pym
Reservist Avenger
"About 20 yards to my right…"
Posts: 200
|
Post by pym on Sept 15, 2012 18:15:10 GMT -5
Change is imminent. Change affects us.
Where did comics change...for good or bad...for you?
There are many.
For me...there was an issue of The Defenders
...where a definite wind of change was starting. It had something to do with Xenogenesis...
I found this to be outside of the safe comfort zone that comics had provided me.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 15, 2012 20:34:27 GMT -5
Interesting question Pym.
I think there were actually points, more than a point. The first step was when the X titles got so complicated I needed a refresher course before reading each issue. That was the first time that reading certain books felt like a chore I had to get through rather than something to easerly anticipate. However, since I was never as much of an X fan as an Avenger/Spidey fan, that was only a small dip.
The dip turned into a major dropoff shortly before "The Crossing." It wasn't just in Avengers either. Right about that time, Marvel seemed so desperate too try new things but none of them were working and the books had the wrong feel. This was about the time of the incredibly awful "Force Works" series too. The wrong direction continued and grew worse with "The Crossing" itself and then came "Onslaught." As horrible of a misstep as "Heroes Reborn" was, you can actually see why Marvel might have felt they needed something drastic because things were pretty bad for a year or more before that.
Then Busiek and Perez returned the heroes to their glory and all was right with the world again.
Then came.... well, you know who... But, in all fairness - all the blame can't be placed on he-who-shall-not-be-named. The raping of Gwen Stacy (By the writer moreso than by Norman Osborne), the million and one convoluted crossovers, the unspeakably infuriating "One More Day", the unfortunate destruction of characters from the New Warriors to the Scarlet Witch, and the constant changing of the status quo was actually caused by a multitude of writers.
But again, I'd say the trouble started just before "The Crossing"
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Sept 16, 2012 4:27:40 GMT -5
The first step was when the X titles got so complicated I needed a refresher course before reading each issue. That was the first time that reading certain books felt like a chore I had to get through rather than something to easerly anticipate. That definitely mirrors my experience. A simpler way to put it from my perspective would be 'after Jim Shooter was sacked'. Over the next few years things started to unravel as there wasn't a strong editorial hand to keep the big name creative talents in check and stop them from doing stupid things. The result was that the Marvel Universe as a cogent unity ultimately fell apart. Claremont's was a particularly notable case as his pulp sci-fi leanings came to the fore and rather than merely giving the X titles a distinctive extra frisson it actually came to dominate them (eg Psylocke suddenly being turned into a ninja assassin and even being put into a Japanese body. WTF? Why would you do that rather than just invent a new Japanese telepathic ninja character -which in itself wasn't a bad idea?). Instead of the focus on character and lifestyle that had made the X Men under him so memorable, the titles became an increasingly convoluted, improbable, and exploitative series of 'surprises' and shocks. Sadly, they were not alone. The creative freedom of that era produced some great stuff too (the Nocenti/Romita Jr Daredevils from around then are amongst my favourite comics ever) but the long term effects were devastating IMO. Another facet of that era was the emergence of a style of art I really didn't like, namely Jim Lee and numerous clones of his style. For me these guys practiced a style that emulated the commercially bankable elements of the 'clean' look of stars like Byrne and Perez (and a bit earlier people like Neal Adams, Jim Starlin and, whilst rather more stylised, Barry Windsor-Smith) but with a far more shallow and cartoonish expression of emotion and character. The combination of this 'clean' style with fashionable 'gritty' elements proved very popular indeed. Another thing I objected too was the ever more extreme depiction of characters' physiques, especially all the girls being portrayed as if they were ridiculous blow-up sex dolls -Lee and his groupies are especially heinous in this regard. As watershed moments go the excesses of the Fall of the Mutants and Inferno 'events' would certainly be key for me. New and incredibly generic, poorly rationalized master villains like Apocalypse and Mr Sinister emerged and exploitative 'shockers' like the Morlock genocide and Madeleyne becoming the Goblin Queen became standard. The whole Siege Perilous rebirth made you think that anything could happen -but not in a good way (see the Psylocke thing above)!. Obviously the whole tie-in across the board of the MU was a wholly objectionable and reprehensible commercial strategy that encouraged the audience to despise Marvel and when they started doing it every year (it soon became a regular thing with the Annuals too) it became intolerable.
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Sept 16, 2012 5:29:32 GMT -5
With DC the start of the 'bad' for me was the overall tonal shift into very murky waters and the asinine decision to have the leading stars of their line (Superman, Batman) of their books displaced from those titles they have starred in for decades.
For both Marvel and DC it has also been for me the cycle of event leading into event leading into event. Thus runs with potential (McDuffie on JLA for example) have been derailed by the need to fit those stories rather than having room to breathe and tell good stories about the stars of the books.
