Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum Page of 2 Next >>
Topic: Reboots (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
John Byrne
Avatar
Robot Wrangler

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 102266
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 6:46am | IP Logged | 1  

Discussions in other threads got me thinking this morning about the whole thorny topic of "reboots", and how that term, like so many in comics, has been somewhat mangled and/or diluted by years of use.

As I see it, used properly "reboot" means in comics the same thing as it does in the computer world that gave us the word: a restart. On a computer, however, that usually means precisely what you would expect "restart" to mean -- to start something up again, "start" in the sense of starting a car, or starting a trip. Usually, there is no major change involved in the hardware or the software. (At least, so one hopes!)

"Reboots", as the term is used in comics, I think fall into two main categories, with some overlap that creates what might be viewed as a separate third. First, there is taking an existing character, scaping away such barnacles as may have accumulated over years, and declaring "Everything is brand new from this point." This can be done outside existing continuity, as with MAN OF STEEL, or inside as with WONDER WOMAN (and DOOM PATROL). Next, there is the taking of an existing name and nothing else, what might be called "coattailing", so that a potential audience is (in theory) brought in to check out what is really a new character entirely. The rebirth of superheroes at DC in the Silver Age is an example of this.

Finally, that elusive third, what we might call a "stealth reboot". This is where a character undergoes massive change, but it is over time, or subtly done, or merely presented with a "Yeah? So?" attitude that defies anyone to suggest it is a reboot. DARK KNIGHT and BATMAN: YEAR ONE are the most obvious examples of the "stealth reboot", but the "All New, All Different" X-Men functioned in much the same way, and Spider-Man is currently a character so different from the one created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko that he could be called a "reboot". The reason such "stealth reboots" are often accomplished without raising the hackles of those who yell the loudest about things like MAN OF STEEL is that they are presented "in continuity", and can be accepted as "growth" even if, very often, they are nothing of the sort.

Whether a "reboot" works or is accepted seems to depend entirely upon the capriciousness of those who read them. As I have noted on more than one occasion, I was quite surprised when YEAR ONE generated not so much as a blip of complaint from the "loyal Batman fans", as Frank changed about 90% of the backstory on the characters, far more than what I did in MoS. Eventually I realized that many of those fans, like Frank himself, did not actually realize the changes were changes. (Recall how Barbara Gordon came to be "adopted" because Frank had not "done the math" and when someone else did, it was too late.)

"Stealth reboots" are as old as the genre, of course, and often fall under the dread "retcon" label.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Darren Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 April 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5686
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 8:01am | IP Logged | 2  

>I said in the other thread that I'm not opposed to "reboots", so long as there's a definable need for it. Whether I agree with that need or not is down to me and has zero effect on the reboot.

What I find distastefull is when "ego's" are employed to bring their "take" on a character into the mainstream. I've always liked your principle of writing Captain Fonebone stories for Captain Fonebone and not altering Captain Fonebone or his environment to fit a John Byrne story.

This sounds like common sence once heard but it's so dissheartening to look around and see characters that I used to 'know' transformed, like some future version of an "English" dialect...hauntingly familiar yet so very, very alien!

Do I think the reboot is to blame for this? "No!" But I think it may have provided an excuse for companies/editors or writers to make changes to characters and or history as they saw fit. As such these characters loose integrity. The integrity that it took the Fantastic Four 416 issues to build until some bright spark decided N=B, where "N" is New and "B" is Better! Then after a further 79 issues they cough and point in the opposite direction...then when you look back they've switched the numbering back to where it should have been;-)

I -personally- feel that characters can't walk around in flares forever and some updating is always going to be required else there will always be the same president in comics, the same understanding of technology and this is a self destructive course as the audience out grows the comic/character. How then did these characters make their merry way through the decades leading upto the popularisation of this term: "Reboot" ?

(Lost my train of thought had to go and change a dirty nappy (read: Dyper if you are American))

Comic book "time" seems to have been handled pretty well without any over definition of how to do so without following a three yearly "reinvention" protocol.

