Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum Page of 8 Next >>
Topic: He’s not the Hulk I know. Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
William Ferguson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 June 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 39
Posted: 10 August 2018 at 10:35am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

A little light bulb went off in my head recently. I've been following John over the years on this forum reading pretty much everything he has to say about Marvel characters. 

I don't have his way with words, but there is a topic that he's discussed several times over the years. It is the concept of creators changing characters and then thinking that they have put them back in the sandbox (love that phrase) the way they found them. But the ones they put back are different toys.

Dan Slott had come on to the boards here to discuss his Spider-Man run. At the time I thought he and John made excellent points about what he was doing with Spider-Man. 

Then there was something John said a while back that finally hit home for me. It’s the same thing he has been saying, but I guess this time it was the right phrasing and the right time for me to really get it.

Dan was totally wrong. I don't know the guy, and I think he is putting out what he thinks is his best work. And to some, it might rightfully be so.

He took Spider-Man and made Norman Osbourne Spider-Man. Not a bad idea, but the problem is, he did it for a year. A new reader comes along, and now Doc OCK Spider-man is his Spider-Man. That new reader didn’t get hooked on what I think makes Spider-Man great, Peter Parker as Spider-Man.

The same thing with Peter David run on the Hulk. He turned the Hulk into Grey Mr. Fixit. Mr. Fix it is not the Hulk. But my point again is, Mr. Fixit "was" the Hulk for way too long and to some new reader that is now their Hulk.

There is no illusion of change. In my opinion, we now have new toys mixed in with the original toys. 

I don't blame the current creators, they are trying. But they need more guidance. Something that I think current editors need to do more of. Go ahead think out of the box, but sometimes you need to stay in the box. And if the creator's editors don't get it, then the guy in charge needs to get it. Stay true to what makes these characters so appealing for so many years.

I hope this makes sense. 



Edited by William Ferguson on 11 August 2018 at 6:00am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Olav Bakken
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 June 2014
Posts: 241
Posted: 10 August 2018 at 11:11am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

About Mr. Fixit. If he was an original character the concept could have had a lot of potential.

Characters may change over the years as part of a maturation process or a life changing incident. But they are still the same characters. If they become completely unrecognizable from who they once were, the original versions have been sacrificed in the process.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Nathan Greno
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 April 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 9154
Posted: 10 August 2018 at 12:15pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

William: He took Spider-Man and made Norman Osbourne Spider-Man. Not a bad idea, but the problem is, he did it for a year. A new reader comes along, and now Norman Osbourne Spider-man is his Spider-Man. That new reader didn’t get hooked on what I think makes Spider-Man great, Peter Parker as Spider-Man.

---

I get what you are saying, but I think "civilians discovering comic books" is a totally different animal at this point. Nowadays, a "new reader" would be much more aware of the characters -- Spider-Man is being consumed through different media. For example: 'Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse' will feature an older, washed-up Peter Parker/Spider-Man... but earlier this year, we saw a young Peter Parker/Spider-Man running around in the Avengers film. It's all soo much bigger than it was when we were new readers discovering Spider-Man. There's been soo many versions of the same character. I mean, at this point, WHO is "Spider-Man"?? I know what I liked about him when I was a kid... but even that version of the character was somewhat different than the character that appeared in Amazing Fantasy. 

Even if the comics were to become more consistent with the characters... the rest of the media isn't playing that same game. 

I'm not saying I'm happy with the way things are... just saying it's all evolved into something totally different. 








Back to Top profile | search
 
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7467
Posted: 10 August 2018 at 12:43pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

When Dan Slott made Dr. Octopus Spider-Man, fans knew (and were vocal about knowing) that it wasn't going to last: Peter Parker would return. A new reader might be thinking "okay, THIS is Spider-Man" but in this day and age, where so many older stories are out there (not to mention movies, TV cartoons, etc.), I have some trouble buying that a new reader will be convinced the Superior Spider-Man is THE Spider-Man.

Ditto Joe Fixit, ditto FalCap, ditto BuckyCap, etc.

In terms of storytelling, comic books are soap operas, albeit ones where the lead characters are more or less ageless, even as new characters pop up around them (and seem to age in real time). Things will change and they'll change back. Some changes might last longer but consider...

Jean Grey died in 1980. She returned in 1985. That's five years a new X-Men reader would not know who Jean Grey is, apart from the plentiful references to her and fake-outs put out there by Chris Claremont. Then she shows up again in X-FACTOR #1. To a newer reader, is she a "new" character?