But mostly it is the tone at both which I mentioned at the beginning. A sense of wonder has been supplanted by a sense of cynicism at times, and a desperate attempt to evoke a sense of verisimilitude at others. Bring back the wonder. Think about comic book movies. the tagline for superman the Movie was something like 'you will believe a man can fly'. Marvel Studios offering have a sense of the wonderful to them, at least in my opinion, and do not appear to carry the nihilism and cynicism prevalent today in the comics (did Ares really need to be ripped into two halves by sentry? Did that need to be shown so graphically?). I would love Marvel and DC to bring back a sense of wonder to their offerings, but that ship has probably sailed.
|
|
pym
Reservist Avenger
"About 20 yards to my right…"
Posts: 200
|
Post by pym on Sept 16, 2012 9:17:12 GMT -5
The deaths of Janice Cord and Gwen Stacey were rather unsettling for me. Then there were the fake deaths of Daredevil and Sub Mariner in that Defenders annual....as well as Iron Man in the Avengers/Kang labrynth nightmare.
I guess the real death of comics was when the powers that be decided to stop printing on that old pulp paper and switch to 'flexo-something' glossy paper that they now use.
I wonder if the printers down in Sparta still have those old acid-etch machines.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 16, 2012 20:41:34 GMT -5
I guess the real death of comics was when the powers that be decided to stop printing on that old pulp paper and switch to 'flexo-something' glossy paper that they now use. . I have to agree with you on this issue pym. I have often thought that the switch to the higher quality paper was a destructive move. It raised the cost of the issues and lowered the value at the same time. Okay, for anyone who doesn't follow me on that last statement, here's my logic: The higher grade paper obviously drove the price up. That part is obvious. Less obvious is how greatly it has reduced the value of those issues in later years. The primary factor that caused the older books to go up in value is the scarcity of them. Sure, significant events will cause one issue to be more sought after and therefore valuable than another, but basically, every major title from the 60s and 70s has some kind of value that is far higher than its cover price. This wouldn't be true if such a large number of issues hadn't been damaged or completely destroyed through the years. I just did a random search on ebay for "Tales to Astonish" and discovered that issue #86 from 1966 just sold for 36.50. This issue has nothing significant in it but was listed as NM. If 95% of the issues that had been sold were still in NM condition, would this issue have sold for anywhere near that much? Of course not. They'd be plentiful. Granted, there would have still been the situations where moms cleaned out the attic and threw away boxes of comics but the biggest thing that happened to the issues was that they were damaged by normal reading and usage. Comic book readers today may think it's great that their books are much less easily damaged but it is that very resiliency that will prevent them from ever becoming worth much. Combine that with the extra care that people take by bagging and boarding and its clear that there will be very few of todays comics that are worth even the price of this perfectly ordinary book and nowhere the vicinity of the truly noteworthy ones 46 years from now (The same age as that book). That's why the vast majority of the books that were produced since the paper upgrade can be found in dollar boxes across America or simply fail to sell at all on ebay.
|
|
|
Post by sharkar on Sept 17, 2012 19:47:49 GMT -5
The deaths of Janice Cord and Gwen Stacey were rather unsettling for me. For me it was Dorma's death. It upset me so much I think I stayed home from school the next day!
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Sept 18, 2012 8:53:29 GMT -5
Well, see, there's perceived changes in the comics themselves, and then theres circumstantial changes in my life that altered how I related to comics. With the latter, there were no changes in comics themselves, just things like my discovery of a comic shop in my home town around the age of being old enough to read undergrounds, and Warrens and to think outside of the Marvel/DC box. That opened my eyes to what comics could do besides superhero based stuff. That was a change for the good.
With the comics themselves For The Good would be reading Mr. Alan Moore, amongst others. The "growing up" of the medium begun by Lee, Thomas, Englehart and Starlin (amongst others) seemed to finally reach "intelligent adult" around that time. That was a change for the good.
For the bad in the comics themselves? I'll have to echo those who grew tired of Claremont's repetitive excess, that put me off the X-men in a way that lasts to this day. Then there were years of mediocre Avengers books culminating in the Crossing/Heroes Reborn nadir. There was also the emptiness of the "artist as Star" culture that led to Image. Though why that iteration of "Artist as star" bugged me more than those of Adams/Brunner et al, I couldn't say. Maybe Adams and co. never got carte blanche to write books. Maybe they were just better artists and storytellers. Maybe I was more forgiving in my youth. Strangely, along side all of this were some truly wonderful comics, so I think really I was mainly disenchanted with Marvel.
And my pet peeve, in the last 10 years is both decompression and the abandonment of intelligent editing. Shallow lazy stupid writers hailed as genius, and few spotting the naked emperor, at least in the editorial staff.
