sugar intake of an entire second grade class, and pisses off everyone around him so bad he must have the social graces of Ryan Sohmer.


What's wrong with the new Captain Marvel (sorry "Shazam")? His backups were the best thing about an otherwise awful book.

The problem is up until the last few issues Shazam was a slow paced, groan inducing mess of a story. The current thing they're doing with Black Adam coming off as a hero who can't adapt and doesn't understand the modern world, Billy and co. being broke kids who try to profit while doing this stuff, and the idea that Shazam the wizard wasn't always right, is intriguing. Before that though it was just Billy acting like a total jerk and not endearing himself to the audience in any possible way.


You are aware that the conversation in question begins with the phrase "If we get back to Earth," right? The fact of the matter is that, going by wording, the scene in question literally begins with a paraphrasing of "if we make it out of here."


I kinda admitted I flubbed that scene when reading it. The first panel didn't really click all the way in my brain, I'm gonna just come out and apologise for the error.

Though the problem is that again, the body language and context kinda kill the scene. It could have been handled a bit better none the less.

[Zrak]

I mean, you were the first one to mention that the context is them in Hell, trying to escape from Hell. Really, no better for an "if we make it out" speech than that. I'm not really sure what you're looking for, in terms of body language.

[Avilan the Grey]

So someone wanna explain how Shining KNight possibly being trans is a total betrayal of the character and somehow ruins everything involving the character that happened before and was nothing but a publicity stunt when in no way shape or form has it been played up for plubicity.

But this is not the point! The point is unwanted and unnecesary changes for A) the heck of it or B) for publicity that companies do way too often. It is not the gender issue as such, as I said it would have been just as bad if the character woke up one day and was asian, or white, or black, or martian. I am still pissed that they made Barbara Batgirl again, for example.

Either kill the character off and replace him or her with a successor that has these traits OR as suggested below for once do a proper retirement of the character.

[Scowling Dragon]

For example:

Lets make Superman Black and Wonder Woman a South Korean.

Why? Well why not? You racist or something?

[Kalmarvho]

Lets make Superman Black and Wonder Woman a South Korean

The first one already happened, and as for the second one, no one really pays attention to Wonder Woman (which is a shame, her new book is pretty good) I doubt anyone would really notice if that happened.

[Zrak]

But this is not the point! The point is unwanted and unnecesary changes for A) the heck of it or B) for publicity that companies do way too often. It is not the gender issue as such, as I said it would have been just as bad if the character woke up one day and was asian, or white, or black, or martian. I am still pissed that they made Barbara Batgirl again, for example.

Well, it's been hinted at for Cornell's entire run on the character, so it's not exactly the willy-nilly change that "woke up one day" would imply. While Grant Morrison's run never mentioned the subject, it's not as though it was explicitly stated not to be the case. So, not only was it not the sudden jump that the comparison implies, but it also wasn't really contrary to any established canon as, again, the comparison would imply it to be. That aside, since it's a revelation that's been foreshadowed for the entire run, it doesn't really seem like a change "for the heck of it," and since there wasn't much publicity or any discernible attempt to use it to grab publicity, I don't really see much evidence for it being a publicity stunt, either.
I understand the criticism of that kind of narrative move, and I don't think anyone's arguing that it isn't a common problem in comics. I just also don't really see any evidence, whatsoever, that those criticisms apply here.


Either kill the character off and replace him or her with a successor that has these traits OR as suggested below for once do a proper retirement of the character.
You are aware that this Shining Knight is, in fact, an explicitly separate character from the golden age Sir Justin, right? They took on the same role in different incarnations of the recurring Camelot.

[Fan]

For example:

Lets make Superman Black and Wonder Woman a South Korean.

Why? Well why not? You racist or something?

No, it has nothing to do with race, rather with unjustified changes to the character under the pretense of us rejecting it making us racist.

No, we are allowed to not like a character being changed in an unjustified way regardless of what that change is, because it isn't the fact that it was changed, or what it was changed into, but rather how it was executed, and lacking any meaningful execution, pre explanation, or reason for that change makes it a BAD CHANGE regardless of the change.

[Jayngfet]

I mean, you were the first one to mention that the context is them in Hell, trying to escape from Hell. Really, no better for an "if we make it out" speech than that. I'm not really sure what you're looking for, in terms of body language.

A greater sense of urgency. Again, they kinda just stop moving. Their actions are kind of muted during the scene and there's no real sense from facial expression that they're actually worried or contemplating their surroundings on a subconscious level. They're just completely engrossed in the current conversation.

If they were still moving, and looked more worried about what was going on, and had a more anxious set of facial expressions, it'd actually sell the idea of "if we make it out of here", simply because it would actually look like they were concerned about not being able to.

You can't just say the words, comics are a visual medium, you need to sell it on every level.

[Avilan the Grey]

The first one already happened, and as for the second one, no one really pays attention to Wonder Woman (which is a shame, her new book is pretty good) I doubt anyone would really notice if that happened.

So the whole fanrage about the 1990ies pants and jacket a year ago missed you completely? :smallbiggrin:

[Jayngfet]

So the whole fanrage about the 1990ies pants and jacket a year ago missed you completely? :smallbiggrin:

As far as fanrages go, that was rather understated as I recall it though. I mean it was nothing compared to what I remember over Alan Scott being gay, and a speck compared to the whole H.E.A.T. thing.

