Comics are Awesome II

[Sparky Prime]

If Tony Stark was injured in the Vietnam War, and now has access to the internet, then... how old is he?

COMIX

Like I said, Marvel has moved it in order to keep the character young for modern readers. Point being, the comics sometimes do establish real world events for when things takes place in the story. Problem with that is you can run into problems like this when a storyline has run for so many years. Same thing would eventually happen to the movies if they tried to stick to the same fictional universe for so long. Eventually it will become dated unless they somehow compensate for it.

[Gomess]

keep the character young for modern readers.

See, this is what I have a problem with. Let Tony Stark become a cool old guy. Create new characters to take up the baton.

I understand [the two reasons] why they don't do that, and it's a big part of why I'm not into comics.

[andersonh1]

keep the character young for modern readers.

See, this is what I have a problem with. Let Tony Stark become a cool old guy. Create new characters to take up the baton.

I understand [the two reasons] why they don't do that, and it's a big part of why I'm not into comics.

That's one of the things I enjoyed about the Justice Society, if I can bring that book up again. Characters had aged. There were only three of the originals members who were still alive, and the other members of the group were children and grandchildren of the original members who had taken up the mantle as it were, and were carrying on the legacy of their parents and grandparents. It was a very rare thing in comics, a generational team. The passage of time had some meaning with that group.

[Gomess]

I'm going to assume Justice Society was cancelled relatively soon, while Eternally Twenty-Something Superman's comic continued to thrive? It's a shame.

In a bit of an argument about "are ______ art?" once, a friend of mine said that video games *should* be art, but they're not; they're a business. Comics don't seem too far from that.

[Dominic]

Yost's Avenging Spider-Man and Yost's Scarlet Spider have nothing to do with each other, and they're both great books, your argument is invalid.

If a writer is working on multiple thematically related books, then I expect a certain amount of crossing over.

That is how comics work. I can see being annoyed if you have to read multiple books by different writers, especially when they vary in quality. (I refused to by the "Cobra Civil War" compilations that IDW published because I am not going to waste shelf-space on Dixon bundled with Costa. Similarly, I skipped the two issues of "Dark Avengers" not written by Bendis.)

I didn't want to read all those books! I just wanted to read about Animal Man!

Then why do you care about the non-"Animal Man" chapters? If you want to see Buddy Baker doing stuff, you get that in the book you are reading. If he shows up in other books, then hey, more Buddy Baker.

Definitely. I would read "Former Vertigo Characters Monthly." (There's a joke in there somewhere.) On the other hand, the format they publish it in apparently gives readers an excuse to go to a comic shop more frequently.

Yeah, remember "Doom Patrol"? (Ewwwwwww......)

I honestly would not bother with comics if I was only reading one or two quartlerly books. I would forget to go to the shop, miss an issue, and lose interest.

And pre-emptively, I've heard all that "sliding timescale" rubbish before. Time is an important factor in storytelling!

Gom
-Resident comics hater

I really want to dispute you on this.

The only thing I can really say is that your complaint is about a symptom more than a problem. (Comics being stuck in "stasis quo" is the bigger issue, and it causes the time-scale bull shit.)


And.....a quick review"

Dark Avengers #189:
Ya know, it is funny. Marvel renumbered all of their major books about a year ago. And, they are going to renumber them again in about 2 months. But, here we have a book with an artificially high number. The issue number is actually part of the artificial legacy numbering for "Thunderbolts" (which is also running on a new numbering system right now). That legacy number actually struck a significant run of "Thunderbolts" from the record. So, "Dark Avengers" has a completely non-sensical number that implies 15+ years of history for a book that only existed as a title maybe 5 years ago....with a wholly different premise, creative team and cast.

In terms of content, this issue is a big fight issue. Some shit happens. Ragnarok is either getting rebranded as the Thor of an alternate universe or as a new stand-alone character. I think it all wraps up next issue.

Grade: c


Dom
-aside from losing the 900+ on "Action Comics", is happy that DC is finally using a consistent numbering system.

[Sparky Prime]

keep the character young for modern readers.

See, this is what I have a problem with. Let Tony Stark become a cool old guy. Create new characters to take up the baton.

I understand [the two reasons] why they don't do that, and it's a big part of why I'm not into comics.

What are the two reasons?

On the one hand, I can see how it would be interesting to let the character age and new younger characters take their place. As andersonh1 said, that worked for Justice Society. But on the other hand, that doesn't mean it will work for every character. These are comic book characters. They don't have to be completely realistic, and as such they don't have to age realisticly. I get that it isn't your thing, but I think there is more to it than just two reasons why they handle most characters the way they do.