I get that the changes characters go through during any creator's run may be confusing, but there are good to great stories made possible by going off-formula. Slott and David did something new with Spider-Man and Hulk; judging by readership, they were doing right and adding readers. And some of the things they created have made their way into cartoons and movies, etcf.

So... it might be confusing. Sure. But even if it takes a while, the characters (pretty much as you knew them) will come back around.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mason Meomartini
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 174
Posted: 10 August 2018 at 1:16pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

I think what William is saying though is not just that there will be confusion about what is the original characterization, but that new fans will get attached to the version they experience first and the influence that might have.  Like fans who still demand that Peter has to be married to MJ.

Edited by Mason Meomartini on 10 August 2018 at 1:27pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Mason Meomartini
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 174
Posted: 10 August 2018 at 1:25pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

One middle aged fan I know told me there is no right version of Marvel and DC superheroes.  Because there are many different versions in all media.  He never read the creators' original stories.  He only knows the famous characters from television and movies and a few of the most current popular paperback collections.  I think this is William's long range concern, that after years of fans who don't know the initial depictions, don't think at all about the circumstances when they were created, or about who created them, and see these characters as properties that were created by a corporate committee, the creators' original intent or on model version will be lost in the endless iterations.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Andrew Bitner
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7467
Posted: 10 August 2018 at 2:02pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

You could as easily say that Siegel and Shuster's Superman no longer exists, nor does Bob Kane and Bill Finger's Batman. They've evolved so much through the work of so many different creators, they are arguably not the same characters.

I don't think there's a solution for that, except to point new readers to the original books and say "That's who they were when I met them." Because that's what it's really about:

The "most real" version of the character is the one you first encountered, in whatever medium.
Back to Top profile | search
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7581
Posted: 10 August 2018 at 2:12pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

I've been saying similar things for years. Major Changes to status quo should only last two to three months tops. Anything longer and you risk the audience not being able to every experience the actual characters they came looking for.

For years, you couldn't find Thor, Cap, Iron man, Spider-man. That some of these overlapped makes it too drastic a situation which is what I think has caused the back lash against the diversity. It's not about the diversity per se, it's about the diversity causing replacement rather than co-existence.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
William Ferguson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 June 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 39
Posted: 10 August 2018 at 2:15pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

I hear what your saying Nathan and thought about mentioning other forms of media the characters appear in but that would have made my post even longer. 



Back to Top profile | search
 
William Ferguson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 June 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 39
Posted: 10 August 2018 at 2:52pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

 I think a good example of what I’m trying to say is when John had the couple issues where Sue became Malice. Couple issues, great story and interesting way to showcase Sue. That was it. I didn’t have to wait a year to see the real Sue. He didn’t take my character away. 

If I remember correctly Dan had mentioned johns changes to the fantastic four as an example of why it was okay for the kind of stories he was telling of Spider-Man. Dan missed Johns point, like I did, the illusion of change.

But it finally hit me, John didn’t “change” the characters. He just told good stories with some kick as art.

I just used those two character as an example. I like some of the stories Dan and Peter wrote. I read some superior Spider-Man as well as mr fixit stories. I’m just saying that Supior Spider-Man and Mr. Fixit didn’t need to be created by taking away Spider-Man and the Hulk. Create new characters instead.

John created Box, a new character for his Alpha Flight stories. He didn’t take Iron Man and change him to fit his story. 

I’m not trying to argue with anyone here. I just miss my characters. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 8515
Posted: 10 August 2018 at 2:54pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

I agree that at this point, there are no right answers anymore as to who any given character is and what characteristics define them. Going back to the original was once the fallback, but we're far from those starting points now and many things have been ladled into the mix in the interim. 

For a large number of fans, Wally West is the Flash. They're somewhat tolerant of the TV show calling the character "Barry Allen" as a sop to older fans, but in the comics, the Flash is Wally and Wally is the Flash. No other applicants need apply. 

There is not now and has never been a "Captain Marvel" character to a great many readers. His name is "Shazam!" It's always been "Shazam!" And he has always been a little boy who grows up fast into a super-powerful badass and gets away with none of the other heroes realizing his true age 'cause everyone's so stupid, right? Just like it seemed when you were fifteen. Up high! Adults suck.

He's been this way since 1986 at least. That's 32 years of continuous publication. The original Captain Marvel, which left the exact relationship between Billy and Cap more ambiguous but consistently portrayed them with different personalities, existed from 1939 to 1954. He was brought back in the 70's for another 12 years or so. That's only 27 years during which the character was done "right." He's now literally been done wrong for a longer period of time, and for many, that is exactly how it should be.