[Zrak]

A greater sense of urgency. Again, they kinda just stop moving. Their actions are kind of muted during the scene and there's no real sense from facial expression that they're actually worried or contemplating their surroundings on a subconscious level. They're just completely engrossed in the current conversation.

If they were still moving, and looked more worried about what was going on, and had a more anxious set of facial expressions, it'd actually sell the idea of "if we make it out of here", simply because it would actually look like they were concerned about not being able to.

You can't just say the words, comics are a visual medium, you need to sell it on every level.

I still just really don't see it. For one, I don't really think it's fair to criticize a writing decision because of the artist's failure and, to begin with, you were claiming that the decision was a "lazy retcon" to cash in on "fake controversy," indictments that apply largely to the narrative decision. Secondly, while I'll grant that comics are a visual medium and the visual delivery is important, I'm not sure that I would say something was "terrible" just because I could nitpick the art.

Moreover, I don't really get the complaints you have with the art, for the most part. They "just stop moving" because they hang back from the main group to have a private conversation. Honestly, this seems perfectly reasonable to me and I feel it's generally keeping in tone with that sort of scene. As for facial expressions, I don't even know what sort of expression would indicate subconscious contemplation of one's surroundings and I'm not sure what expression of worry you'd want to see; they don't exactly seem like the type to bite their nails under pressure, you know?

Even granting you that they ought to look more worried, I'd say that the characters having insufficiently furrowed brows is hardly grounds to write off the whole thing as "terrible" and dismiss it as a "lazy" attempt to generate "fake controversy." It fits with the character, has been foreshadowed for the entire run, arose at a reasonable time in the narrative, and hasn't been used as part of any discernible attempt to grab publicity. On the other hand, neither character is making the face from the cover of Home Alone (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/47/Home_alone.jpg/220px-Home_alone.jpg) and, apparently, that makes the entire thing absolutely terrible and proves that, despite all evidence to the contrary, it was entirely engineered to generate controversy. I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.

[Jayngfet]

The artists failure isn't just on him though. The writer would have written the script and had the major hand in choosing layout and how things actually go down on paper. They don't just do separate things and then come together in the end to paste it all together so much as they ideally have to work together to make something good. A failure on one is a failure on both.

[Kalmarvho]

So the whole fanrage about the 1990ies pants and jacket a year ago missed you completely? :smallbiggrin:

That was an even split. Some people were like PANTS, NAHT MAH WAHNDER WAHMAN and the others were all like I AM NOW GLAD THAT HER ASS IS NOT BARE

[Zrak]

Well, I mean, how much will a storyboard or layout really determine the exact expression on the face that ends up in the panel? The fact that they hung back from the group, sure, but as I said, that makes perfect sense to me. They're going to have a private conversation and they're perfectly capable of taking care of themselves for the minute-or-less that conversation would take. Even with a writer's notes, how the expressions actually turn out is largely up to the artist.

That said, no word on how the fact that they don't look as worried as you'd like ruins every other part of a long-developed and generally sensible storyline and proves that it was just a publicity stunt? I was hoping you'd at least tell me what sort of face a person made to show that they are contemplating their surroundings on a subconscious level.

[turkishproverb]

That was an even split. Some people were like PANTS, NAHT MAH WAHNDER WAHMAN and the others were all like I AM NOW GLAD THAT HER ASS IS NOT BARE

I didn't like the jacket, but enjoyed the rest of the costume, personally.

[Kalmarvho]

The jacket was maybe a little too Superboy, yeah, but the rest was pretty okay. It'd have been funny if they just went with the Nextwave approach and just threw dusters over their original costumes.

[Jayngfet]

Well, I mean, how much will a storyboard or layout really determine the exact expression on the face that ends up in the panel?


A whole lot. Storyboards for comics and animation tend to go into way more detail than film and live action TV. The fine detailing may change and there might be some editing but at the end of the day the script and storyboard are things that have to get followed. It's just how the process works.




The fact that they hung back from the group, sure, but as I said, that makes perfect sense to me. They're going to have a private conversation and they're perfectly capable of taking care of themselves for the minute-or-less that conversation would take. Even with a writer's notes, how the expressions actually turn out is largely up to the artist.


Yeah, but again, it kind of kills the sense of danger for them to just kinda stop for even a minute or less. This is supposed to be hell after all.

Though at this point even though I think you're completely and totally wrong I'm not budging on my stance it's not worth the effort since you clearly won't change your opinion.



That said, no word on how the fact that they don't look as worried as you'd like ruins every other part of a long-developed and generally sensible storyline and proves that it was just a publicity stunt? I was hoping you'd at least tell me what sort of face a person made to show that they are contemplating their surroundings on a subconscious level.

It's not a thing that ruins the whole story, but it brings the whole thing down.

It's not the art that makes it a publicity stunt, it's the fact that it was done at all at this specific time in relation to a whole bunch of stuff done by DC in general spread throughout so many other writers. A scene can fail for multiple reasons, and this did.

In terms of expression, direction of the eyes, tenseness of the brow, and how the mouth acts tends to deal with most of this. There's no checking their surroundings, no real idea they're stressed or anxious about what's going on around them, and no consideration for context. It's a complete failing on the artist and editor, and it causes a failing in the comic as a whole.

[Tiki Snakes]

Speaking as someone who doesn't know either the former incarnations of Shining Knight or the new character of the same codename and hasn't read the comic, I'm going to way in with my 2cents again at this point.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially on subjective issues such as whether they felt a scene worked or whether they enjoyed a storyline. In that sense, there is no real right or wrong here.

