TF Views

Onslaught Six wrote:

As andershonh1 points out, the stories in comics do have a beginning, middle and end. They are written as story arcs for a reason. It's the characters that keep going. And we aren't at the end of these characters lives for it to be the end of their adventures. Sure, sometimes the comic companies cheat a to extend their lives, so to speak or sometimes even literally, but why is that such a bad thing? If they can keep having adventures, why force it to end?

Because it's time, man.

Says who? People still enjoy reading about comic book characters, and watching movies about them, and playing video games with them, and buying action figures of them. Sounds like they're still marketable and have some amount of value. As long as there is interest, it makes no sense to end a character's fictional life. They clearly still have some mileage left.

If you want to make the argument that for certain characters we've seen them in every possible situation and there's really nothing new left to discover, that's probably a valid argument. I'm not sure how many new Batman or Superman stories there are left to tell, for example. But both characters are still marketable, so they aren't going away any time soon.

Then mabye they should take the Star Trek route. Captain Kirk died definitively in Generations. They didn't feel the need to bring him back in any sort of context that counted (Shatner's novels are not canon). And the franchise moved on without him. Now we have a new version that's in a new setting completely different from the old one. A true reboot. This is why I was originally on board with Ultimates when it started because it was everything from the beginning but also new and different at the same time. If I didn't have to drop it because of financial reasons I would probably still be reading it now. But, it was a good way to reboot the stories and do new stuff with old characters without having to shoulder the back story of fifty plus years of comic history.

Not the best analogy for most comic characters. Most characters are unique, and defined as much by who they are and how they act as they are by their power sets and costumes. Star Trek is about a larger universe and a set of concepts, and that's why it can work without Kirk as the central character.

The fact that the there were already other Star Trek shows with other characters probably helps that a lot but, the same concept could be applied to comics. Why not have a new Justice League with new characters? JLA TNG as it were? I think if the comic companies did that... I dunno. I dunno where I'm going with this but I just hope it makes some kind of sense.

Age of Ultron #7:
No real suprises in this issue. Sue Storm and Wolverine get back to the newly altered present and have obligatory awkward moments with the new timeline's Avengers (using the name "Defenders".) Barring alternate/diverging timeline bull-shittery, it appears that Wolverine's plan to kill Pym (preventing Ultron from being built in the first place) succeeded. In the next few days, it is a safe bet that somebody is going to list all of the changes, and somebody else will probably try to work out the hows and whys of those changes relative to Pym's death. But, this status quo is going to last less than 3 issues, so I am not really going to concern myself. Bendis' dialogue for Wolverine and Sue Storm (particularly the former) seems "off"-ish. But, that is a minor problem in this type of story. And, Bendis has added enough nice touches that this series is not a total waste thus far.

Ultron's sucessful attack came from the 616 future (and is depicted counter to genre conventions). And, when Woverine and Sue Storm get back to their (altered) time, they have confirmed analogues in that time. Storm's is mentioned, but not shown. And, Wolverine's is clearly visible. This effectively makes the "real" Sue Storm and Wolverine invaders in the current status quo.

Grade: B/C


Iron Man #009
After the events of "God Killer", Stark decides to hunt Recorder 451 for his role in the destruction of the space station. And, this issue leads in to what is going to be a significant re-write of Iron Man's origin. Gillen is fast becoming one of my favourite writers. Besides the general fun of "Iron Man in spaaaaaayce", Gillen can set and pace a scene and add just enough high concept to an even to make this book worth following. This series feels like filler, but it is worthy filler. Gillen, and possibly the artist, are clearly "Transformers" fans. In addition to Death's Head showing up (and being ~30 feet tall), there is a pair of chromites (from US issue 52) in the background of one of the panels.

Grade: B/C

I mean, alright--I'll give you that they can probably write Superman and Batman comics to the end of time. Those characters are so iconic and well-known that there can be different permutations of them that are still unique and have new ideas for probably another 100 years. But then you have your second-and-third tier guys who, it's just like...

In theory, DC could get away with producing a few "Superman" comics a year as one-shots or "Elseworlds" and manage to protect their copyright.