Slow and steady wins the race. (Edited to add: Whether slow and steady brings coffers into the company bank account who can say.)


[deleted superfluous Quote]

Edited by John Byrne on 22 March 2005 at 9:24am

Back to Top profile | search | www | email
 
Matthew Hansel
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3461
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 8:54am | IP Logged | 3  

If the majority of the audience changed over, like it is supposed to damn it!, then we would probably not even have a need for reboots?  Would we?  Or would they be of the "subtle" variety because we would have a majority of readers that have no experience with the characters other than the basics?

I fear that for as long as we have those who insist on "growth" in characters that they've been reading since they were kids, that we will have to endure reboots at the expense of the character and at the will of the ego of the "cool brit" that has been brought to "revitalize and reimagine" the franchise.

Gone are the days when the super-hero story was a mini-morality cue for kids and the good guys did the right thing for the right reason and the bad guys were evil through and through and without apology.

Damn!

Matthew Hansel
matthewphansel@mac.com

Back to Top profile | search | www | email
 
Ian Muir
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 9:07am | IP Logged | 4  

 Matthew Hansel wrote:
I fear that for as long as we have those who insist on "growth" in characters that they've been reading since they were kids, that we will have to endure reboots at the expense of the character and at the will of the ego of the "cool brit" that has been brought to "revitalize and reimagine" the franchise.

Gone are the days when the super-hero story was a mini-morality cue for kids and the good guys did the right thing for the right reason and the bad guys were evil through and through and without apology.

As a 'cool brit', I must say I'm looking forward to my invitation to revitalise and re-imagine something soon. Anyone have any plans for Millie The Model?

In the majority of comics that I'm reading, the heroes are heroic and the bad guys are evil. Am I reading the wrong comics?

 

Back to Top profile | search
 
Matthew Hansel
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3461
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 9:23am | IP Logged | 5  

In the majority of comics that I'm reading, the heroes are heroic and the bad guys are evil. Am I reading the wrong comics?

************************

I'm not sure what you are reading.  I look at a majority of the stuff and see heroes doing things that they normally wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't do.

Magical lobotomies anyone?

Matthew Hansel
matthewphansel@mac.com

Back to Top profile | search | www | email
 
Ian Muir
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 9:32am | IP Logged | 6  

 Matthew Hansel wrote:

In the majority of comics that I'm reading, the heroes are heroic and the bad guys are evil. Am I reading the wrong comics?

************************

I'm not sure what you are reading.  I look at a majority of the stuff and see heroes doing things that they normally wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't do.

Magical lobotomies anyone?

That's one comic, hardly a majority. Astonishing X-Men, Adventures of Superman, Doom Patrol, Gotham Central, GL: Rebirth, Hawkman, JSA, JLA, LSH, Teen Titans, Superman / Batman, Wonder Woman, all feature heroes doing the right thing, for the right reasons.

Even in New Avengers, you can tell the good guys from the bad guys.

Flash is possibly an exception to the heroes being evil rule. And possibly Hulk is an exception to your heroic code.

So, where else are the unheroic heroes to be found?

Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Robot Wrangler

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 102266
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 9:32am | IP Logged | 7  

If the majority of the audience changed over, like it is supposed to damn it!, then we would probably not even have a need for reboots?  Would we?  Or would they be of the "subtle" variety because we would have a majority of readers that have no experience with the characters other than the basics?

******

This is exactly right. Superhero comics, like much serial fiction, were created with the assumption firmly in mind that the audience would "turn over" every five years or so. The notion that the same people would be reading the comics for 10, 20, 30 years was utterly alien to the folk who produced these books for about the first 3 decades of their existance. It was not, in fact, until the scales began to tip, and more people than not of those producing the books were fans-turned-pro that it started to be in vogue to tailor those books for an aging audience. (The people writing and drawing the books began producing the work for their own amusement, in other words, rather than for the audience intended. Thus, twenty-somethings writing Spider-Man see no problem with him becoming a 20-something, and married 30-somethings see no problems in Superman becoming himself a married 30-something.)