But on the other hand, Jayngfet, I can't say I'm convinced by your logic or your arguments on the subject. On balance, I find I suspect that I fall more on the side that holds that the whole thing was not a major issue, was not handled spectacularly badly and was not played for controversy.

I must say, if nothing else this discussion does make me curious enough to at least consider looking into it further. Of course, that would require hunting down the appropriate comic to start the plot chain off on and so on so it's not very likely to actually happen.

[Man on Fire]

Well, it's not like it's a changed character. It's an entirely different person from an entirely different time period. Just using the same, I don't know, Legacy/Codename/General Identity that some other guy used at some point.

I thought that happened like, all the time in DC?

In that case Fan's argument is completely invaild, because we're talking here about two different people.


I don't think you understand how niche comics are, Superman and Batman being outsold by ARCHIE DIGEST regularly. Nor do you understand how marketing is done. They market things to age demographics, and interests with occasional nods to nationality due to a modern global approach focused in the areas of highest purchase, but again, irrelevant.

Again - yoo have no evidence they were ripping Fate/Stay Night, as far as I'm concered you made that up. Until you show me somebody admitting F/SN was inspiration, I'm not going to treatyour claims seriously.


My example wasn't given to make me an authority, it was to prove I don't have prejudice, which I don't, against anything with the exception of Prejudice, and unabashed hatred.

Except that having dated transsexuals does not prove anything, just like Tony Harris being married doesn't prove he's not mysgonist, only that he has double standards for women from his einvorment (family and friends) and all other women.


I'm fine with changes being made so long as they construct a decent character.. which it hasn't, which while debatable is something I am allowed to say however "stuck in the past" I am. I am allowed to dislike new things, new things are not always better,

you are. You lose that right when you're ignoring the fact that new SK is a decent character, just because it's not your's SK. Which I belive you're doing.


the "Aryan ideal" character that Shining Knight was represented a struggle of a displaced man throughout time, and someone who had difficulty adjusting to modern ideas and culture. It was a solid character design

Nothing from that couldn't be done with 7S Shining Knight.


The new one creates a different character entirely, literally destroying everything it was before, to replace it with this publicity stunt.

Considering that, as we already estabilished, apparently your Shinning Knight and Demon Knights Shinnign Knight are two different people I have to say that people were saying the same about John Stewart, Guy Gardner, Kyle Rayner, Wally West, Cassandra Cain and Stephanie Bronw and each of them has grew on those fans. It's kinda har to take these


There is no reason to say that this is a dislike for new things, no, the old does not need to move over for the new, and sometimes what came before was better.

By your logic, Twilight is empirically written better than The Lord of the Rings, and "The Last Airbender" is an infinitely more deep, and psychologically compelling story than The Lord of the Flies.

You said yourself that you don't see anything wrong with disliking all change. My post and what I wrote was reaction to that. Now you are changing your tune and attributting to me something I did not said to you.

I will always firlmy belive that people who dislike all change are delusional. That however does not mean I support all change.I myself support only change that I think was done well and I do nto automatically assume superiority of new things over the old. You try to slap on me a label, just because I like some changes you are insisting I like all change, which is illogical.

Also, these comparisions are ridiculous, it's impossible to compare things so different than those you provided in your examples. They aren't even the same genres.

Also, how it is that when somebody does comparisions like that he always takes only the crap from side he doesn't like and only the best things from the side he likes. How would you feel if I'd do the opposite. Why not compare Child's Play with A Cabin in the Woods? Or Armageddon with Sinister? All those crappy Conan books with America's Gods? You are accusing me of thinking all new things are good, but so far you have only showed me arguments that suggest you thing that all old things are good and all new ones are crap.

i tell you something - I'm a big Nostalgia Critic fan. And if that show had taught me something it's that "good old days" produced as much manure as the present. It just stinked in different way.


Just because they're "newer", and they present different characters than white men. There's nothing wrong with a character being any ethnicity, gender, or identity so long as it's presented well.. which it isn't in this case at all.

It makes no sense, and has no place applied to modern media.

For me it has a lot of sense and it indeed has a place. As far as I'm concerned you come to me as confusing "presented well" with "not done to the characters I like".

And I tell you something - show me one good story with old Shinning Knight. because I had never see any, except that one episode of JLU showcasting superheroes without powers. And even there he was overshadowed by everybody else. meanwhile I'm enjoying every issue of Demon Knights.


Lets make Superman Black and Wonder Woman a South Korean.

Hey, let's throw in some demand out of nowhere and try to present it as a logical consequence of issue we're talking about.

[ThiagoMartell]

Since we are complaining about the New 52:


What the hell have they done with Tim Drake and Wally West?
Did Stephanie Brown even exist?
I remember Starfire mentioning Donna Troy. How the hell does she fit the new Wonder Woman mythos?
Why is Cassie a THIEF, for crying out loud?!
The Red Robin suit is mind numbingly ugly
Why did they undo the most defining moment in Barbara Gordon's career?
Before 52, why did they even BRING BRUCE BACK?!


You know, editors and authors keep complaining about how fans don't accept new characters taking the place of old ones and all that crap. DC had successfully pulled that out with several characters - Wally West was Flash for ~20 years, Cassie Cain was finally a Batgirl that has it's own defining traits instead of being "Robin, but a girl" even **** Grayson becoming Batman was widely well accepted. Then... they undo everything, even reviving a character that has been dead for 20 years to do so. Oh, and that character is responsible for all of the other changes, in-universe. Thanks, DC, you have caused me to hate Barry Allen.