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Sept 18, 2012 11:49:05 GMT -5
....Maybe Adams and co. never got carte blanche to write books.... Yet according to Roy Thomas' Kree Skrull War foreword, even in the 1970's Neal Adams apparently had the whole sequence of Hank Pym going inside the Vision simply because he (Adams) wanted to draw it.
|
|
|
Post by tomspasic on Sept 18, 2012 12:57:40 GMT -5
....Maybe Adams and co. never got carte blanche to write books.... Yet according to Roy Thomas' Kree Skrull War foreword, even in the 1970's Neal Adams apparently had the whole sequence of Hank Pym going inside the Vision simply because he (Adams) wanted to draw it. True. Artists have always aided in plotting marvel's books, and in coming up with story ideas and characters. That's some distance away from letting them write the whole thing, which generally turns out about as well as asking the writers to draw the d**n thing. Actual writer/artists who are really good at both, not just "ok" at one or other, are really rare. I love Kirby and Starlin, for instance. They are two of my favourite comic creators, but not two of my favourite writers, despite both having fantastic imaginations and being great storytellers. Likewise Adams as a writer is considerably weaker, in my etc, than he is as an artist. Byrne, Perez, got to be quite good at times as writers, but I would not buy a book solely because either writes it. No, I can think of Eisner, Chadwick, Shanower and a handful of others who write and draw at near equal strength, and excel at both. It's more common for these people to be actually pretty average at both, truth be told. You need look no further than Liefeld to prove my point. The man became a millionaire in a triumph of style over content, and good luck to him, as a person. But he helped dumb down and lower the bar on an entire industry and art-form. But I guess my main issue with the Image era, (and since) is that these "superstars" basically go un-edited, or at least are not subject to the type of critical editing I feel enhances a book. If an editor had made Liefeld draw feet, we would all have benefited, as would he. If more scripts were rejected or returned for rewriting by Editors who can spell, and write, and know more than just comic books and Lindsy Lohan films, we'd have better comics.
|
|
|
Post by pulpcitizen on Sept 19, 2012 3:09:05 GMT -5
Th thing with the Image era is that maybe those books that were churned out at the beginning were a necessary stepping stone to the Image of today. Erik Larsen has been writing and drawing Savage Dragon from its inception, and to be honest, while it is a niche book, it is a book that neither DC nor Marvel would publish I fear, not indeed much of Image's output, and if not for the success of the early Image books, that alternative would simply not be there, when the other alternatives are heavily based around licensed books (Dark Horse, IDW, BOOM!, Dynamite). But I digress.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Sept 20, 2012 9:36:57 GMT -5
Off the top of my head, from a personal standpoint (as opposed to something like the Death of Gwen Stacy or the drug issues, which were before my time) one bad change was introducing Rachel Summers into the X-Men (#184, I think). Making a character from an calternate reality future into a regular member of the X-Men was the beginning of the end for me. It's as if Claremont had run out of good ideas and decided to recycle the classic Days of Future Past. I also wasn't too crazzy about Rogue joining the team, some time before that. It signalled the beginning of X-Men villians turning into X-Men (cf. Magneto, Juggernaut). Also, the Morlocks seemed to signal mutants numbering in the millions rather than a handful of special people. Again, this is happening in the 1983-85ish timeframe. Some of what I'm complaining about here is part of what Spiderwasp commented on, with the X-Men becoming too complicated. By the early 200's, it's no longer even enjoyable for me to read.
Though it came out before my time, the Kree/Skrull War was important as one of the first grand comic book epics, which I think made long stories OK to write and helped usher in the Bronze Age. The drug issues from Spider-Man and Green Lanter/Green Arrow as well as the death of Gwen Stacy are other watershed moments, though they're all before my time, so they're not watershed moments on a personal level. Contest of Champions was a watershed moment as it heralded the age of miniseries. Withoun a couple of years, even C list characters were getting miniseries. This is a mixed bag for me, as I did enjoy some of the miniseries. Another change was when Marvel descided in the late 80's to have all of their annuals become tied together crossovers, such as Atlantis Attacks and the Evolutionary War. While these weren't bad stories, I believe that Annuals should be stand alone stories, a fun little done in one. Plus, this forces you to buy a bunch of annuals you don't care about, which probably morphed into today's mega-events which many of us dislike. I'm not too fond of the influence of such titles of Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, which ushered in the darker, grittier age of comics. Also, I don't know what was the impetus for every Marvel title of the 90's wearing black leather and toting a gun, but at that to my list.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Sept 21, 2012 3:46:53 GMT -5
one bad change was introducing Rachel Summers into the X-Men (#184, I think). Making a character from an calternate reality future into a regular member of the X-Men was the beginning of the end for me. It's as if Claremont had run out of good ideas and decided to recycle the classic Days of Future Past. I also wasn't too crazzy about Rogue joining the team, some time before that. It signalled the beginning of X-Men villians turning into X-Men (cf. Magneto, Juggernaut). Also, the Morlocks seemed to signal mutants numbering in the millions rather than a handful of special people. Again, this is happening in the 1983-85ish timeframe. Funnily enough I loved that era. I felt it was often challenging and sometimes difficult to get your head around at first but repeatedly proved successful (I didn't know about Juggernaught becoming an X Man though - I presume that's a much later development). Actually, when they decided to return Magneto to being a one dimensional super villain I felt it was a very retrograde step (there was also notable power creep as it was evident that Magneto as an enemy was strangely much more powerful than when he's on your side!). I loved Rachel Summers and Rogue was a great idea to join the X Men. Frankly that makes much more sense in the X Men where its about a beleagured, oppressed bunch of misfits who are confused and troubled as a result of being genetic freaks. The X Men are supposed to be a haven and Rogue's defection made perfect sense. I have far more issues with The Avengers collecting strays. The flipping of supervillains into heroes (Clint, Wanda and Pietro was one thing but the likes of Moonstone and Goliath -come on!) or just writers deciding to use any old spare lame character (Jack of Hearts? US Agent! Justice, Triathlon etc...) has been repeatedly damaging. As Quicksilver said: the Avengers are an elite! I never felt they recycled Days of Future Past, but rather explored it in far more depth and made that Dark Future an integral and continuing part of the comic. That menacing undertone the comic gained as a result really added to the X Men in my view. Its because of Rachel and Nimrod that Days of Future Past became not only a great story but an absolutely crucial and key part of the X Men mythology. Anyway, it was the period after that in which I saw the seeds of destruction. Actually I continued to enjoy the X Men in the ensuing era with Inferno and all that, but I did have a strong sense that the wheels were coming off...