Meanwhile, the vast bulk of the original target audience slowly disappears, finding nothing to hold their attention long, and the cycle repeats itself, all the while with those responsible wondering why.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Aaron Leach
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 364
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 9:34am | IP Logged | 8  

I don't know if there is really an accurate term for what comics has termed a reboot. I will say that I liked the changes made in MoS. The toning down of some of Supermans powers, and there only being green K instead of a rainbow of colors. I think keeping Ma and Pa kent alive made for some great story dynamics. As for those who yell the loudest when these type of stories happen. I was rereading X-men ( 94 and up ) and ran across a letter from a yeller, who did not like Chris's writing, and claimed Dave couldn't draw. He also stated that he felt the book was now doomed to be canceled. I wonder how this person feels now? BTW the letter was published right around issue 100. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9030
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 9:36am | IP Logged | 9  

Reboots,Retcons anything else that they maybe called aren't brought about by a part of comics.Some have been good others have been bad."Growth" isn't responsible for the stories sucking or not .The writers are responsible ,If it sucks blame the people creating it. The blame should be on them. Lets face it the face of comics has come along way from which it began and a great deal of what's out there is crap,Thank you Marvel and to a lesser extent DC. I don't blame Image but i don't let them off the hook either. The ball was well into motion before Image picked it up and ran with it. Creators like Byrne perhaps they are a dying breed. I certainly think they shouldn't be for now more then ever they are needed. They need to show this 'new' younger generation what the heros of myth should be like.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matthew Hansel
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3461
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 9:47am | IP Logged | 10  

So, where else are the unheroic heroes to be found?

********************

You can still tell who the good guys are in comics...they are usually the ones left standing.  It is the ACTIONS of those "heroes" that defines what makes them a hero, not merely the writer telling us "this is the hero".

And...even the listing of books that you contained are NOT a majority of the books being published that contain super-heroes.

The characters have wandered far away from the place that once were.  The lines between good and evil have been blurred.  The Batman has wandered away from being the Dark Knight Detective to being some CRAZED guy in a Bat-suit who is portrayed as being INSANE or on the brink of that insanity most of the time.  Spider-Man is FAR and away from what he was created to be.  To cite but a few examples.

The villians are "explained away" and are made less evil by the fact that they have to have these terrible back-stories placed on them in order to justify there existance.  A Joker who is evil just because is FAR more scary than a Joker who was a failed commedian etc...

Matthew Hansel
matthewphansel@mac.com

Back to Top profile | search | www | email
 
Ian Muir
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 9:52am | IP Logged | 11  

 Matthew Hansel wrote:
And...even the listing of books that you contained are NOT a majority of the books being published that contain super-heroes.

The characters have wandered far away from the place that once were.  The lines between good and evil have been blurred.  The Batman has wandered away from being the Dark Knight Detective to being some CRAZED guy in a Bat-suit who is portrayed as being INSANE or on the brink of that insanity most of the time.  Spider-Man is FAR and away from what he was created to be.  To cite but a few examples.

And you'll note that I don't currently read any Bat or Spider-titles. So, perhaps I'm reading the right comics, rather than the wrong ones...

Back to Top profile | search
 
Lars Johansson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 June 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6114
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 10:04am | IP Logged | 12  

 John Byrne wrote:
As I have noted on more than one occasion, I was quite surprised when YEAR ONE generated not so much as a blip of complaint from the "loyal Batman fans", as Frank changed about 90% of the backstory on the characters, far more than what I did in MoS.

Just like you mentioned that Spider-man had gone through a reboot, even Batman stayed in his own continuity, and the rebooter probably knew that the old Batman stories were something that the readers hadn't read, so he could change 90 percent of it and not raise an eyebrow. The readers just could check the current regular Batman and Detective Comics and see how Year One evolved in their Batman.

With MoS it was a completely different thing for me. What we see in MoS, does not lead up the Superman known at the time, which to the reader would be Superman, they know that Superman works at the WGBS, that this parents were old and then he became Superman when they died. The Superman after MoS is a completely different person. That I believe is what stirred up peoples minds (until they learned to know him).

Another thing about Spider-man, the clone saga was based on something that no reader had read at the time, as far as I know a complelety irrelevant little episode, please correct me if I'm wrong. The fact that this would be Spider-man (Ben Reilly) made people crazy because suddenly the back story didn't lead up to their Spider-man, the one they knew, Peter Parker. The only difference here, to me, was that MoS was one of the most brilliantly written pieces in comic book history, the latter probably not. And Year One didn't stir up anything at all.

Back to Top profile | search | www | email
 
Matthew Hansel
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3461
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 10:13am | IP Logged | 13  

Ian:

Even in the titles you mention, the heroic ideal has been deluted to the point of almost non-existence.  Astonishing X-Men is a good read, but I certainly wouldn't give it to a "younger" audience, to be sure.

Matthew Hansel
matthewphansel@mac.com

Back to Top profile | search | www | email
 
Joe S. Walker
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 443
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 10:36am | IP Logged | 14  

 Ian Muir wrote:
As a 'cool brit', I must say I'm looking forward to my invitation to revitalise and re-imagine something soon. Anyone have any plans for Millie The Model?



A certain British comics writer once floated the idea of doing MTM as a period piece set in 1968, with Millie and company as part of the Andy Warhol set. The dreadful thing is that you could imagine Marvel letting him.
Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Ian Muir
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 10:39am | IP Logged | 15  

 Matthew Hansel wrote:
Ian:

Even in the titles you mention, the heroic ideal has been deluted to the point of almost non-existence.  Astonishing X-Men is a good read, but I certainly wouldn't give it to a "younger" audience, to be sure.

See, I don't find AXM to be any more extreme than the comics I read when I was a lad. More slow-moving, but not more 'adult'.

 

Back to Top profile | search
 
Ian Muir
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 10:42am | IP Logged | 16  

 Joe S. Walker wrote:
 Ian Muir wrote:
As a 'cool brit', I must say I'm looking forward to my invitation to revitalise and re-imagine something soon. Anyone have any plans for Millie The Model?



A certain British comics writer once floated the idea of doing MTM as a period piece set in 1968, with Millie and company as part of the Andy Warhol set. The dreadful thing is that you could imagine Marvel letting him.

My idea of her as an drug-taking anorexic suddenly sounds less unlikely... 

Back to Top profile | search
 
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3329
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 11:03am | IP Logged | 17  

 Matthew Hansel wrote:

If the majority of the audience changed over, like it is supposed to damn it!, then we would probably not even have a need for reboots?  Would we?  Or would they be of the "subtle" variety because we would have a majority of readers that have no experience with the characters other than the basics?

More than likely they'd be of the "soft variety," ala Batman in the old days, based on the market of the time.  If "cheerful" superheros are the order of the day, then he's more cheerful.  If "grim and gritty" is popular, the stories will be darker.  Stuff like that.  If we need a Batman who has never fought aliens to fit the tone of the book, then we don't mention the times Batman did.


 QUOTE:
I fear that for as long as we have those who insist on "growth" in characters that they've been reading since they were kids, that we will have to endure reboots at the expense of the character and at the will of the ego of the "cool brit" that has been brought to "revitalize and reimagine" the franchise.

Who knows?  I think the main difference between now and the time of the dominance of the casual fan is that "transitional" stories tend to be more common.  Rather than just, "okay, now we don't talk about this anymore," there's an explanation as to why we don't talk about it anymore. 

Regular fans are a mixed bag - there are those who like the idea of "Spider-Man vs. Doctor Octopus Round 17" (as long as it's a good story) and there are those who think, "Not again!  It's been 17 times already!  Just kill Ock off already!"  Casual fans may be the same way. 

Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3329
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 11:04am | IP Logged | 18  

 Joe S. Walker wrote:
 Ian Muir wrote:
As a 'cool brit', I must say I'm looking forward to my invitation to revitalise and re-imagine something soon. Anyone have any plans for Millie The Model?



A certain British comics writer once floated the idea of doing MTM as a period piece set in 1968, with Millie and company as part of the Andy Warhol set. The dreadful thing is that you could imagine Marvel letting him.