But, there are there are too many fans would would howl and whine about not being able to get Superman comics every few weeks and that there is not enough consistency between the stories. (And, making fewer comics means that there is less occassion for casual non-fans to buy comics.)

People get attached to characters and don't want to see them killed off.

Yeah, those fans need to grow the fuck up.

Sparky wrote:I have an English degree, so I know all about literary criticism.

Gomess wrote: Me too, oh no, how will we judge which of us is right now?? =p And unfortunately, the Information Age has made it more than clear that "having a degree" =/= "knowing ALL about a subject". I've met near-uneducated people who are able to cut to the quick of a media text more than many professors I know. Your qualifications are irrelevant, especially if they restrict your views.

BW Prowl wrote:
Wait, so does he have a degree in studying the English language, or in being English?

(I can't say anything, my degree is in Liberal Arts. I literally majored in Going To College)

Yeah, we all make mistakes.

Anyone who thinks a story doesn't have to end has a problem understanding the point of stories.

The purpose of stories is not going to be fixed. It is going to change over time.

In this case, the stories are being produced for commercial purposes. Audiences respond to the same thing (Iron Man or Batman in this case), so that is what gets produced. Every so often, there will be something really good. But, the quality of the product is less important than the fact it has a recognized character in it.

Do you like comics, or do you like comics with Iron Man in them?

I think if the comics adopted that more idiomatic approach to telling stories with the characters, you'd see the teams behind them taking more creative approaches to using them, and new readers getting on-board because doing so wouldn't be so daunting because of all the backstory that got in the way.

The problem with that business model is that it would make it harder to follow up on or build from a good idea. And, it would not foster consistent readership.

I would like to see one of the big 2 experiment with an ongoing book with a constantly changing status quo, and where the big changes would lead to another change, rather than a change back. The "Spawn" series arguably does this pretty well. But, I want to see Marvel or DC try it.

Not the best analogy for most comic characters. Most characters are unique, and defined as much by who they are and how they act as they are by their power sets and costumes. Star Trek is about a larger universe and a set of concepts, and that's why it can work without Kirk as the central character.

No, the real reason they let Kirk (and later Data) die was because the damned actors were getting too old to play the characters correctly.

And, in both cases, fans howled and raged.


Dom
-the problem is mostly unique to comics and comics fans.....

Dominic wrote:Gillen, and possibly the artist, are clearly "Transformers" fans. In addition to Death's Head showing up (and being ~30 feet tall), there is a pair of chromites (from US issue 52) in the background of one of the panels.

Death's Head has been popping up in Marvel books lately. He was in Avenging Spider-Man a few months ago, and I'm pretty sure I read he was in something else between that and now. Not to mention the Marvel Universe Death's Head toy that's in the pipeline. Part of me almost wonders if Marvel is grooming him for a legitimate comeback (maybe in his own limited series or something) somewhere down the line.

That is probably the plan.

I am just suprised at how far out of their way Marvel is going to acknowledge early appearances of Death's Head, in "Transformers" of all places.

The Chromites in this week's issue of "Iron Man" did not have to be there. But, somebody at Marvel green-lit the art. (Of course, if "Age of Ultron" plays out the way I am expecting it to, the old "Transformers" comics will be even less relevant to 616 Marvel than they are now.)


Dom
-really liking "Iron Man in spaaaaayce".

Dominic wrote:

People get attached to characters and don't want to see them killed off.

Yeah, those fans need to grow the fuck up.

Again, says who? Who says comic book characters that continue to sell can't be published in perpetuity, or at least until the market dries up? If you don't like the current approach, no one's forcing you to buy a comic with a 50 or a 75 year old character. But for those of us who enjoy reading about such characters, who are you to say "grow up"? What makes your point of view valid, and theirs invalid?

I mean, are you still reading Iron Man, Dom? That guys been around since the 60s. Don't you think it's time you grew up and left that worn out, outdated character behind? It's childish to keep clinging to him, right?

I'm not trying to attack Dom here, it just strikes me as bizarre to say that enjoying a character for longer than whatever arbitrary length of time he has in mind is somehow "not growing up". I just wonder what the rule is for how long we're allowed to enjoy and read any given character. I didn't know there was such a rule.

Gomess wrote:Me too, oh no, how will we judge which of us is right now?? =p And unfortunately, the Information Age has made it more than clear that "having a degree" =/= "knowing ALL about a subject". I've met near-uneducated people who are able to cut to the quick of a media text more than many professors I know. Your qualifications are irrelevant, especially if they restrict your views.

I wasn't trying to say that makes me "ALL knowing about a subject" or any more or less qualified. Frankly, it seems like you're trying to talk down to me when I know more about the subject than you are giving me credit for. And I'm not the one restricting my views about it.

I just can't stand the idea that a story is "good" because it "doesn't suck THAT bad". But you did assure me there's plenty of stories you consider superior to Marvel comics, so I won't fret over it. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that you'd consider comparing Marvel comics to novels inherently flawed, as they're different media? Because I am, because I don't.

I didn't say anything about a story being good because it didn't suck that bad. If I think a story was good, it's because it was good. And yeah, I would consider comparing a novel to most comics would be inherently flawed.

Onslaught Six wrote:Why not, if it's a satisfying end? I don't bitch about how Hughes dies in FMA (spoilers for a decade old anime) because he met a satisfying end for a good story purpose. I'm not clamouring for them to bring Duke back in GI Joe 3.

And if it isn't a satisfying end? I mean, really, most characters deaths in comics are more of a stunt to boost sales rather than an actually satisfying end for the character.

And yet, the franchise has survived LONGER by using the Japanese model than if it had continued to use an ongoing storyline.

Just because it has used the Japanese model longer at this point is no indication that it couldn't have survived just as long if they had continued to use the ongoing storyline. As I said, the reason they switched was because it was more cost effective for them. That's not an indication of how successful one is over the other on terms of the quality of the story itself.

Then stop being part of a problem by defending them!

I'm not defending their current storylines, I'm defending them being able to keeping the stories going.

BWprowl wrote:The reason I stuck with Johns's Lantern/Blackest Brightest Night Day books as long as I did was because I thought the story there would actually END and have some resolution eventually, but...

I have to admit, I was disappointed in Brightest Day as well. I was expecting a better resolution than what it gave us.

Shockwave wrote:The fact that the there were already other Star Trek shows with other characters probably helps that a lot but, the same concept could be applied to comics. Why not have a new Justice League with new characters? JLA TNG as it were? I think if the comic companies did that... I dunno. I dunno where I'm going with this but I just hope it makes some kind of sense.

I felt DC had something kinda like that between Justice Society and the Justice League.

andersonh1 wrote:

Dominic wrote:

People get attached to characters and don't want to see them killed off.

Yeah, those fans need to grow the fuck up.

Again, says who? Who says comic book characters that continue to sell can't be published in perpetuity, or at least until the market dries up? If you don't like the current approach, no one's forcing you to buy a comic with a 50 or a 75 year old character. But for those of us who enjoy reading about such characters, who are you to say "grow up"? What makes your point of view valid, and theirs invalid?

Exactly.

I mean, are you still reading Iron Man, Dom? That guys been around since the 60s. Don't you think it's time you grew up and left that worn out, outdated character behind? It's childish to keep clinging to him, right?

The difference is that I am not reading Gillen's "Iron Man" because it has Iron Man in it. I am reading it because Gillen is delivering the goods. Similarly, I plan to read the Michelinie series (awkward ".1" numbering and all) because Michelinie is actually good, not because it has Iron Man in it.

If Robert Kirkman took over this book, I would drop it, Iron Man the character be damned. Similarly, I would consider tracking down some of Gillen's other work. I skipped most of Fraction's run because he did not impress me.

Today, a "World of Warcraft" graphic novel shipped. I have not even played a "Warcraft game in nearly a decade. I have not even been paying attention to the franchise. I know that there is an online game and have *never* played it. My default mental image of "Warcraft" is of the "Warcraft II" game and one of the extensions ("Dark Portal"?). But, I put that graphic novel in my pull file because Costa wrote it. I know next to nothing about "Warcraft", and have no inclination to find out much more about it than what is in that book. But, I am a fan of Costa and am buying the book because he wrote it, not because I have any great attachment to the world and characters of "Warcraft".


Dom
-in it for good comics....