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Sept 21, 2012 18:41:34 GMT -5
This has been a very enjoyable, interesting and thoughtful thread. I'm liking it a lot.
We do tend to dwell on the negative watersheds, as opposed to the positive ones-- but I suppose that's natural. Strictly speaking, a watershed moment is one in which the path that follows the moment is irrevocably altered. The circumstances are permanently changed. Really, those are few and far between, and the ones that we'd think of as positive (and likely to agree upon) are all rather obvious and very well-known. I'd submit Fantastic Four #1; Avengers #4; Amazing Fantasy #15; AmSpMn #121/122; Kree/Skrull War; GS X-men #1-- and I'd probably hold there to hear other cases made. A defense would have to be made in response to the simple question, "How did this issue/event irrevocably change the course of comic books as they'd been done up to that point?" Maybe Silver Surfer #1 & Dark Knight Returns could make a case w/ a solid mouthpiece stumping for them.
And that end of the equation may not need that much in-depth attention. When comics are workin' for you, and you consistently enjoy them, it's not really necessary to analyze it to death. If their good and they stay that way. . . it's great!
It's also hard to find that elusive pivotal moment across the broad sweep of an entire Universe (or genre!), since each title ends up having its own positive and negative watersheds, and there's not a whole lot of temporal correlation go in' on there. But the negative ones do have the advantage that we can say, "this issue-- this is where I didn't like it anymore."
And. . . if. . . pressed. . .
I'd have to go along with those who feel the X-Men were the first to fall. I stuck w/ the book for years after I'd stopped enjoying it-- and most of the reasons have been touched on in posts above. But I think it may have been early-sh for me. Remember the storyline where Klan Garth (bless his old Conan-baiting hide), like, changed reality and took over New York and made it into an alternate universe or something? No explanation, no lead-in from the previous issue, just "well, here we are now! And look, Spider's being brutally tortured!" It took me forever to figure out that I hadn't missed an issue. It was over the top, poorly-explained, self-indulgent, and it NEVER had a sliver of an effect on the rest of the Marvel Universe at that time. The book had ups and downs after that, but there was never, ever a sense of any editorial control on Clement after that-- he could do whatever he wanted, no matter how impulsive or ill-conceived. And he took full advantage of that in the long run and to the detriment of the X-franchise eventually.
HEROES REBORN really would have been the obvious negative watershed, had they not managed to get back out of it. It literally WAS a completely different path from before. A stupid, insulting, inane, horrible path.
Beyond that, while there were very bad moves and very negative trends, there wasn't, for me, the final I-don't-recognize-my-comics-anymore, death-knell, ruined-hobby-forever watershed until the years-long, multiple clear-the-benches watershed tsunami of Disassembled (preceded by several months of impossibly decompressed, depressing stories), followed by the unforgivable events of Civil War, which then incorporated the never-to-be fixed One More Day/Brand New Day (preceded by the post-Morten mutilation of Gwen Stacy's memory and character). That's when I dropped Spidey.
Those were all, in the strictest interpretation of the word, watershed events. Very, very bad ones. In Hi-speed Slo-mo.