[Man on Fire]

@Jayngfet - have you ever seen a comics book script? because I have read scripts from Warren Ellis, Alan Moore, Craig Kyle & Christ Yost, Brian Bendis and others and I must tell you - they are not, in fact, the great, ultra-detailed desribtions of everything on every panel, the levels of details vary, sometimes even Alan Moore, who puts horrid amount of details, just says "there is a courtroom full of superheroes. Draw whoever comes to your mind, have a blast with it" and that's it. Writers give a lot to artist's imagination. Comics are not some sort of labor works for artists, where writers control everything.

[Jayngfet]

@Jayngfet - have you ever seen a comics book script? because I have read scripts from Warren Ellis, Alan Moore, Craig Kyle & Christ Yost, Brian Bendis and others and I must tell you - they are not, in fact, the great, ultra-detailed desribtions of everything on every panel, the levels of details vary, sometimes even Alan Moore, who puts horrid amount of details, just says "there is a courtroom full of superheroes. Draw whoever comes to your mind, have a blast with it" and that's it. Writers give a lot to artist's imagination. Comics are not some sort of labor works for artists, where writers control everything.

I have. While they tend to vary, most of the one's I've seen don't just say on every panel "do whatever the hell you want". There is, after all, a BIG difference between closeup emotional reactions and large group shots.





Considering that, as we already estabilished, apparently your Shinning Knight and Demon Knights Shinnign Knight are two different people I have to say that people were saying the same about John Stewart, Guy Gardner, Kyle Rayner, Wally West, Cassandra Cain and Stephanie Bronw and each of them has grew on those fans. It's kinda har to take these

If we're going by New 52, then all those characters have become either Awful or non entities.

Or at least, that's what I'm assuming. This statement is so badly worded and cuts off at the end so I have a hard time deciphering what it is you're actually saying.





What the hell have they done with Tim Drake and Wally West?
Did Stephanie Brown even exist?
I remember Starfire mentioning Donna Troy. How the hell does she fit the new Wonder Woman mythos?
Why is Cassie a THIEF, for crying out loud?!
The Red Robin suit is mind numbingly ugly
Why did they undo the most defining moment in Barbara Gordon's career?
Before 52, why did they even BRING BRUCE BACK?!


You know, editors and authors keep complaining about how fans don't accept new characters taking the place of old ones and all that crap. DC had successfully pulled that out with several characters - Wally West was Flash for ~20 years, Cassie Cain was finally a Batgirl that has it's own defining traits instead of being "Robin, but a girl" even **** Grayson becoming Batman was widely well accepted. Then... they undo everything, even reviving a character that has been dead for 20 years to do so. Oh, and that character is responsible for all of the other changes, in-universe. Thanks, DC, you have caused me to hate Barry Allen.

Tim now a failed athalete who couldn't even get any actual information on Batman, and isn't even Tim DRAKE anymore.

Wally doesn't exist anymore, even though Bart does for random unexplained reasons.

Steph is so gone it isn't even funny. I think by this point it's impossible to spin that situation in a way that DOESN'T make DC editorial look like petty morons playing favorites.

Donna can't really exist without raising a whole lot of questions. But then I think Starfire remembers(or Roy remembers for her) teaming up with Beastboy and Cyborg and that raises a whole bunch of continuity issues on it's own.

Same reason Guy Gardner is a failed cop. Someone probably thought it was more exciting and nobody was able to stop him.

The Red Robin suit would be better if it wasn't some weird inbetween for his regular Robin suit and the old Red Robin suit. It keeps all the busy looking details and none of the elegance.

Probably the same reason they undid all of Steph and Cass's stuff and are putting Barb in way more stuff than they did either of them: To assert the idea of Barbra Gordon as being this super important "one true batgirl" thing. Hence why she gets to make appearances in a bunch of other books and have her own team in addition to an ongoing.

Bruce coming back struck me as an always planned thing nobody thought wasn't happening.
It's a sad thing when you can't convince someone an A list character can die but there you go.

[Man on Fire]

I have. While they tend to vary, most of the one's I've seen don't just say on every panel "do whatever the hell you want". There is, after all, a BIG difference between closeup emotional reactions and large group shots.

Still doesn't change the fact that I doubt Paul Cornell gave some ultra-detailed describtion - he seems one of those writers who allows his artist a lot of creative freedom.

Ad quite frankly, I don't even consider that page to be a screw up. For me everything flew naturally in that scene and body language was subtle as on place. Sorry, but for me you're nitpicking for the sake of proving you're right.


If we're going by New 52, then all those characters have become either Awful or non entities.

Or at least, that's what I'm assuming. This statement is so badly worded and cuts off at the end so I have a hard time deciphering what it is you're actually saying.

I was trying to say I cannot take those complaints seriously, because of how many other replacement characters became succesfull. Somehow I ate last few words.

Seriously, tell me, why should I take seriously people complaing that 'they replaced Shinning Knight with transsexual woman"? Before them there were people complaining that "they replaced Cassandra Cain with a bimbo", before them people complaining "they gave Excalibur to Muslim woman". Before them popular complaint was "they replaced Ted Kord with mexican teenager", before - "they replaced Barbara Gordon with Asian killer", even before - "they replaced Hal Jordan with a new guy". Currently all of them won the crowd over to the point that what was once fan demand - return of the original characters to their roles - is meet with fan outrage.

