Comics are Awesome II

[Onslaught Six]

Valiant solved this by simply having everything in real time.

How does that work? Like 12 issues is a years worth of time in the context of the story?

Pretty much. Nearly every issue of Shadowman opened up with a text box establishing the date, and I know I've seen other books (Solar, Magnus) from the same time do it, too.

Now, I can't specifically say that a month would pass between each individual issue, because you have your standard two-parters and cliffhanger endings and stuff like that. But the point is, the books established when they were taking place.

Even mainstream books can do this, though! Look at The Long Halloween.

[Sparky Prime]

Interesting, although I wouldn't say that really solves the problem. Eventually they'll still get to a point where they run out of time that makes sense for the character or storylines.

[Shockwave]

Interesting, although I wouldn't say that really solves the problem. Eventually they'll still get to a point where they run out of time that makes sense for the character or storylines.

Or, they would have to move on to something else like what happens in real life.

[Dominic]

Honestly, I like that DC and Marvel pull some tricks to age or de-age characters. How they might go about it sometimes might not always be told very well, but it allows them some freedom to play around with the characters and stories in different ways.

And, it means that they can always be set back to 70s/80s spec. That is some great story-telling there.

Of course it does. I mean, I could tell the story of my life but it would be a much different story if I kept being aged and de-aged. That kinda goes without saying. And it wouldn't be a very consistent story as a result.

Oh, no. It would be very consistent and predictable. "Something significant just happened. Time to reset the character to base-spec." You could just about keep time to it.

Now, I can't specifically say that a month would pass between each individual issue, because you have your standard two-parters and cliffhanger endings and stuff like that. But the point is, the books established when they were taking place.

Even mainstream books can do this, though! Look at The Long Halloween.

"52" used the same gimmick.

The use of dated stories also means that we can assume "gaps" for the characters to eat, sleep and poop. Shadow man might have endured a really rough week or two, shown over say 3 issues, but then he would get 5 or 6 months of relative down time.

Of course, having real time pacing does not guarantee that a book will be good. "Countdown" nominally used that gimmick, and we all remember how that turned out....

Or, they would have to move on to something else like what happens in real life.

Place obligatory (and justified) jab at the majority of fans for being unable to handle change here:_________________________________


Dom
-What? Well it is true!

[Sparky Prime]

Or, they would have to move on to something else like what happens in real life.

And it would be nice to see a comic actually do that for a change, but honestly, do you think the publisher would be able to let go of their characters they've been publishing for so long so easily? Or for the fans of said character to see them move on to another character?

And, it means that they can always be set back to 70s/80s spec. That is some great story-telling there.

Not at all. Just because a character is younger again doesn't mean everything else has to be set back to when they were younger.

Place obligatory (and justified) jab at the majority of fans for being unable to handle change here

You're always so quick to make a jab at the fans, but part of it is the publishers not wanting to let go of successful properties as well.

[Dominic]

Publishers would be more willing to change/replace characters if the fans were not so stuck on how things used to be. "But, I want ___________ to be in this book!" "How dare they change/kill/ruin ________?!?!" Of course, fans would be less likely to bitch and whine if the big 2 did not become so willing to reward that sort of behavior in the last 10 to 15 years.

So, I can agree to blame on both sides.

Marvel has deteriorated to the point where they cannot keep a third tier (at best) character like Scott Lang dead. Was there even call for that? Or, was Marvel just following a cliche'?

Not at all. Just because a character is younger again doesn't mean everything else has to be set back to when they were younger.

It is not only a question of a character's age. USAgent is a good example. A recent issue of "Dark Avengers" showed him getting lost limbs back....which effectively makes him the same as he was in the late 80s... And, why exactly? Scarlett Witch is back to pre-Byrne spec, and that is after "Disassembled" and "House of M", which there should have been no coming back from.

Pre-"Flash Point" DC was guilty of the same sort of thing. The most notable back-slide since that I can think of is the Manhunter being taken out of Stormwatch.


Dom
-ironicallly, there is a "GI Joe" book due out this week.

[Onslaught Six]

Or, they would have to move on to something else like what happens in real life.