[Gomess]

(1) Tony Stark's iconic(?) appearance has been money in the bank since the 60s, so trying to create new flagship characters is a potential waste of resources.

(2) "Kids don't want to read about old people!"

Pretty much everything else I've seen in Marvel comics has been 'realistic' within story context; I'm talking about the simple IRL fact of dragging a single character's story out over 50 years with no real plan. Business guff aside, it's just crazy to me.

Spider-Man's autobiography would be one hell of a read.

...All that said, there have definitely been more self-contained comics I like. I'm just super wary of the big ongoings, and still act daft when people bring them up. I should really stay out of the comics thread, but I can't help it!

[Onslaught Six]

Also, your comment on the hour long format intrigues me. I would like to know more if you don't mind explaining it?

I wouldn't have brought it up if I didn't intend to explain it, if pressed!

I seriously don't know why but I just have problems paying attention. It's not that I can't actively sit for extended periods of time and watch A Thing, because I'll watch several unrelated films right in a row with no problem, or half a season of a half-hour format show (Community, Archer, Louie, numerous animu and cartoons) in one go. I think it's just that the extended length of the episodes is just in a very weird spot for me--they're not short enough that I can watch the whole plotline play out and (presumably) resolve before my mind goes off the rails, but they aren't long enough that my brain engages into my "extended range" of paying attention, like it does with a longer film.

Two Christmases ago, a coworker got my the first season of the old Highlander show, which I used to watch reruns of on Spike TV when it came out. Once I tried actually sitting down to watch them, though, I had problems paying attention and staying invested--about halfway through I would stop caring and start checking my email and Facebook and crap, and then start paying attention again when I heard dudes about to swordfight. It could just be that I don't have enough experience with the format (I can count the shows I've actually cared about that were in it on one hand) but it's just hard for me to stay invested as much. (It's also worth noting that I haven't really watched any television shows aired on actual TV for the last maybe 3-4 years, so most of my adult watching experience is with DVDs or things I downloaded--maybe commercials break things up?)

It's also a quick excuse for why I can't be fucked watching things everyone else jizzes over that I have no interest in, like Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead. If you try to tell them you're not interested, they'll just talk to you about how that's not a good excuse and you should watch it anyway...if you say you don't like hour-long TV dramas, they understand more.

If a writer is working on multiple thematically related books, then I expect a certain amount of crossing over.

Hey, I expect that too. But here's the thing--the initial issues of Animal Man established that he was fighting against this supernatural force called The Rot, and they established that pretty well in its own book. And they mentioned that, eventually, he was going to need the help of Swamp Thing. I'm fine with both of those things. What I'm not fine with is when they go off for literally six months to Go Find Swamp Thing and the story slows to a crawl and all but says "Seriously why aren't you reading Swamp Thing yet?" Because I don't want to read Swamp Thing! I want to read Animal Man!

I mean, even in your GI Joe example--GI Joe and Cobra might even be written by different writers, but they presumably have a little bit of thematic crossover and you can reasonably be expected to be interested in both books. I didn't start reading Animal Man because I wanted to read Reboots Of Characters Great Writers Made Famous Monthly--I started reading it because A) It was a New 52 book with a superhero who had a canonical family that wasn't completely killed off, backwritten or otherwise destroyed by the reboot and B) It was almost universally praised as one of the best books of the New 52 (and especially because it's got the Grant Morrison legacy to stack up against and was doing just fine), and C) He was a superhero that I didn't already know a lot about, and I wanted to take a shot at reading something that would be really fresh to me. (I never read Morrison's run, aside from the "famous" issue.)

It's like, the reason I started reading Animal Man in the first place are probably different from the reasons other people were reading it. I was reading it because it had a superhero with an actual family life that he was struggling to keep together, and because it was Legitimately Good and something new and interesting for me. (Not unlike how Anderson started reading Daredevil without really knowing much about him, come to think!) I didn't start reading it because I was interested in the supernatural metaplot running through all the other books. So when it became about that, instead of the things I started reading it for, I jumped off.

(The fact that it was also basically requiring me to spend an extra $4+/month, a few months after I had just gotten fired, was an extra incentive. It came down to, "Hm, I can spend $4 more to read a book I don't care about and get some minor insight on Animal Man, or I can stop reading Animal Man and have $4 extra every month. I wonder which I'm going to do?")