And I still haven't seen a single good old Shinning Knight story. I should be asking for good stories with him that would require him to be square-jawed, bodybuilding-type blue-eyed blonde-haired white guy, but I think finding any good story with him will be hard enough for you guys.

[Kalmarvho]

Since we are complaining about the New 52:


What the hell have they done with Tim Drake and Wally West?
Did Stephanie Brown even exist?
I remember Starfire mentioning Donna Troy. How the hell does she fit the new Wonder Woman mythos?
Why is Cassie a THIEF, for crying out loud?!
The Red Robin suit is mind numbingly ugly
Why did they undo the most defining moment in Barbara Gordon's career?
Before 52, why did they even BRING BRUCE BACK?!


Those are all rather minor problems that are symptomatic of a bigger issue: that editorial has no idea what it's doing.

On the other hand, this is what Dan Didio has to say about the concept of editorial mandate:


Let’s just discuss the role of the editor for one second. One expression that I find humorous is “editorial mandate.” I feel that expression gets thrown around a great deal. The role of the editor is to assemble and be responsible for whatever project they are in charge of. Whatever talent they hire, that is an editorial mandate. They choose to hire that talent. The amount of control they put on that talent, whether they allow them to work completely free of any editorial notes, or not, is an editorial mandate, because that’s what the editor chooses to do. If the editor decides to give notes, that’s an editorial mandate, because that’s what the editor chooses to do, because he or she, at the end of the day, is responsible for that position.

So anything that winds up on a page, whether a note is given, when a phone call is made – anything that is assembled on from any member of the talent – from the person that writes it, to the art team, to the colorist, to the letterer, to the people working on final production – it’s all editorially controlled. That is our job.

So when you say “editorial mandate,” please understand that whatever book you hold in your hand, at the end of the day, is there because of an editorial mandate to create that book. End of story.

I find it humorous because it gives the impression that no one is doing anything, other than trafficking paper. We are not in our positions to traffic paper. We are here to put out the best product possible, and everyone works very hard to do that. To say that we don’t do anything is an insult to every one of the members of my staff, and I prefer that everyone realize that, if a fan is holding a product in their hands, there is an editor in charge whose job it was to make sure that product reached them. That’s what our job is.

And how it’s assembled is the choice of the individuals who are working to the best of their ability as they are assembling that book.

[ThiagoMartell]

Tim now a failed athalete who couldn't even get any actual information on Batman, and isn't even Tim DRAKE anymore.
Wait, what?! DAMN YOU DC!!!

[Cheesegear]

This is relevant. (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/07/marvel-increases-dominance-of-comics-marketshare-in-november-2012/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter) It seems that not a lot of people are impressed with New 52 and are jumping ship.

[ManuelSacha]

I didn't get that feeling.

However, as an X-Men fan, I do get the feeling that after giving the Claremonts, the Morrisons and the Whedons a chance, we're going back to the soul-less, marketable comics making.

And that's terrible.

[Jayngfet]

This is relevant. (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/12/07/marvel-increases-dominance-of-comics-marketshare-in-november-2012/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter) It seems that not a lot of people are impressed with New 52 and are jumping ship.

Yeah, but it's important to keep in mind even that information shows that the market is rapidly shrinking. Just checking around on other sites confirm that the averages are dropping.

Events are ...probably going to stop working, at least on a small scale and certainly for DC. I mean Green Lantern has become an event conga line, and we already know ahead of time that right after the third army gets beat a NEW SUPER BAD GUY shows up, beats up the most powerful lanterns, introduces a new guy, and the whole cycle repeats again.

Comics are dying, quickly. No amount of reboots can help.

[ThiagoMartell]

Comics are not dying. The way DC and Marvel do stuff is flawed, that is all. The biggest problem is distribution, after all.

[Jayngfet]

Comics are not dying. The way DC and Marvel do stuff is flawed, that is all. The biggest problem is distribution, after all.

Yeah, and the distribution goes through Diamond. Diamond in turn is the distributor for the bulk of comics companies even outside the big two. Diamond pretty much has a monopoly on the whole thing outside maybe newsstand copies and market isle digests like Archie.

It's not just Marvel and DC so much as it is an industry wide issue.

[ThiagoMartell]

Yeah, and the distribution goes through Diamond. Diamond in turn is the distributor for the bulk of comics companies even outside the big two. Diamond pretty much has a monopoly on the whole thing outside maybe newsstand copies and market isle digests like Archie.

It's not just Marvel and DC so much as it is an industry wide issue.

There is a crisis about american comics in the US. That's it.
Comics are not dying, because comics are a lot bigger than Marvel, DC and whatever else Diamond distributes.
Turma da Mônica Jovem sells 400k copies every month. One Piece sells around 30kk every year. No, comics are not dying.

[Avilan the Grey]

There is a crisis about american comics in the US. That's it.
Comics are not dying, because comics are a lot bigger than Marvel, DC and whatever else Diamond distributes.
Turma da Mônica Jovem sells 400k copies every month. One Piece sells around 30kk every year. No, comics are not dying.

Heh. DC rather reminds me of Nokia (the cell phone company). Every year for the last... 15 years they have released a new model that nobody wants, with operating systems nobody likes, and loses more and more money. Yet they claim to do thorough market surveys before releasing each model...

DC does the same thing. Their reboots and retcons come at a closer and closer interval, now nearly down to a once-a-year basis. Yet they fail to attract new readers and bleeds old ones at an increasing rate.