HB
(Hm-- haven't rattled on so long in quite awhile. . . ;D
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Sept 22, 2012 6:36:07 GMT -5
Remember the storyline where Klan Garth (bless his old Conan-baiting hide), like, changed reality and took over New York and made it into an alternate universe or something? No explanation, no lead-in from the previous issue, just "well, here we are now! And look, Spider's being brutally tortured!" It took me forever to figure out that I hadn't missed an issue. It was over the top, poorly-explained, self-indulgent, and it NEVER had a sliver of an effect on the rest of the Marvel Universe at that time. Unfortunately I'm afraid that I absolutely love that Kulan Gath story and think of it as the X-Men and Claremont at their best. I had exactly the same experience of finding myself completely disoriented and thinking I'd missed an issue -but that's exactly the effect they were looking for. I think it's a brilliant piece of storytelling -exciting, imaginative and stimulating. Indeed it's not only a great X Men story but a great Avengers story too (and one that Kurt Busiek gave a very blatant tip of the hat to in Avengers vol. III #1). What consequences would you expect? After all the denouement involves Doctor Strange changing history so that it never actually happened and even most of the characters involved don't remember it (the side effect of the spell was Nimrod being brought back to our era -though I think we're now closer to his time than the time the story was published...). I've been thinking much the same that it might be more interesting to focus on positive things. One obvious thing would be Frank Miller's Daredevil, that was really unlike anything Marvel had done before both visually and in terms of the writing. It opened up a world of possibilities. The Nocenti Daredevils are actually my favourites but the Miller run was undoubtedly the groundbreaking one that made everything else possible. The Dark Knight Returns, Born Again and Batman: Year One were each groundbreaking in their own way. The Dark Knight was fabulously bold, gave an unprecedented view of Superman that rang all too true. Its placement in the future gave it a great deal of freedom and enabled some fascinating shifts of perspective. The superhero really presented as legend. It brought together so many elements from various different presentations of the character and blended them into something new, better, and more plausible yet simultaneously was immediately recognizable and seemed to be 'the truth' about the character. Year One was the origin story reimagined, updated and streamlined. A model for many that followed (though rarely matched). Again it continued the rejuvenation of a once corny and laughable character into something that really was timeless. Born Again was a simply brilliant story, again daring in its perspective shifts and the darkness of its characterizations. It generates real fear for Daredevil and Karen Page's plight. The portrayal of Captain America is also brilliant and inspired and the contrast with DD revelatory. These were new ways of looking at superheroes. It really demolished that notion of 'safety' that was the default position of mainstream superhero comics. As discussed earlier, I think Days of Future Past was absolutely groundbreaking. the original story, but also the later development of the ideas and using it as a continuing thread gave the X Men an edge and excitement that provided it with a new dimension. The notion that Xavier's proteges were fighting the future. I think that for all the difficulties and screw ups the X titles have subsequently suffered they have continued to benefit hugely from that aspect. New Mutants was a brilliant idea. It really took the Stan Lee approach to things to heart. Instead of something silly like Teen Titans, it was the story of some kids at a school. It went a step further than the original X Men in that they weren't secretly super heroes but rather any super hi-jinks were just incidental to their school curricular activities and their social lives -they didn't go about looking to fight crime. The period where Sienkiewicz did the art brought a radical approach into the mainstream that was very pointed at the time. Great stuff. Many subsequent X books could've benefited from being this well grounded. One of the traits noticeable in the late 70s and 80s was comics updating and 'growing up'. Rationalizations were quite frequent, making the world in which the stories played out more realistic. John Byrne was particularly good at this, no doubt due to his love of comics' history. One that sticks out in my mind was FF 258 where he completely revamped how Doom was presented. Instead of the pantomime villain we saw someone with real virtues as well as his monumental flaws, and a ruler who seemed to be genuinely appreciated by his people. That was something. On a similar note I think the introduction of Agent Gyrich, the ongoing confrontation with bureaucracy and the realities and necessities required for an 'official', 'sanctioned' superhero group like The Avengers added an extra and essential dimension to the comic that's been fundamental to it ever since. Alan Moore is someone else who repeatedly broke ground. V for Vendetta really made an impact on me, its realistic portrayal of a future fascist society that it actually made a convincing possibility, its use of a real outsider and misfit, a probable lunatic, as its hero. Halo Jones gave a sophisticated presentation of character and, oddly enough, normalicy. It opened up so many possibilities. Marvelman (I believe it was published as Miracleman in the US thanks to Marvel becoming unreasonably litigious) was also startling and really made you re-evaluate things. Watchmen of course, this was something that put the question to the entire superhero literature. Zenith was also groundbreaking to my mind. It brought a lot of realism to the notion of superheroes but rather than the grimness of Watchmen you got something humorous, bold, and edgy, but with a real undercurrent of terror lurking beneath. I'll have to mention Neil Gaiman's Sandman. Just a weird trip, and the way the title character is so frequently incidental to the comic is amazing. Wonderfully literate stuff. Things like Watchmen certainly opened the door for this sort of thing but there's just so many unexpected and innovative paths it takes that you've got to say that it really is a groundbreaking series. In terms of its own culture it was probably not as groundbreaking as it seemed to us, but I'd have to say that Akira was just mindblowing both in terms of storytelling and visuals. It's still probably my favourite Manga. Meoebius is another person whose done things that made you re-evaluate the medium. Here I'd have to mention The Airtight Garage of Jerry Cornelius. The Incal is probably worth a mention too. Druillet's Lone Sloane is another, with real psychedelic mind expanding ideas and visuals! I guess I found quite a few things that I felt were groundbreaking in a positive way after all...
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Sept 23, 2012 8:46:31 GMT -5
We do tend to dwell on the negative watersheds, as opposed to the positive ones-- but I suppose that's natural. Strictly speaking, a watershed moment is one in which the path that follows the moment is irrevocably altered. The circumstances are permanently changed. Really, those are few and far between, You're right, and even as I was clicking the "post reply" button I was aware that everything I had mentioned was negative, but there you have it. After all, our ancestors had to remember which berries and mushrooms were poisonous, right?
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Sept 23, 2012 8:50:37 GMT -5
Frankly that makes much more sense in the X Men where its about a beleagured, oppressed bunch of misfits who are confused and troubled as a result of being genetic freaks. It never made sense to me that the world loved the Fantastic Four, Spiderman, and the superpowered members of the Avengers, but absolutely despised the X-Men. The FF and Spidey have had their DNA scrambled and are effectively mutants, and quite likely to give birth to more mutants. There is no difference between them and the X-Men. I realize that the X-Men are a metaphor for prejudice, but Marvel, of course, lays it on waaaay too thick. If there's anybody that has worse luck than Peter Parker, it's the X-Men.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Sept 23, 2012 10:00:21 GMT -5
It never made sense to me that the world loved the Fantastic Four, Spiderman, and the superpowered members of the Avengers, but absolutely despised the X-Men. ...erm, forgive me, but isn't one of Spider Man's long running themes that he is branded as a public menace and has even been pursued by the law on occasion as a result? Other than that, yes there is something of a contradiction there and I think you've got your finger on one of the fault lines of the MU. Well, I think you could just as easily cut it the other way -where the FF, Avengers, etc are the ones that get it way too easy. When Stan and Jack decided to do superheroes as if they existed in the real world their ideas evolved over time. So the approach they took with the X Men was different to that of the FF. Spider Man and the Hulk are other clear examples of the superhero being rejected by society. With the X Men the distinction is of course supposed to be the notion of a new race, a kind of 'they walk among us' in secret, they could be our own children, paranoia. It's an easy leap to suspect that the paranoia and injustices of the McCarthy era were as much a target as the forces opposing the 60's civil rights movements. Yes, in time the notion that superheroes children might inherit their freakishness did develop, but at least initially most of the superheroes were, perhaps because they were seen more as regular people who'd either been unlucky -or perhaps lucky, viewed as 'Us' rather than as 'Them'. Later Claremont changed the emphasis from the 'Children of the Atom' to mutants actually being the first of a new stage of evolution. This really reinforced the notion of mutants being a threat with the idea that they might actually replace us. I think this really worked well for the book in this regard (I think there are some problems with it in other areas though). There is undeniably a bigger gap between the way most superhumans are treated and mutants, although Marvel has unquestionably placed their superheroes, in general, in a more ambivalent position with society and the gap was closed to a degree. In any event I've never felt it was a problem, its interesting that you do. Ultimately the Marvel Universe isn't as realistic as all that -compared to the world of Watchmen or Zenith it's absurd and you've got to accept that superhero comics have had a long time in which to become more sophisticated. Indeed, I'd suggest that Stan and Jack were probably the most important stimulus to this approach and really set the ball rolling. You've got to either be able to accept the fiction or not. Personally I think it works well enough if you're willing to accept it on its own terms. btw I don't think the X Men are just a metaphor for prejudice but also for the notion of being an outsider, for a sense of alienation. This was particularly evident with the original teenage X Men which really plugged into that sense of being a weirdo and feelings of rejection that teenagers are especially prone to. So perhaps, in some sense, the X Men's outlaw status is as much a result of their own self-image as anything else? They are what they are because that's what they believe they are? EDIT: I've made an edit to this post a day later to the bit mentioning McCarthyism. I noticed I'd used a double negative and thought I could make it somewhat clearer.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 23, 2012 18:31:37 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. I agree that the discrepency sometimes seems too big between the acceptance of the Avengers vs. the X-Men, but don't you think that was also partially brought on by the X-Me themselves? I don't think this was Marvel's intention because they clearly intended the public's view of the X-Men as purely based on the prejudices of the public but look at it from a realistic standpoint. The Avengers and the FF both donned colorful and different costumes (Despite similarities with the FF, the Torch and Thing still looked different), talked to reporters, made public appearances, showed off a bit when saving people, created bigger than life but high profiled headquarters, and made agreements with the government so they could protect the public from an official position early on. The X-Men, on the other hand, hid their existence, lived in a secret headquarters, dressed alike in black and yellow costumes with Xs that looked like they could just have easily been villainous, never used the media for self-promotion, made no deals with the government, etc. I would be surprised if people did see them in the same light as the other teams. While it's true that mutants who became Avengers still faced some prejudices, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch did not face nearly the problems of the X-Men because of the same above factors. Spidey, on the other hand, faced the same problems as the X-Men because he also operated in complete secrecy. He and the X-Men ran when cops showed up while the FF and the Avengers waited to make a public statement about what they had done. I think that if I lived in the MU, I might not be able to tell that Cyclops, Marvel Girl, and the Beast are different types of superheroes than Wasp, Thor, and the Human Torch by just looking at them but the public nature of the latter ones would certainly make me feel more comfortable with them.