Then why do you care about the non-"Animal Man" chapters? If you want to see Buddy Baker doing stuff, you get that in the book you are reading. If he shows up in other books, then hey, more Buddy Baker.

Because the book was all but giving me a big neon sign that said "YOU SHOULD BE READING SWAMP THING!"

[Sparky Prime]

(1) Tony Stark's iconic(?) appearance has been money in the bank since the 60s, so trying to create new flagship characters is a potential waste of resources.

Tony hasn't always had money in the bank. He actually went bankrupt in the 70's-80's as he struggled with alcoholism. At that time, Rodney took over as Iron Man (this was before the War Machine armor was created) while Tony dealt with those issues and began to rebuild his life. Tony's struggle with alcoholism remains a defining point for the character, probably even more so than what his fortune is. So I'm not seeing why it'd be difficult to come up with a new flagship character here...

(2) "Kids don't want to read about old people!"

I don't think that is true at all. I mean, the majority of super hero characters are adults...

Pretty much everything else I've seen in Marvel comics has been 'realistic' within story context; I'm talking about the simple IRL fact of dragging a single character's story out over 50 years with no real plan. Business guff aside, it's just crazy to me.

Realistic to a point. Marvel can and has often pulled some very much unrealistic stunts to suit what they want to do with a character (deals with the devil, body swapping, time travel and so on). Having a character be so successful for 50+ years is impressive and hard to do. And I think that is the plan right there in a nut shell. Continuing to have that character be so successful for years to come by keeping them relatively ageless and appealing, particularly to new readers.

[Onslaught Six]

(1) Tony Stark's iconic(?) appearance has been money in the bank since the 60s, so trying to create new flagship characters is a potential waste of resources.

Tony hasn't always had money in the bank. He actually went bankrupt in the 70's-80's as he struggled with alcoholism. At that time, Rodney took over as Iron Man (this was before the War Machine armor was created) while Tony dealt with those issues and began to rebuild his life. Tony's struggle with alcoholism remains a defining point for the character, probably even more so than what his fortune is. So I'm not seeing why it'd be difficult to come up with a new flagship character here...

*facepalm*

He means money in the bank for Marvel. Tony Stark being a mainstay Marvel Comics character means he is a marketable property. Basically, if you shove Iron Man on something, it's gonna make some cash--cash that New Character Superhero wouldn't bring in, supposedly. G wasn't talking about Tony Stark's fictional financial situation at all, and to imply that is a deliberate misreading of his post.

What G is saying is, why should Marvel invest valuable time, resources and money developing a new IP/character, when they can just slap Iron Man onto it and make guaranteed cash? That's the "reason" he gave.

I don't think that is true at all. I mean, the majority of super hero characters are adults...

Adults under or around 30. Name one mainstream superhero who could, on a bad day, be considered pushing even 40--let alone the actual ages some of these characters would be. (Again, if Tony Stark aged realistically, he would be 70-80 by now. Peter Parker would be a grandfather. Cable would almost be 30--before he even went back in time to begin with.)

Realistic to a point. Marvel can and has often pulled some very much unrealistic stunts to suit what they want to do with a character (deals with the devil, body swapping, time travel and so on). Having a character be so successful for 50+ years is impressive and hard to do. And I think that is the plan right there in a nut shell. Continuing to have that character be so successful for years to come by keeping them relatively ageless and appealing, particularly to new readers.

Except it doesn't need to be done in the fucking stupid and convoluted bullshit way it's done. If you want Tony Stark to be younger, reboot the fucking thing. Don't artificially move up the universe and try to condense down 50 years of history into five. Like Dom said, along Marvel's sliding timescale, "Armour Wars" would have taken place around 2004. That's insane! Why not just lop all that crap off at the stump and move the hell on? I mean, I don't even need to mention all the weird crap with the teenage Tony Stark from the past, and Kang the Conquerer, and the eight times Tony went into a coma or faked his death and pretended someone else was in the Iron Man suit for fake drama points, do I? I mean, read this fucking thing! It gets god damn incomprehensible to keep track of Tony's life story before you even get to the 90s, let alone all the weird shit that's happened in the last ten years!

And that's the problem with comics. Maybe you want to sit there and try to make sense of all that bullshit so you can understand where Tony Stark today is coming from, but I sure as hell don't--and neither do any of the new Iron Man fans I meet who see the (wildly popular, successful, and better than any Iron Man comic written in the last five years) films. We want to read about that fucking guy. Where's that book? No, instead we have Tony Stark in space fighting Gods this week, and then acting like a right-wing asshole the next. Fuck comics.