I suspect, for both companies (Nokia and DC) panic has started to set in and they nolonger has the ability to think straight, so to speak.

[Jayngfet]

There is a crisis about american comics in the US. That's it.
Comics are not dying, because comics are a lot bigger than Marvel, DC and whatever else Diamond distributes.
Turma da Mônica Jovem sells 400k copies every month. One Piece sells around 30kk every year. No, comics are not dying.

American comics in the US is, unfortunatley, what most people generally think of as "comics". It's what the thread was based around, it's what everyone here has been talking about almost exclusivley, and it's been the subject of pretty much every thread labeled as "comics".

It's unfair, but that's how it goes. We aren't usually talking about Manga or French stuff or Webcomics, even though all those have amazing work.

Also, speaking of "not thinking straight", has anyone else seen the leaked bits of Avengers Arena yet? It's been a joke among the marvel fandom for a while, but actually seeing a few of the actual panels and looking at who gets killed off in what way makes it very clear exactly how bad everything must be with Marvel. I mean if nothing else, they're hiring writers who suck that badly at dialogue and internal consistency.

[Man on Fire]

That's not quite fair to judge the company based on one comics that has suckiness encoded deep in it's premise. I'm for one, am waiting for Young Avengers.

Also, what really pisses me off:
1) DC fired Gail Simone. Via E-MAIL! E! MAIL! Seriously. I hated her Batgirl run, but c'mon, she deserves more.
2) Also, DC apparently fired Karen Berger from the position of Vertigo's editor-in-chief. Person who helped bring to life Sandman, Lucifer, Fables, American Vampire, DMZ and Hellblazer

It seems that after fans demanded them to hire more women Dan Didio's answer was to fire all remaining women. And considering what ridiculous amount of over-exposure Barbara Gordon and John Constantine are getting, he tries to show he don't need people who were vital in making them popular in the first place a little too much.

[Aotrs Commander]

Also, speaking of "not thinking straight", has anyone else seen the leaked bits of Avengers Arena yet? It's been a joke among the marvel fandom for a while, but actually seeing a few of the actual panels and looking at who gets killed off in what way makes it very clear exactly how bad everything must be with Marvel. I mean if nothing else, they're hiring writers who suck that badly at dialogue and internal consistency.

My frag. I don't even know who that character was, but I feel for their fans, because that looked about as pointless, gruesome and arbitary as they can get.

It really is just and excuse for completely gratuituos character deaths, isn't it?

Who the heck even wants to read a comic like that?

The really sad part is, I'm feeling less and less sorry that my Marvel stuff is coming to an end, given that what they're putting out is becoming unmigitated crap that makes the Stupid XTREME of the ninties look grand by comparison; at least that was so stupid it was something you could take the rip out of... Most of the modern crap stuff just feels frankly flat-out mean-spirited.

Are the DC and Marvel editorial trying to make their comics suck so bad they go out of business? Because if it's fracking off otherwise easy-to-please (I mean, I like the SW prequels, fer cryin' out loud!) people like me, they must be going the right way about it...

[Forum Explorer]

Yeah, and the distribution goes through Diamond. Diamond in turn is the distributor for the bulk of comics companies even outside the big two. Diamond pretty much has a monopoly on the whole thing outside maybe newsstand copies and market isle digests like Archie.

It's not just Marvel and DC so much as it is an industry wide issue.

I don't know about that. The new My Little Pony comic got something like 100K sales without any issues and what's more from what I've heard the readers really enjoyed the comic.


I think it's more a quality thing from both Marvel and DC. With DC being worse then Marvel. For the longest time (and still now) those two were the vast majority of sales but now their sales are dropping and I suspect sales of other comics are rising. Overall the industry is shrinking though because there isn't a perfect transfer.

[comicshorse]

Also, what really pisses me off:
1) DC fired Gail Simone. Via E-MAIL! E! MAIL! Seriously. I hated her Batgirl run, but c'mon, she deserves more.
2) Also, DC apparently fired Karen Berger from the position of Vertigo's editor-in-chief. Person who helped bring to life Sandman, Lucifer, Fables, American Vampire, DMZ and Hellblazer

It seems that after fans demanded them to hire more women Dan Didio's answer was to fire all remaining women. And considering what ridiculous amount of over-exposure Barbara Gordon and John Constantine are getting, he tries to show he don't need people who were vital in making them popular in the first place a little too much.

Excuse me I must just go and cast a curse on DC :smallfurious:

With Simone leaving Batgirl and Cornell leaving Demon Knight and Hellblazer being cancelled I'll be down to only three DC comics ( Fables, Fairest and Batman Inc.) and up to a few years ago I'd considered myself a DC fan

[tbok1992]

Meh, I'm just waiting for this whole bullhonkey to collapse in on itself so that the people in editorial screwing up can be fired and somebody can come in to fix the whole mess. Because, that's the way these things tend to go from my knowlege of comics history, and hopefully this era of the New 52 will go the way of Heroes Reborn and The Clone Saga as "The dark times that shall be never spoken of again, except fro the parts that didn't suck."

And I do agree it is total BS what DC's done to its legacy characters. And keep in mind, I'm the sort of guy who loves bringing back weird old Silver Age stuff.

[Kalmarvho]

Also, speaking of "not thinking straight", has anyone else seen the leaked bits of Avengers Arena yet? It's been a joke among the marvel fandom for a while, but actually seeing a few of the actual panels and looking at who gets killed off in what way makes it very clear exactly how bad everything must be with Marvel. I mean if nothing else, they're hiring writers who suck that badly at dialogue and internal consistency.

