Comics are Awesome II

[Gomess]

From what I recall of the X-Men comics at the time of the X-Men movies, a large factor is probably to do with the fact that the books hardly reflect what's happening in the movies- on various levels.

Mystique got naked. Toad got a tongue. Then way later Grant Morrison gave everyone [generally] more restrained outfits. That's about it. So when people watch RDJ RDJ-ing his way through the cocky blastathon that is the Iron Man movies, they probably just want to see more of that in sequential art form, which I'm guessing the current Iron Man comics don't provide.

Of course, I'm also one of those people who doesn't really like the idea of transferring properties between mediums. The very idea of a movie based on a comic book irks me, and to see it realised with such little imagination... Eh. At least make sure the comics are telling a solid, accessible story before trying to expand the franchise.

[JediTricks]

I do wonder what kind of mental gymnastics it requires to convince oneself that it's worth getting into modern Marvel/DC/whatevs on the basis of seeing one of the movies, just general curiosity or even nostalgia. The comics are so far removed from their actual mainstream representation, and so bogged down by their histories, that I'm amazed the numbers are as high as they are, like JT implies.

I think Marvel and DC sell strong based mainly on existing audiences more than they are tie-ins to other media. Imagine going from the Avengers movie to the Avengers comic book, it'd be unrecognizable. These New 52 and Ultimates ideas are meant to open the medium up to new audiences, but those audiences get distilled down to the fan numbers pretty quickly I think. To leap from screen to comic and stick with it would indeed be a hell of a challenge.

Considering how successful Marvel's movies are, you'd think the comics would sell very well as people who liked the movies went looking for more stories about those characters. For whatever reason, they don't. Dom attributes a lot of that to the lack of a love of reading these days, and that's probably a big part of it. Comics being non-kid friendly and very expensive is probably another part of that.

How can the Avengers be the third highest grossing film ever, and that barely make a dent in the sales of the comic? There's a disconnect somewhere. And the same thing is true of Transformers comics. The movies have been very successful, and yet the comics with movie characters (and by association, the other Transformers comics) don't shift all that many more books.

I think the reason is not a lack of reading so much as a lack of tolerance for a serialized format. People who see movies expect closure, they expect to watch something for a few hours and get all they need. The movies distill down the comics to their basic essences in order to tell a taut, compact singular product. Generally, people don't like the feeling of waiting a month to find out what happens in a cliffhanger, they don't like worrying that their story may be summarily dismissed with an editorial swipe of the pen, they don't want to make time to read and think about a single issue of a comic book. Comics are decompressed by their very nature while movies are they opposite, so they don't share much in the way of audience crossover. People like to think about the characters, but they don't want to spend huge portions of their lives combing through the minutiae to get there. I don't think it's a disconnect, I think it's the movies doing exactly what they're supposed to, and the comics fueling those movies. Look at Lord of the Rings, how many people have seen those movies vs read those books all the way through? Comics are where ideas are born and germinate and grow, movies are only a quick reflection of those ideas.

From what I recall of the X-Men comics at the time of the X-Men movies, a large factor is probably to do with the fact that the books hardly reflect what's happening in the movies- on various levels.

Mystique got naked. Toad got a tongue. Then way later Grant Morrison gave everyone [generally] more restrained outfits. That's about it. So when people watch RDJ RDJ-ing his way through the cocky blastathon that is the Iron Man movies, they probably just want to see more of that in sequential art form, which I'm guessing the current Iron Man comics don't provide.

Of course, I'm also one of those people who doesn't really like the idea of transferring properties between mediums. The very idea of a movie based on a comic book irks me, and to see it realised with such little imagination... Eh. At least make sure the comics are telling a solid, accessible story before trying to expand the franchise.

I like the movies based on comic books, it says that the ideas in comic books resonate, people look for those types of stories still even if they no longer see themselves as fans of the original content. The movies that succeed are the ones that distill down the greater comic book worlds into small, singular bites. The changes in the first X-men movie are part of that distillation process mostly, the movie exists on its own outside the comics yet still harkens to those comics.

[Dominic]

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 dunno. If I was reading a Jeff Lemire book and found out about more Jeff Lemire, I would be happy to have more Jeff Lemire on my pull-list. And, if I were just reading for the character, then I am still buying the book with that character in it.