And it would be nice to see a comic actually do that for a change, but honestly, do you think the publisher would be able to let go of their characters they've been publishing for so long so easily? Or for the fans of said character to see them move on to another character?

Shadowman's entire pretense (after issue 5 or so) was that he was going to die. There wasn't any avoiding it. He visited the future, and found out the date he was going to die, and that was in. The upside to this was the fact that Shadowman was destined to die on that date, meaning he couldn't die any sooner than that.

And he did eventually die, and was replaced by the second Shadowman, Michael LeRoi, in the Acclaim relaunch of the entire Valiant line. And with him came an entirely different direction for the book, which the video game was then based on, and that game is the reason I got into Shadowman in the first place.

In fact, though, the Jack Boniface run established that--despite publishing history--Jack Boniface was not the first Shadowman, and there had actually been Shadowmen for centuries. This sets up the idea that eventually, Jack Boniface might be replaced, and we'll be reading the adventures of a different guy named Shadowman.

Given that Valiant was founded on new versions of old characters (Turok, Solar, Magnus Robot Fighter) it makes a lot of sense that people would be willing to accept that these characters may eventually be replaced by someone else.

There's a new Shadowman book that might be out already. (I'm not keeping tabs on it.) The character design is entirely different from everything else, and so far I have no idea who Shadowman actually is--if he's a new version of Jack Boniface, Michael LeRoi, or a new guy entirely. And I'm alright with it. Well, okay--I'm alright with it as long as it doesn't suck. And if it does suck, I'm not going to pine for the old characters back or anything. I accept it and I move on!

[Sparky Prime]

Publishers would be more willing to change/replace characters if the fans were not so stuck on how things used to be.

Are you kidding with this? How long was Barry Allen 'dead' for? Was there really any call from the fans after ~2 decades for his return? Not so much. It's not simply a matter of fans getting stuck on how things used to be. Yes they make a big noise when things happen, but given enough time, that dies down. Heck, anymore Marvel seems to piss off fans just to generate controversy about an issue to drive up sales. They even advertise that in their solicits now. You're so quick to pin it on the fans, but often times it's the publishers themselves that get stuck on things.

It is not only a question of a character's age. USAgent is a good example. A recent issue of "Dark Avengers" showed him getting lost limbs back....which effectively makes him the same as he was in the late 80s... And, why exactly? Scarlett Witch is back to pre-Byrne spec, and that is after "Disassembled" and "House of M", which there should have been no coming back from.

So to you, just because a character gets their lost limbs back makes them exactly who they were decades ago? Or somewhat de-powered returns them to what they used to be? No. It is not that simple. Scarlett Witch hasn't been forgiven just because she's not crazy from a power boost anymore. I don't follow USAgent, but similarly, I find it hard to believe he's exactly who he used to be either.

The most notable back-slide since that I can think of is the Manhunter being taken out of Stormwatch.

That's not really a back-slide. J'onn is creating his own Justice League team, made up of several characters who have never been on a team like this before.

Shadowman's entire pretense (after issue 5 or so) was that he was going to die. There wasn't any avoiding it. He visited the future, and found out the date he was going to die, and that was in. The upside to this was the fact that Shadowman was destined to die on that date, meaning he couldn't die any sooner than that.

Establishing early on that the character is going to die and when is very different from a character that the publisher just decides to kill off in a given storyline that no one really had any particular plans to ever kill off though. Most comic book characters are written to perpetually live forever or at least at the whim of the publisher.

And if it does suck, I'm not going to pine for the old characters back or anything. I accept it and I move on!

So even if it sucked, you wouldn't complain about it at all? Honestly, I'd believe that when I saw it.

[Onslaught Six]

So even if it sucked, you wouldn't complain about it at all? Honestly, I'd believe that when I saw it.

I would complain that it sucked, and then move on because I wouldn't have much interest in it, on account of the sucking. And I wouldn't say something like, "This book would be better with Michael LeRoi in it."

[Sparky Prime]

I would complain that it sucked, and then move on because I wouldn't have much interest in it, on account of the sucking. And I wouldn't say something like, "This book would be better with Michael LeRoi in it."

Complaining that it sucked being the point here. You're not just accepting it sucked and moving on, you still have that criticism about how they handle the book moving from one character to a new one.