It's Hopeless, he's kind of a bloody hack.

The running theory is that the entire thing is a VR sim, which is one of the only explanations for why Arcade is now a plausible threat.

The other explanation is that the writer is an Arcade fanboy, which he is.

[Jayngfet]

I don't know about that. The new My Little Pony comic got something like 100K sales without any issues and what's more from what I've heard the readers really enjoyed the comic.


I think it's more a quality thing from both Marvel and DC. With DC being worse then Marvel. For the longest time (and still now) those two were the vast majority of sales but now their sales are dropping and I suspect sales of other comics are rising. Overall the industry is shrinking though because there isn't a perfect transfer.

Yeah, but the MLP comic was a first issue with a bunch of variants. If it still pulls in even 90% of those numbers by like, issue 5 or 6, I'll give you that in and of itself as a feat.

[Avilan the Grey]

That's not quite fair to judge the company based on one comics that has suckiness encoded deep in it's premise. I'm for one, am waiting for Young Avengers.

Also, what really pisses me off:
1) DC fired Gail Simone. Via E-MAIL! E! MAIL! Seriously. I hated her Batgirl run, but c'mon, she deserves more.
2) Also, DC apparently fired Karen Berger from the position of Vertigo's editor-in-chief. Person who helped bring to life Sandman, Lucifer, Fables, American Vampire, DMZ and Hellblazer

It seems that after fans demanded them to hire more women Dan Didio's answer was to fire all remaining women. And considering what ridiculous amount of over-exposure Barbara Gordon and John Constantine are getting, he tries to show he don't need people who were vital in making them popular in the first place a little too much.

Wow. I will now officially stop reading DC comics. Gail was my favorite writer, and the reason she took Batgirl was basically "I don't agree with doing this, but if anyone should do it, I should".

Can someone who is better than me at these things let me know where she will be working so I can pick up whatever comic she does instead in the future?

[ThiagoMartell]

Wow. I will now officially stop reading DC comics. Gail was my favorite writer, and the reason she took Batgirl was basically "I don't agree with doing this, but if anyone should do it, I should".

Can someone who is better than me at these things let me know where she will be working so I can pick up whatever comic she does instead in the future?

Man, it would be pretty cool if Marvel hired her to do Runaways.
Oh, wait, they're getting killed in Avengers Arena. Nevermind.

[Jayngfet]

My frag. I don't even know who that character was, but I feel for their fans, because that looked about as pointless, gruesome and arbitary as they can get.

It really is just and excuse for completely gratuituos character deaths, isn't it?

Who the heck even wants to read a comic like that?

The really sad part is, I'm feeling less and less sorry that my Marvel stuff is coming to an end, given that what they're putting out is becoming unmigitated crap that makes the Stupid XTREME of the ninties look grand by comparison; at least that was so stupid it was something you could take the rip out of... Most of the modern crap stuff just feels frankly flat-out mean-spirited.

Are the DC and Marvel editorial trying to make their comics suck so bad they go out of business? Because if it's fracking off otherwise easy-to-please (I mean, I like the SW prequels, fer cryin' out loud!) people like me, they must be going the right way about it...

Hack writing more than anything else I think.

This is them literally just aping Battle Royale and Hunger Games as blatantly as possible(including variant covers), without understanding the reasoning that goes into the stories themselves. "Kids fight each other to the death" doesn't really work in universe, and it doesn't work thematically either.

[Forum Explorer]

Yeah, but the MLP comic was a first issue with a bunch of variants. If it still pulls in even 90% of those numbers by like, issue 5 or 6, I'll give you that in and of itself as a feat.

Fair enough. I suppose we'll have to wait and see for the MLP comic.

As for the other matter, well that would take a lot of research that I haven't done to see if it's correct or not.

[Selrahc]

This is them literally just aping Battle Royale and Hunger Games as blatantly as possible(including variant covers), without understanding the reasoning that goes into the stories themselves. "Kids fight each other to the death" doesn't really work in universe, and it doesn't work thematically either.

Ugh. You know one of the areas of Marvel I've kept up with more than most is the "Teen-heroes". Young Avengers, Runaways and Avengers Academy were all top notch series at one point. Fresh heroes dealing with the scary proposition of living up to the legacy of the Supers was fertile ground for storytelling.

The thought of them just doing some sort of young hero genocide is very sad. I'm holding out hope that it turns out to be retconned at the end of the story.

I'm kind of glad at least Kate Bishop has probably escaped, to go and be a co-star in Hawkeye. Which is an awesome comic that you should all be reading.

[Tiki Snakes]

Ugh. You know one of the areas of Marvel I've kept up with more than most is the "Teen-heroes". Young Avengers, Runaways and Avengers Academy were all top notch series at one point. Fresh heroes dealing with the scary proposition of living up to the legacy of the Supers was fertile ground for storytelling.

Well, the problem for this is that, without time passing in a linear matter and characters aging, you can't sustainably introduce new characters and they have no legend to live up to, because the x-men only formed a few months ago.

Of course, I don't think the answer to this is to stick all the new characters through the Thunderdome till you only have one or two left as much as it is to, you know, allow time to meaningfully progress. But what the hell do I know?

[Aotrs Commander]

Ugh. You know one of the areas of Marvel I've kept up with more than most is the "Teen-heroes". Young Avengers, Runaways and Avengers Academy were all top notch series at one point. Fresh heroes dealing with the scary proposition of living up to the legacy of the Supers was fertile ground for storytelling.