The question regarding the Avengers getting off too easily, however, alludes to a problem I had with Civil War. The New Warriors were suddenly villainized for their participation with the incident in Stamford. How was it different from what they'd seen for years? Why had they not already been upset with the years of property damages and lost lives resulting from battles entered into by the Avengers, FF, and everyone else? The New Warriors were no more careless than what had been previously established as the norm in the MU.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Sept 24, 2012 13:20:01 GMT -5
It never made sense to me that the world loved the Fantastic Four, Spiderman, and the superpowered members of the Avengers, but absolutely despised the X-Men. ...erm, forgive me, but isn't one of Spider Man's long running themes that he is branded as a public menace and has even been pursued by the law on occasion as a result? Well, J.J.J. personally has certainly branded him a public menace, but I believe much (though not all) of the public see him as a hero. Certianly, the government hasn't spent trillions of dollars on giant robots to capture him, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Sept 24, 2012 13:27:18 GMT -5
Also, I find it ineresting the way the Beast was a stinkin' mutie, but he found exceptance as soon as he joined the Avengers. Having that Avengers ID card cures all sorts of ills.
Sure, the Avengers and FF (especially the FF) get off too easy, but the X-Men get waaay too much flack. Again, this is one of my problems with the X-Men. I know I'm old school but I do prefer my heroes get treated like heroes (both by the Marvel public as well as the writers) at least when they act like heroes.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Sept 24, 2012 13:47:44 GMT -5
Certianly, the government hasn't spent trillions of dollars on giant robots to capture him, anyway. Well, that's certainly true. I think that's probably overstating it. Its also fluctuated from time to time. I think most of the public is ambivalent about him. As part of an ongoing project I've been reading through old, and generally pretty awful, Captain Americas and in one issue the Falcon, hoping to be taken more seriously as an individual rather than a sidekick, decides to take down Spidey who he is evidently under the impression is a criminal. Spiderwasp wrote: I agree with pretty much everything you said. I can see where you're coming from with this too. I was able to swallow this bit though. Sure I can think of some pretty apocalyptic superhero battles (right now they all seem to be in the FF for some reason -against Galactus and Terrax c.244, against Gladiator in 250, against Tyros in 260, Byrne's thing where the Avengers heavy hitters fight the Hulk -can't remember the number right now). Still, I suppose its the degree on the one hand and also the petty reality TV nature of what provoked the incident (and lets face it, reality TV is certainly quite capable of making me apoplectic -indeed forcing Big Bother and Survivor contestants to be registered -for the gas chamber- doesn't necessarily seem like such a bad idea to me. A detention facility for these people, at the very least, can surely only benefit society). What bugged me more about it was the characterization. Tony Stark's position made sense in some ways but the more I thought about it the more wrong it seemed. Stark's the guy who stopped making weapons for the government, who fought off an attempt by SHIELD to take over his company, the champion of private enterprise not a guy to tow the government line -it just wasn't a good fit. There were others, but that seemed to be a particular problem for me and so it really came across as a big idea that the characters were being squeezed into by the writers and distorted as a result. Plot driven rather than character driven, and to a degree that wasn't healthy. Anyway, luckily I don't need to spit the dummy about these things. I guess I take the view that Marvel really died a long time ago and that most work done with the characters since is just people sifting through the corpse. I can understand why people still invested in it all go postal about it but I'm just glad that where I'm at insulates me from that.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Sept 24, 2012 13:58:52 GMT -5
I know I'm old school but I do prefer my heroes get treated like heroes (both by the Marvel public as well as the writers) at least when they act like heroes. Fair point about the Beast, but I suppose I tend to view it as partly his change in attitude too. When he became blue and furry he seemed just far more able to accept life for what it was and enjoy it rather than focus on the negative (he also seemed to gain some sort of animal magnetism ability with the ladies which probably helped . I dunno about the 'treated like heroes' thing though. It seems to me that the unappreciated hero is pretty old school (at least as long as you view Lee, Kirby and Ditko as old school). Again its surely a big part of Spider Man and also of the original X Men.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Sept 24, 2012 14:54:20 GMT -5
Fair point about the Beast, but I suppose I tend to view it as partly his change in attitude too. When he became blue and furry he seemed just far more able to accept life for what it was and enjoy it rather than focus on the negative (he also seemed to gain some sort of animal magnetism ability with the ladies which probably helped . I dunno about the 'treated like heroes' thing though. It seems to me that the unappreciated hero is pretty old school (at least as long as you view Lee, Kirby and Ditko as old school). Again its surely a big part of Spider Man and also of the original X Men. Yes, the Beast certainly did change his attitude and became more fun after going furry (one of the reasons I love the guy) but I'm not sure the public was even aware of his change in personality. The X-Men were pretty reclusive at that point in terms of dealing with the public, and I doubt they knew much about the Beast. As far as old school, I'm thinking further back than you, with the DC Silver Age heroes as well as the Fantastic Four. Certainly, after the FF, Stan Lee went out of his way to make sure no superhero had it too easy. In my old age, I'm starting to prefer the DC method (at least in the Silver & Bronze Age) of having people actually look up to heroes rather than distrust them. We all read comics for different reasons, and for me, escapism and having characters to look up to are a couple of those reasons. Back in my younger days, I was more into the darker, more angst ridden, and more depressing stuff such as the X-Men, but I guess I'm getting old and would rather have a bit more of a happy ending for my heroes these days.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Sept 24, 2012 20:01:03 GMT -5
I am in a very busy stretch right now and couldn't possibly take the time to jump into this discussion and make a cogent, or series of cogent, response(s). But I want to tip my hat to the lot of you -- I just gave this thread a quick skim, and I have to say the spirit and intelligence of these posts took me back to the heyday of this board. You should all take a bow -- and keep it coming! This is great!!