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.

Actually, "Cobra" is significantly different from the other Joe books. The differences in tone and caliber between Costa and Dixon are....they do not even bear descriptions. It would be like comparing early 90s "Batman" with modern "Spider-Man". There really is no comparison.

But, if Costa wrote two Joe books, I would be in for both.

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.

The movies are not appreciably different (for good or ill) from the last decade's worth of comics. At a basic level, they are largely....forgettable. My recall on the movies is a bit better, because there is less content over-all. But, Tony Stark has had so many ephemeral changes (even to fundamentals like a secreat identity) over the last decade or so (since right before "DisAssembled") and.......

At this point, I would say that anything pre-Fraction does not really matter. The Fraction-era stuff is passable, not unlike the movies.

No, instead we have Tony Stark in space fighting Gods this week, and then acting like a right-wing asshole the next.

Gillen's current run is actually pretty good.

Ok, the thing is: the Iron Man we know now just isn't the same *character* he was 50 years ago. He's just the same.. design. The same (TM). Besides which, I don't consider that impressive. Telling a consistent, coherent story over 50 years is impressive, but Marvel haven't.

It depends on how you define a character. Iron Man is a wealthy genius with a drinking problem, and has been for about 30 years. His armour is red, with either gold or silver detailing. Peter Parker is a self-absorbed fuck-wit who nobody in their right mind would care to have around. He wears red and blue tights. In that sense, we do have a consistently defining stasis quo.

Of course, there is not much in the way of a sensible linear narrative.

Ironically, the "X-Men" comics do have character changes. If they could keep characters dead, they would be light years ahead of most comics.

It's just a bit sad to think that, in another fifty years, when god knows what has happened IRL, Tony Stark will still have that same moustache, still be fighting rival businessman in that same deus ex magica suit, and still be banging his same redhead secretary.

No, the sad thing is that 50 years from now, the same fandom will be complaining if Marvel deviates from that model.

All that's gone by the wayside now. If there's a more ageist medium than comics, I'm not sure what it would be.

Wrestling. WWE will not consider new talent over the age of 35. Granted, there are practical reasons for this. But, relatively few workers stay active in the business as they age.

Before the big reboot, those characters were in their 90s. Even Batman was clearly pushing 40, given all his sidekicks and how they've aged.

But, that was also problematic. Jay Garrick should have been in a damned home. Bruce Wayne should have been at least considering retirement. (The side-kicks would make good successors.)

The more passage of time is implied, the more companies needs to make decisions about either re-setting things every so often or letting characters age and die. I would prefer the latter, but will accept the former.

30 is old to a kid. I remember when I was younger, I wasn't that interested in characters like Superman or Batman because they seemed so old to me. I was a bigger fan of their sidekicks because they were closer to my age.

I dunno, maybe I was weird, even by comic fan standards.

When I was 14, I read Dixon's "Robin" books because they were good, not because Tim Drake was about my age.

I could not identify with Tim Drake. Tim Drake was an orphan (or maybe a runaway) who lived in a fabulous house (and later in suburbs that are still alien to me now) and was a gifted athlete (not at all like me) and was fighting crime at night (while I was barely keeping up on my studies) and still had time for social activities (which I could actually manage at that age).

Similarly, I read JSA when I was maybe 15 or 16, not because I was an old man....but because I liked the damned book.

Avengers #1 - this is a ton of fun, Dom derides it but in terms of sheer entertainment, it's a blast and it does a good job setting up everything. Ant-Man is a dick even here, while Wasp is boy-crazy. Loki really does a good job using his tricksterism to mess with everybody. I forgot how much the Hulk talks on the page, it's refreshing compared to just "HULK SMASH" in other media. Art is what you'd expect from the period, but does its job well and has a few thrilling moments (along with low points of the Hulk made up as a robot clown).

And, with Stan Lee's writing, the Hulk's inarticulate gibbering sounds like everybody else!