The thought of them just doing some sort of young hero genocide is very sad. I'm holding out hope that it turns out to be retconned at the end of the story.

Considering they kind of have a history with this sort of thing (see New X Men around M-Day...) I wouldn't bet on it.

[Wolf_Haley]

It's Arcade, it'll most likely all be a simulation in the end and they've already dropped hints Arena isn't what it seems, book still sucks though.

And thank god Gail is off Batgirl, the title sucked hard with her under it.

[ThiagoMartell]

And thank god Gail is off Batgirl, the title sucked hard with her under it.
No one should be allowed to write Barbara Gordon except for Gail Simone.
You could disagree, but you would be wrong. :smalltongue:

[Avilan the Grey]

It's Arcade, it'll most likely all be a simulation in the end and they've already dropped hints Arena isn't what it seems, book still sucks though.

And thank god Gail is off Batgirl, the title sucked hard with her under it.

Let's hope so.

Also: No, you got it backwards. As stated above, she was dead set AGAINST removing Steph and cure Barbara. But as she said, if she hadn't written it, someone else would have. At least she tried to limit the suckiness.

[Jayngfet]

So I skimmed Avengers Arena in the store.

Good god, it's the most superficial, fanwanking, self indulgent pile of crap that's ever come out of Marvel. Every single action done is out of character. All the diologue is the most mindless drivel that's ever been written in a cheap single issue floppy, and in general I felt so angry I wanted to physically harm something after. I didn't even LIKE anybody who got killed off this time and I feel this emotional!

The one solace I had was that of all the comics sold that day at my local store, Arena was the only one that had a whole stack that looked 99% untouched. NOBODY wanted this crock.

[Selrahc]

Well, the problem for this is that, without time passing in a linear matter and characters aging, you can't sustainably introduce new characters and they have no legend to live up to, because the x-men only formed a few months ago.

The telescoping timeline goes back further than that. It probably advanced around 15-20 years. Spidey, Human Torch and the original X-Men started off as precocious 15 year olds, and became a group of 30somethings.

15 years of heroism is a long legacy. Even ignoring things like the Invaders, which carry things back further. That's basically the entire lifetime of the heroes in question. As far back as they can remember ther have been real superheroes. And there definitely exists the possibility that a bunch of 15-18 year old heroes will age up enough to "Grow up".

[ThiagoMartell]

Mettle dies. Freaking Mettle dies. Arcade killed motherfrakking Mettle.

[Jayngfet]

Mettle dies. Freaking Mettle dies. Arcade killed motherfrakking Mettle.

With one hit.

Which is what gets me.

Mettle didn't die in an epic battle. He didn't even have a meaningful death since X-23 apparently kills Hazmat a month later.

[Wolf_Haley]

No one should be allowed to write Barbara Gordon except for Gail Simone.
You could disagree, but you would be wrong. :smalltongue:
I like Simone, I like her alot, and alot of it probably had to do with editorial but the way she wrote Babs was as a know it all smart ass who was neither intelligent nor funny. The book was bad and none of the atagonist were interesting, and I still can't get over that stupid "You were always meant to be Batgirl" line. The run was barely mediocre and I'm ****ing glad it's over, other than Secret Six and her creator owned things her stuff lately has been subpar. Still trying to think of which was lamer, her Batgirl run or her Wonder Woman run.

[Avilan the Grey]

Still trying to think of which was lamer, her Batgirl run or her Wonder Woman run.

WHAT???

That was the best WW run EVER. Not ironic here.

[Wolf_Haley]

What? Better than Rucka? Better than Pereze? Better than Marz? *****, you must be on some good **** to think it's up there with those

[Man on Fire]

I like Simone, I like her alot, and alot of it probably had to do with editorial but the way she wrote Babs was as a know it all smart ass who was neither intelligent nor funny. The book was bad and none of the atagonist were interesting, and I still can't get over that stupid "You were always meant to be Batgirl" line. The run was barely mediocre and I'm ****ing glad it's over, other than Secret Six and her creator owned things her stuff lately has been subpar. Still trying to think of which was lamer, her Batgirl run or her Wonder Woman run.

I dorpped her Batgirl run after the first issue, but the point here isn't if it was good or bad, but that she simply deserved more than being fired via E-Mail. New editor didn't had the decency to talk to her in person, which is just disgusting.

Also, you shouldn't tell somebody that they're on drugs if they like things you hate. You can dislike their opinion, but that doesn't give you right to pass a judgment on them.

[Avilan the Grey]

What? Better than Rucka? Better than Pereze? Better than Marz? *****, you must be on some good **** to think it's up there with those

I like those kind of stories. Lighthearted, lampshade-hanging. "Second most famous chest in the world".

The writing had me LOLing at least once an issue.


I dorpped her Batgirl run after the first issue, but the point here isn't if it was good or bad, but that she simply deserved more than being fired via E-Mail. New editor didn't had the decency to talk to her in person, which is just disgusting.

Also, you shouldn't tell somebody that they're on drugs if they like things you hate. You can dislike their opinion, but that doesn't give you right to pass a judgment on them.

I dropped it after the 5th issue. But I think the problem is more with the New 52 in general; I dropped almost all my favorite books after the New 52 started after 1-5 issues. (The only one I liked is Supergirl, mostly because I really liked her introduction and origin story).

And yes, I definitely agree with your second paragraph. :smallsmile: