TF Views

Well, O6's psychic powers pretty much covered most of my points for me. I hope it doesn't sound like a simple "this character's backstory is too complex for my tiny brain!" though, because it isn't. I've read *complex* stories. Iron Man's history isn't complex, it's messy.

Sparky Prime wrote:Having a character be so successful for 50+ years is impressive and hard to do.

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.

Sparky Prime wrote: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.

And what a vile plan it is. Kids have loved McDonald's food since its inception, but they've had to change the recipe whenever they were called out for shovelling the same nutritionless crap into their mouths.

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.

Onslaught Six wrote: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.)

At one time, DC allowed their characters to age, at least to a certain degree. Oliver Queen (Green Arrow) was over 40 and had already become a grandfather. Hal Jordan had been a Green Lantern for 15 years and was going grey, and was clearly meant to be in his mid to late 40s. Jay Garrick, Alan Scott and the other surviving Golden Age characters had aged in real time, even if some magic comic-book plot kept them physically younger than they would otherwise have been. 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.

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.

I know, and you're cool with that. There's people who aren't.

I mean, if you give a character functional immortality as a consequence of their power set (Superman, Wolverine, a handful of other dudes) then of course you can run their book infinitely--but the world around them has to change, too, or else there's no point in them even being immortal.

Onslaught Six wrote:*facepalm*

He means money in the bank for Marvel.

Ah, well that point wasn't made very clear then.

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.

My point still stands. Tony Stark has not always been Iron Man. Rodney was able to effectively fill his shoes for some time. And even became a super hero in his own right with the War Machine armor. Marvel is capable of replacing the character if they really wanted to.

Adults under or around 30.

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.

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.

Wolverine. Captain America. Thor. Magneto. Professor Xavier. Considering Peter Parker is now pushing 30 in the comics, Tony Stark should be around 40 or 50 at least.

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.

Why should they if they don't have to? I mean, obviously not everyone likes how the companies have handled it, but it's their stories to tell, not ours. And how they have handled it seems to work out well enough, considering their characters are still so popular after so many years.

Gomess wrote: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.

Same design? Iron Man has changed and evolved a *lot* over the years.

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.

You really don't read the comics do you? That isn't even what is happening in the Iron Man comics today as it is.

Sparky, I think you're taking my comments a little too literally; you need to pull yourself out of the 'facts' of the comic books and look at the art and industry as a whole, or you'll never get what I'm trying to say. What precisely is happening in the Iron Man comic at this exact moment is irrelevant; what's important is how much the character's design and context has meaningfully and permanently changed since his inception. My argument is that they really haven't.

So Tony doesn't have a moustache, suit full of plot devices and sexual tension with his secretary right now...?

Also, Wolverine, Captain America and Thor are pretty bad examples of "characters pushing 40", considering they're all functionally ageless. =/ But again, you're picking at minutiae and ignoring the actual point being made here. Comic book characters are prevented from aging out of fear of alienating the existing audience.

Gomess wrote:Sparky, I think you're taking my comments a little too literally; you need to pull yourself out of the 'facts' of the comic books and look at the art and industry as a whole, or you'll never get what I'm trying to say. What precisely is happening in the Iron Man comic at this exact moment is irrelevant; what's important is how much the character's design and context has meaningfully and permanently changed since his inception. My argument is that they really haven't.

Pull myself out of the facts? You need to look at some of the facts here given some of your arguments simply are not correct. You're essentially saying things don't change in comics. Stark having a mustache or not isn't a relevant argument, as that is not an indication of how the character has changed or will change. What is happening in the comics is what shows how the character has changed. That's what you need to be looking at here, not pulling away from those facts.

Also, Wolverine, Captain America and Thor are pretty bad examples of "characters pushing 40", considering they're all functionally ageless. =/ But again, you're picking at minutiae and ignoring the actual point being made here. Comic book characters are prevented from aging out of fear of alienating the existing audience.