Dark Avengers - The runup issues are nearly all a waste of time, and having only read IDW and digital comics lately I had forgotten how annoying the ads every other page in Marvel books could be. Once we get into the Dark Avengers stories proper, some of the setup is interesting but the story is like a compressed look at a decompressed story, so it's frustrating. Every issue seems to land on a cliffhanger like a soap opera, some of the payoffs work and others are not good. The idea behind the series is compelling but a bit of a stretch even for comics, and so far hasn't lived up to its promise. I'm missing issues 7-8, was considering getting them on Comixology but it looks like they're not important to the rest of the volume, I hate when that happens. The art shifts so often it's hard to keep track of some things. I'm of a mixed mind so far on Dark Avengers, it's compelling but kinda problematic.

Those first few issues are Bendis establishing tone and setting and the like. My god, he sold me on the series with the first issue man. What is wrong with you?

Osborn's conversations with "Bob" and with the other characters are genius.

Issues 7 and 8 are irrelevant to the rest of the series. Bendis took two months off and some other guy came in to handle the "X-Men" cross-over. It was not bad, but it does not match Bendis' writing. (Everybody talks like a jerk or a tough guy. Osborn comes across as a common mafia thug rather than as a charismatic business man.)
It is not a bad story. But, it is not necessary to read.

"Dark X-Men" is suprisingly good though.

do wonder what kind of mental gymnastics it requires to convince oneself that it's worth getting into modern Marvel/DC/whatevs on the basis of seeing one of the movies, just general curiosity or even nostalgia. The comics are so far removed from their actual mainstream representation, and so bogged down by their histories, that I'm amazed the numbers are as high as they are, like JT implies.

Marvel: Bendis' run on "Avengers" and related books. Current (Gillen) "Iron Man".

DC: Earth 2, Legends of the Dark Knight, Final Crisis, Countdown (if only to be able to reference it as being terrible), Blackhawks, Captain Atom.

For whatever reason, they don't. Dom attributes a lot of that to the lack of a love of reading these days, and that's probably a big part of it. Comics being non-kid friendly and very expensive is probably another part of that.

It is not that people do not have a "love of reading", it is that people do not read. Functional literacy is declining in the US. (This trend goes back for at least 20 years.)

In theory, comics are trying to do the right thing by trying to appeal to more literatue audiences (and distributing in book stores). But, in practice, they are missing the mark and failing to convince the relevant audiences to buy in.

very idea of a movie based on a comic book irks me, and to see it realised with such little imagination...

I am not sure that I see the problem here.

People like to think about the characters, but they don't want to spend huge portions of their lives combing through the minutiae to get there.

The real problem is when having to comb through the back-story and minutia becomes obligatory.


Dom
-rarely goes to movies.....

[Gomess]

It's just a bit sad to think that, in another fifty years, when god knows what has happened IRL, Tony Stark will still have that same moustache, still be fighting rival businessman in that same deus ex magica suit, and still be banging his same redhead secretary.

No, the sad thing is that 50 years from now, the same fandom will be complaining if Marvel deviates from that model.

QFT

Wrestling.

DOM_IS_WRESTLING

[BWprowl]

Sparky and G's last few replies in this thread make me want to see Marvel try a social experiment: They announce that a 'BIG CHANGE and NEW DIRECTION' is going to occur for Iron Man...and then reveal that it's going to be to have Tony Stark shave off his mustache. I want to know exactly how much the fans would bitch about this, and what their arguments would be.

Because they would bitch, and it would prove pretty much everything we've said before about comics fans and their problems with change.

[Gomess]

Marvel should have an Every Hero Loses Their Sole Defining Physical Characteristic Season.

No tache for Stark
No glasses for Banner
No white hair bits for Richards

No white skin for Parker

AND THE CROWD GOES WILD (I used to mod on scans_daily)

[Sparky Prime]

My point was that he's always had a moustache, but wasn't an alcoholic in the 60s. The very idea he could've been is crazy. I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in the character. And pleeaase don't claim such changes count as "development" because development requires a solid beginning and end to show what changes were wrought, neither of which Iron Man has. The alcoholism thing was, at best, a contrived attempt to force the character into relevance.

So to you, the mustache says more about who he is as a character than his struggle with alcoholism? Does that mean it makes a difference he's actually worn it as a goatee for long time now? How does that not count a character development? He developed a problem with alcoholism that cost him everything, he got help and rebuilt his life, and now struggles to stay sober. A plot point that still comes up from time to time. Not every development has a clear beginning and end and that isn't a "contrived attempt to force the character into relevance" at all. That's called character building. It is a part of what makes Tony the character he is today that wasn't always a part of the character.