Doug
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Cowl on Sept 25, 2012 4:49:07 GMT -5
In my old age, I'm starting to prefer the DC method (at least in the Silver & Bronze Age) of having people actually look up to heroes rather than distrust them. We all read comics for different reasons, and for me, escapism and having characters to look up to are a couple of those reasons. Back in my younger days, I was more into the darker, more angst ridden, and more depressing stuff such as the X-Men, but I guess I'm getting old and would rather have a bit more of a happy ending for my heroes these days. Well, I'm very much a Marvel boy. I've nothing against escapism though. I think there should be room for both -it's really about how well they're done rather than the tone itself IMO. Takes me back to something you said earlier: I certainly share your frustration with the generic 'gritty' comics that became ubiquitous and predictable during the 90s. I think blaming brilliant things like Watchmen or The Dark Knight Returns is misguided though. Yes, people aped those things and frequently did a bad job but they also opened the door to many good things. I don't think they should be blamed for the shortcomings of lesser talents or the shortsightedness of editors. Marvel and DC are still affected by this today with big name British comics writers like Mark Millar calling the shots on these sales-pumping 'events'. These aren't untalented people but I do think its worth asking whether they should be doing this kind of thing in mainstream superhero comics when they'd probably be better off doing 'creator projects' where their bolder ideas wouldn't be so damaging to continuity. The nature of the market these days sees them being asked to do this though as they have appeal to that aging market that has become vital to the declining comics sales. As kids can barely afford comics nowadays that's left the industry reliant on that older demographic. Oh well, that ship has well and truly sailed. Incidentally, I noticed that I mis-spelt Moebius rather embarrassingly earlier. I had a look at the 'Airtight Garage' the other day to refresh my memory -crazy stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Sept 27, 2012 22:29:23 GMT -5
Archie Goodwin at Epic Comics, that's a watershed moment in comics. He helped introduce Moebius (love Airtight Garage), colorized Akira (great read) and their line of creator books was stellar (Alien Legion remains an all-time favorite)
DC's Baxter line was also a watershed event. Yes, higher quality paper and standards, but one also received a higher quality product. Wolfman/Perez reached new heights with the Titans book which began with the terrific Terror Of Trigon story. Levitz also soared on the Legion of Superheroes title as well.
Speaking of Titans, Judas Contract is a standout, watershed story. Supposedly inspired by Kitty Pryde, the spunkster kid of a superhero team, Wolfman and Perez turned the trope on it's ears, leaving readers back then floored with the developments and implications of Terra's betrayal. Remains one of my all-time favorite stories.
There's been good discussion here on various aspects, most of it focused on the X-Men. I've seen some debates on this matter before and I think an interesting point, where it concerns the mutants' negative perception amongst the MU versus that of the more positive feelings towards the Avengers or FF, is Xavier's Dream.
I haven't read that much of Lee/Kirby's X-Men so I don't know if Xavier's Dream is their concept or was introduced by Claremont, but the underlying idea of mutants co-existing peacefully with humanity.
Well, how much did the group actually do to try and achieve that goal, if anything? If you look back overall during that time, say the Bronze Age into the 80s, it doesn't look like they did much of anything. Yet that was always the underpinning, that whatever battle or negativity they currently endured, it was all worth it for The Dream.
Of course, The Dream eventually got swept up into alternate timelines, parallel universes, and convoluted bloodlines. I fell out of the X-Men around the time of Age of Apocalypse, where the group and characters were breaking under the weight of their own bloated history.
|
|
|
Post by ultron69 on Oct 3, 2012 7:19:02 GMT -5
Good points about the DC Baxter series' and the Juda Contract, Marvel Boy.
|
|
comaboy
Great Lakes Avenger
Posts: 34
|
Post by comaboy on Oct 19, 2012 14:52:31 GMT -5
Avengers #141, the first issue drawn by George Perez. Utterly changed the way I looked at comic art (pun somewhat intended). Coincidentally, I stopped reading comics when it became clear he wasn't going to be drawing Avengers anymore (coupled with leaving for college) around issue 208(?) or so.
|
|
pym
Reservist Avenger
"About 20 yards to my right…"
Posts: 200
|
Post by pym on Oct 19, 2012 21:04:51 GMT -5
|
|