I was half joking with that. O6 only challenged me to name characters who where arguably pushing 40, he didn't give any stipulations beyond that. And you're ignoring that I did name a couple other characters besides them (Magneto, Xavier and Tony Stark himself), so I did not ignore the actual point being made at all. Comic book characters haven't been prevented from aging. Of which there are numerous examples that has been brought up in this topic. I even mentioned in my last post Peter Parker is closer to 30 now, and he was 15 when he became Spider-Man. The companies just use tricks and reboots to keep them from aging too much or make them younger for the purposes of continuing the storyline for years to come.

Sparky Prime wrote:Stark having a mustache or not isn't a relevant argument, as that is not an indication of how the character has changed or will change.

Of course it's relevant to the argument, I *started* the argument. =p 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.

Sparky Prime wrote:The companies just use tricks and reboots to keep them from aging too much or make them younger for the purposes of continuing the storyline for years to come.

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.

Damn, those Transformers numbers are harsh, it's too bad because the content is solid across the board, and there's actual growth showing in each, despite the characters not technically "aging".

I got the 700 free digital Marvel #1 issues, read Avengers #1, Spider-Man #1, and Amazing Fantasy #15's Spidey story. I also got a bunch of free comics on Comixology, read Batman's first story from Detective comics. Then Dark Horse gave out 50 free digital comics, got those too. And on top of that, Dom sent me a mountain of comics, I read the first 6 of "Dark Avengers (vol 1)" and the runup issues he sent.


The Bat-Man, Detective Comics #27 - Commissioner Gordon is rich and hanging out with the ultra lazy Bruce Wayne, a police call comes in and Gordon invites Wayne along to the crime scene. Wayne gets bored and disappears. The Bat-Man appears as a mystery and starts investigating. The foundation of Batman being an expert at martial arts, at being a detective, at following clues where the police can't, that stuff is here and making its play. There's an actual plot twist and Bats finally figures it out. The reveal at the end is cute. Art is a little rough but overall this is solid.

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).

Spider-Man, Amazing Fantasy #15 - pure origin story, and it's a home run. Spidey is a tragic figure all the way, and doesn't do virtually anything "heroic", he mainly is selfish and suffers, but it's interesting.

The Amazing Spider-Man #1 - 2 stories continuing off from Amazing Fantasy. The first story introduces J Jonah Jameson and he immediately shits on Spidey via his paper, even after Spidey saves his astronaut son. Can't a spidey catch a break?!? It's a tad outrageous to leap from the simple stuff before to this flying around on rockets and such, but the main character still feels the weight of life on his shoulders. The second story forgets the main character's name, calling him "Peter Palmer" throughout (nice work Stan Lee), but is a compelling supervillain tale of The Chameleon. Peter still is on the hunt for cash, and thinks breaking into the Baxter Building to join the Fantastic Four will be a huge payday, but surprise surprise, Spider-man breaking into their headquarters isn't exactly enduring and a small battle ensues, Spidey leaves when he finds out that Mr Fantastic is running a non-profit! The villain learns of the hero's need for cash and attempts to use it as bait to make Spidey the fall guy for his espionage. The second story is fun, but the art doesn't live up to the quality of the first 2 Spidey stories.

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.


This talk of comics numbers being down, I think part of it is the weight of an entire universe on a single title's shoulders, everything that came before has to be caught up on in order to understand what's going on in these current Marvel books, there are so many inside references and call-backs that one could spend all day on wikis and still feel like they are missing a piece of the puzzle, and some of that puzzle is contradictory and some of it is just crap, so it's frustrating. It's a closed system, and where it's not is often pretty bad, a lot of the New 52 content from DC has been awful-looking from the outset. There's no respect for the audience, the thing that used to be fun - crossing over titles into a greater universe - is now a burden. That's what makes RID and MTMTE so good, they're not dependent on each other and they're written so that you don't need too much backstory to get into them, and yet they're selling less than a tenth of the big boys.

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.

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.