My simple point is "this is not ok". Why is it necessary to continue the "story," such as it is (I think O6 and I have already addressed the fact that Marvel don't really care about telling A Story), for years, and why are "tricks" justifiable in that case? It just all strikes me as the worst possible way of telling stories.

I get you don't see it as ok, and that's fine for your opinion. But that doesn't mean Marvel has to end their storyline if they don't want to. It's their story to tell, and it's up to them to run it as they see fit. No one is saying it's the best possible way of telling a story, but some people don't have a problem with it like you do.

Sparky and G's last few replies in this thread make me want to see Marvel try a social experiment: They announce that a 'BIG CHANGE and NEW DIRECTION' is going to occur for Iron Man...and then reveal that it's going to be to have Tony Stark shave off his mustache. I want to know exactly how much the fans would bitch about this, and what their arguments would be.

Because they would bitch, and it would prove pretty much everything we've said before about comics fans and their problems with change.

If you change something about anything, you will always have someone complain about it. It's hardly exclusive to comic fans.

That said, Iron Man changes the look of his armor fairly dramatically every few years. Somehow I think a shave wouldn't be that big of a deal.

[Gomess]

I get you don't see it as ok, and that's fine for your opinion. But that doesn't mean Marvel has to end their storyline if they don't want to. It's their story to tell, and it's up to them to run it as they see fit. No one is saying it's the best possible way of telling a story, but some people don't have a problem with it like you do.

I think we debate in different ways. Of course it's my opinion! Of course some people don't share it! Do you have more reason to actually like the way Marvel does things than "that's the way they do it and it's their prerogative"?

And hey, my argument isn't that *I* think Tony is defined more by his physical appearance- i.e. his tache, as it's his only distinguishing feature- than the cohesiveness and meaning of his life experience; it's that Marvel use it to define him.

Why did his alcoholism never trouble him back in the 60s? Because Marvel hadn't made him an alcoholic yet. Why did they? They could've done it to *anyone*. It was tacked on, and had no meaningful link with the character as far as I could see. Soap opera stuff designed to create drama for drama's sake, y'know?

[Sparky Prime]

I think we debate in different ways. Of course it's my opinion! Of course some people don't share it! Do you have more reason to actually like the way Marvel does things than "that's the way they do it and it's their prerogative"?

I'm just arguing the other side of it. You might not like they way they tell the story, but honestly, I don't think why they tell the story the way they do has anything to do with the reasons you've argued here.

And hey, my argument isn't that *I* think Tony is defined more by his physical appearance- i.e. his tache, as it's his only distinguishing feature- than the cohesiveness and meaning of his life experience; it's that Marvel use it to define him.

I don't see it that way in the least. His mustache has nothing to do with how they define the character. It's simply just a part of Stark's style and appearance.

Why did his alcoholism never trouble him back in the 60s? Because Marvel hadn't made him an alcoholic yet. Why did they? They could've done it to *anyone*. It was tacked on, and had no meaningful link with the character as far as I could see. Soap opera stuff designed to create drama for drama's sake, y'know?

I could not disagree more. It made sense given the problems he was facing at the time, it wasn't just tacked on. A problem like that just doesn't come from no where. And it helped to humanize who Tony Stark is as a character, showing he has some real world faults. And it has remained a part of who the character is ever since. I honestly can't see how you don't see that as a meaningful link with the character. The movies even highlight that aspect of Tony Stark. In fact, it's come out "Demon in a Bottle" was even meant to be an aspect of the 3rd film until Disney shot that idea down.

[Gomess]

Well, alright, since it seems we have fundamentally different approaches to the issue, lemme just get down to brass tacks and ask if you think Marvel are among the best storytellers going? That's not meant to be facetious, I really want to get a relative idea of where you're coming from calling Tony Stark a well-constructed character. Or maybe I'm overstating things, and there's plenty of stories you consider better crafted than Marvel's.

It could be as simple as you having grown up liking comics and therefore better equipped to deal with what I see as their faults, of course.