"Back to the Basics" doesn't work anymore for fans who prefer the interim changes and have little interest in comic-book history. As far as most readers are concerned, the characters were great when they came in. Their personal Golden Age is that period of time wherein they were learning how things stood. Anything that alters that paradigm is damaging, including taking the character back to the way he or she was before the reader came in. 

I know someone who feels the X-Men were never better or more interesting than they were during the crossover "X-Cutioner's Song." I don't like him, but I know him. This guy still reads the X-Men, sure, but they're not as good as they were then. Stuff from before that, sure, they're classics, but they're nowhere near as labyrinthine and complex; the motivations and characterizations are so... vanilla. The art was so basic. Back when you had to, absolutely had to, track all six books that came out that month in order to follow the plot, wow... Now that was comics!! Even if you bought every issue, you might not get all the answers! And why should you? These guys were f*ckin' geniuses putting out the books then! They couldn't be bothered to slow down for readers who couldn't keep up or cover every little plot point and detail! Figure it out yourself! That was exciting!

I work with someone who came back to comics during Morrison's X-Men run. It was the best run of the book ever by his reckoning. The diversity, the themes, the complications, the pain... Morrison spun straw into gold with that run, and my co-worker has little or no patience for anyone or anything that detracts from what was accomplished during that time. Everything since takes away from rather than adds to what he loves about the X-Men.

I had to watch as DC took the books and characters I loved as a kid and beat them to death in the parking lot, foisting a bunch of shallow wannabes on the readership in their stead. Grinning, self-satisfied dunderheads who'd never known a bad day in their lives instead of heroes. Violent "realists" who fought giggling serial killers where their forebears once fought bank robbers. Psychos in micrometer-thick armor who hated to have to do it, but gee, the guy didn't talk so we have to break his leg... You know. The good guys.

At some point, you have to let go.

Today's Hulk is not Lee and Kirby's or Lee and Ditko's. He may reference them as justification for growing a second head or turning pink, but he will never again be that clear and direct a character. We have no hope of ever retrieving the Len Wein version either unless we're bring him out to laugh at him. We're so-o-o-o-o much cooler than that now. That we can mock things proves it. 

A brief article in a recent DC promo mag laid out the rationale for why Wally is a much faster Flash than Barry. Once upon a time, Barry was off the scale for speed, to the point where it was stated he clearly wasn't human. Somehow, that bolt of lightning had eliminated his body from existence and recombined him with the living essence of the Speed Force itself. Barry was Speed personified.

But we're not publishing that guy right now, and we are doing a Wally book, so... No. None of that. Wally's the fastest and bestest. He has to be, right? I mean, he's the one we're doing now. 

Never mind that when Wally became the Flash, the whole point of the character was that he was nowhere near as fast as his uncle. Barry was an electrical inter-dimensional being. Wally was a human joe who needed to eat another dozen hot dogs before going out to take on Captain Cold. A dozen hot dogs doesn't actually metabolize into enough energy to run at those speeds, but whatever... he's probably interacting with the food molecules on a sub-quantum level or something... 

The point was, they were going to do super-speed right, and to that end, Wally was going to be Quicksilver-fast, not Barry-fast. But that's not how he stayed. Writers gonna write and all that. So, now, to most Wally readers, he SHOULD be faster than Barry. That's how they found him. 

We can't even go back to the basics on the altered versions that co-opted the original characters. A Wally that could have survived the Anti-Monitor's anti-matter cannon because, pshaw, he'd just run faster than Barry did, would have been completely antithetical to the intent laid down for the character when he was first given the role. But that is what we have now, with issue after issue apparently to back up the new writer's assertion that Wally is badass and Barry is just ass. 

No one writes on-model. No one believes in on-model. There is no model. Characters are whatever we say they are. Injustice Flash, Nu-52 Flash, Pre-Crisis Flash, Post-Crisis Flash, Infinite Crisis Flash, Rebirth-Flash, JLA Movie Flash, TV Flash One and TV Flash Two could all be put in a room together and find nothing to talk about. But hey, as long as someone buys each version, DC isn't going to see anything wrong with it. It's fine. 

And I have a whole stack of well-written "actual" books that I can spend my time catching up on now instead of these comics. It all works out.


Edited by Brian Hague on 10 August 2018 at 3:11pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Wallace Sellars
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 17659
Posted: 10 August 2018 at 3:53pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply


 QUOTE:
Like fans who still demand that Peter has to be married to
MJ.


Does the "Renew Your Vows" storyline put them back together?
Back to Top profile | search | www
 

Page of 8 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 cannot vote in polls in this forum

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