Then they were going to make her a tennis pro...

Back to Top profile | search | email
 
John Byrne
Avatar
Robot Wrangler

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 102266
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 11:44am | IP Logged | 19  

More than likely they'd be of the "soft variety," ala Batman in the old days, based on the market of the time.  If "cheerful" superheros are the order of the day, then he's more cheerful.  If "grim and gritty" is popular, the stories will be darker.

****

Steadily declining sales would seem to indicate that "grim and gritty" is far from "popular". More like a fad that has run its course, but has sufficient adherents in the people producing the work that it is not likely to change too soon.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Darren Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 April 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 5686
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 11:49am | IP Logged | 20  

 John Byrne wrote:
Steadily declining sales would seem to indicate that "grim and gritty" is far from "popular". More like a fad that has run its course, but has sufficient adherents in the people producing the work that it is not likely to change too soon.

I'm surprised that Comics haven't followed "Horror" and "Teen" movies that appear to have been envogue for the last three of four years...maybe they have and I've just missed them!

Films that poke fun at themselves seem to be quite popular too, something that JB's run on the She-Hulk seemed to touch on with the humour angle John used. More of that could be quite fun.

 

Back to Top profile | search | www | email
 
Steve Jones
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 August 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 548
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 12:07pm | IP Logged | 21  

Just like you mentioned that Spider-man had gone through a reboot, ...
****************************
I would dispute this - he seems to be the same character to me, albeit he has aged. If this is rebooting, we have all been rebooted since none of us are going to be the same as when we were 15 or 16. Heck, I've been rebooted at least 3 times since I was 16.

Superhero comics, like much serial fiction, wer created with the assumption firmly in mind that the audience would "turn over" every five years or so
********************************************************
Why (and when) did the audience (or part of it) stay and not leave as they were supposed to? Did comics change to meet this older audience's needs or did comics change first which attracted an older audience? It generally seems to be regarded on this board that it was a bad thing for superhero comics to have an older audience/be more grown up in content. Personally I just think it is neither good or bad, that's just what happened.

Also, does anyone actually know if the audience did turn over as the was assumed? What if the assumption was wrong? Maybe a whole bunch of business decisions were made on the basis of faulty information.

 I have searched high and low on Google to see if I can find out about average age of superhero comic book readers through the years and can't find anything. My own gut instinct is that the assumption was correct to a point but that the superhero comic book reading audience had a lot more older readers then is commonly believed.    

 

Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3329
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 12:12pm | IP Logged | 22  

 John Byrne wrote:
More than likely they'd be of the "soft variety," ala Batman in the old days, based on the market of the time.  If "cheerful" superheros are the order of the day, then he's more cheerful.  If "grim and gritty" is popular, the stories will be darker.

****

Steadily declining sales would seem to indicate that "grim and gritty" is far from "popular". More like a fad that has run its course, but has sufficient adherents in the people producing the work that it is not likely to change too soon.

Back in the day, it was pretty popular.  (Ah those carefree innocent days of "Lots of Action and Death!!! HOT!!!") I agree that folks behind the comics haven't realized it's time to let go though. 

I don't know what the current fad to get ahold of is.  In the media, the big thing these days seem to be police procedurals and reality shows.  Not sure how to translate those into comic form.  At least not the latter type.

Introduce a series of love interests for Batman and have fans vote on which one they like best?  Strand the Secret Society of Super Villains on a desert island to fight for a million dollars?  Send the Doom Patrol on a race around the world?

Batman as a police procedural might work, though.

Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3329
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 12:32pm | IP Logged | 23  

 Steve Jones wrote:
Why (and when) did the audience (or part of it) stay and not leave as they were supposed to? Did comics change to meet this older audience's needs or did comics change first which attracted an older audience?

There were always some fans who stuck around and never went away.  Heck, that's how we ended up with "Flash of Two Worlds."  The question to ask is when those fans became the apparent majority.

I'd say part of it was from increasing "entertainment competition."  Only so many dollars available for such things, so the more options you have, the more options you discard.  When comics first debuted, they were the only "home visual entertainment" available.  No TV, much less VCRs, DVDs and video games.

Then there's the shrinking of variety.  If you're under 18 and don't like superheroes, there isn't much material commonly available for you (outside of Manga - and we're generally talking "comics mainstream" here).  Yeah, there are some great all-ages books out there published by the little guys, but good luck finding them unless you know enough about them to preorder them.

But what really hurt was the Speculator Boom.  The material released at the time (regardless of opinions of quality) seemed intended to milk the cash cow until it bled.  Casual fans who just wanted something to read got deluged with premium covers, 19 part mega crossovers, etc.  As a result, we ended up with a "generational skip."  Comics were no longer something "everybody" bought for a time, whether they stuck with it or not. 

(And while this was going on, the non-Direct Market all but went away.  So the only place to buy comics are places that only fans really know about.)

To rebuild the casual reader market (which Manga seems to be doing, albeit without much apparent spillover to the American produced side), you need to have material that appeals to casual fans and is available at a place they can find them.  Trades in the major bookstores and such is a good start, but more needs to be done there.  Hopefully the Marvel deal with 7-11 will help. 

But you also need the right material.  I don't know what that is.  My opinion is that it needs to be something kid will find interesting (when it comes to super-heroes*), and needs to be a variety of material.  Not just including non-superhero books, but also variety within the superhero genre itself.  Normally when I DO see a rack of comics, 90% of them are Batman or X-Men related books.  Not good.

So all I need is a few million to burn...

 

*Regarding kids and superheroes.  Yeah, I'm an adult and I like some of the "adult superhero" titles (Supreme Power is a good example).  But expecting adults to be the bulk of your audience and writing accordingly is a bad idea when trying to get new readers.  Kids will likely be bored (only Stan Lee could make "this issue - Aunt May talks to a shrink for 22 pages!!!!!" seem interesting to a kid) and adults will think "Spider-Man?  That's kid stuff!"

Back to Top profile | search | email
 
James Revilla
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2264
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 12:48pm | IP Logged | 24  

I am of two minds about this. I think charcaters like Superman and SPider-Man deserve a reboot. A glossover, a tying of all loose ends and put into context. A redefinition of the character for the next bunch. Like a group of people getting together, looking at all they have done, and then putting a bow on it, and leaving it for the next group. And in my perfect world you would have these little packages. A 30's package, where Superman fought criminals, killed evil people and was a badass. And then you can have the 50's package, which is zany, and compltely of the 50's kind of camp and humor. SO on and So on. Which is why I will go down with my last breath saying Generation sis the best damn idea ever in comics. It can do anything. Period. Grim ? Got it. Adult ? Got it. Funny and camp ? Done. It is perfect way to show all the phases of the charcater without going, ok everyone else has to do the SAME thing. In my perfect world, I would love to read Frank Miller's Batman along side Byrne's. Nothing in common but the name. Let the creators do what they want. Make the Batman they want. And you go buy what Batman you like. But since I am a dreamer...I just keep wearing out my copies of Generations and dream of stories never told...
Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Rob Hewitt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10185
Posted: 22 March 2005 at 12:52pm | IP Logged | 25  

 Matthew Hansel wrote:

So, where else are the unheroic heroes to be found?

********************

You Spider-Man is FAR and away from what he was created to be.  To cite but a few examples.

 

I don't think this is fair, if the sense is he is more villain-ish.  SPider-man has changed a lot, although I think his connection to the Lee and Ditko Spider-man is similar to our connection to out youth-meaning his changes occurred slowly, over time.  Most were little, and when you look backl, it all adds up big, but it is still the same person.  Unlike, say, the dramatic changes to other characters (which may or may not have occurred because of some big event-i.e. Daredevil getting his life destroyed).

However, he does not act more villain like or less heroric. Gwen, certainly.  But except for the period when the "spider" had taken over, right before the clone saga, Spider-man always does the right thing (at least eventually), doesn't kill, etc.

Back to Top profile | search | email
 

Page of 2 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login