TF Views

Dominic wrote:Slott's "Spider-Man" run has been about defining a hero, not unlike DC's "Justice League 3000".

Yeah, that theme is very apparent in Superior Spider Man. Maybe if I'd been reading since issue 1 that theme would be more apparent in JL3000, but I can't say that I've picked up "what is a hero" from the few issues that I've read so far. There is a brief conversation in this latest issue where Bruce mentions that the five are trying to figure out how they fit in the future and what their place is in that world, but that's a scant few lines of introspective dialogue in an otherwise non-stop "run here and there and fight the bad guys" plot.

Maybe it will be more obvious now that the action has slowed down a bit.

Dominic wrote:Have you been reading Hickman's "New Avengers"?

I'm talking more in terms of the events themselves rather than the regular titles. I know the Avengers titles have been dealing with the collapse of the multiverse and Illuminati's decisions to try and save their own Earth. I have to say, that is one of Marvel's most interesting storylines currently. But I'm a bit wary of the event next year given the track record.

Slott's "Spider-Man" run has been about defining a hero, not unlike DC's "Justice League 3000".

Sure, but it's defining a very different type of hero compared to Peter Parker. Peter is the humble friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, who takes all the responsibility onto his own shoulders to save every life that he possibly can. SpOck takes an entirely different approach to being a hero, trying to be uber successful and doesn't mind if sacrifices must be made for the greater good.

Yup, the most poisonous kind of character identification.

There's nothing poisonous about character identification. A lot of people read for the characters.

Well, if he cannot turn all of is inventions and super-human power in to wealth enough to pay his bills, then maybe Parker is an idiot. (Place remark about comic book fans here:__________________________________________)

Joking aside, "super hero as wish fulfillment" started to go away in the 70s, 80s at the latest. At that point, the best comics tended to address issues of power beyond "it would be awesome if I could......" Superman works best as an analogue for power, not as a power fantasy. Most of the better comics avoid the latter. Gillen's "Iron Man" was about humanity and technology (and where the line between the two sits), not "you totally want to be Tony Stark because he is such a cool exec with a heart of steel, and then it is so cool when Iron Man takes his place to fight and fight with repulsor rays! He wears amazng armor, he is Iron Man!"

Even if you are joking, Peter did try to use his powers for personal gain at first. Then he realized what Uncle Ben's lesson of "with great power, comes great responsibility" meant. Again, it's all about keeping the character humble, rather than most comic book characters who are so successful and want for nothing. And I think super heroes still represent a degree of wish fulfillment. I mean, I don't think kids really care what issues the comics address, that's something the older fans like us are more interested it. And even then, not all of us are reading the comics specifically for that reason. Like I said about, a lot of people read them for the characters.

The upcoming Marvel "Crisis" is likely the reason that Hickman has been allowed to get away with so much in "New Avengers". The "fix" in this case is going to be a hard reboot that effectively nullifies the fact that Iron Man and co blew up a planet. The Illuminati scewed up and killed billions....because they did not really try to find another way. (Oh, they thought they would find one. But, they did not really look that hard.)

While reading the lead up to the Earth shattering kaboom, I recall thinking "there is no way in hell that Disney is going to let this play out the way it has to". Now, we know why the Mouse let it happen.

Whenever there is a big event (especially a "Crisis" level event), the most mportant question is what awaits on the other side. The ride in is just a ride. It might be a hell of a ride ("Crisis on Infinite Earths" and "infinite Crisis" come to mind). But, the important thing is what we have after the fact. (Only read some of "Flashpoint". But, I signed on for a few of the books on the other side.) But, in the case of Marvel, I am interested to see what they do before the big reset.

Dominic wrote:While reading the lead up to the Earth shattering kaboom, I recall thinking "there is no way in hell that Disney is going to let this play out the way it has to". Now, we know why the Mouse let it happen.

You assume that anyone on the larger end of Didney is actually paying attention to the comic book side. "What? It's selling okay? Yeah do whatever. Look at all this money we made from Guardians of the Galaxy!"

Disney is exceptionally aggressive about managing IP though. They monitor everything about how a character is marketed and how people might see that character. I am not complaining about current Marvel. (In fact, I am very much a fan.) But, I never would have expected Disney to let Marvel be as free as it is, especially with characters like Iron Man.

Sparky Prime wrote:There's nothing poisonous about character identification. A lot of people read for the characters.

That is the main reason I pick the books I do, because I like the character in some way. It's the rare book that comes along and gets my attention due to the story or author if I'm not already interested in the main character. Superior Spider-Man is a good example where I read a book featuring a character I only have a passing interest in normally, because the idea behind the book interested me.

As for why I like the characters I do, I suspect that DC's characters "imprinted" on me early thanks to watching the Adam West Batman and Superfriends when I was growing up. It just goes to show how important media other than comics can be. I didn't read comics until I was a teenager, and by that time I had already long since become a fan of DC's main characters.

That being said, I don't really think "identification" has a lot to do with it, but I'm sure there has to be a more accurate and descriptive word than "like" to explain when I enjoy reading Green Lantern or the Flash or the Justice League, but have no real attachment to Thor or Iron Man or the Avengers, despite enjoying their recent movies.

Sparky Prime wrote:There's nothing poisonous about character identification. A lot of people read for the characters.

Liking and enjoying a character because they're a good character, and doing so simply because you can pretend they're you are very different things. The latter isn't exactly a key ingredient in great stories.

anderson wrote:As for why I like the characters I do, I suspect that DC's characters "imprinted" on me early thanks to watching the Adam West Batman and Superfriends when I was growing up. It just goes to show how important media other than comics can be. I didn't read comics until I was a teenager, and by that time I had already long since become a fan of DC's main characters.

That being said, I don't really think "identification" has a lot to do with it, but I'm sure there has to be a more accurate and descriptive word than "like" to explain when I enjoy reading Green Lantern or the Flash or the Justice League, but have no real attachment to Thor or Iron Man or the Avengers, despite enjoying their recent movies.

You actually hit upon the word for it right there: Attachment. These characters 'imprinted' on you at an early age (likely *because* it was an early age and they're what you happened to see. Had you happened to see the 60's Spider-Man cartoon instead of Super Friends, you'd likely be a Spider-Man guy for the exact same reason), and now they resonate with you automatically when you see them on the page or screen, via the warm, sweet glow of nostalgia. I'm not sure if you notice, but when you review things that have one of those 'imprinted' characters you've got an attachment to, you often say "It was good to see {Character} again", as if they were some friend or relative that you wanted to keep in touch with (never mind that you can do so with ANY media they have appeared in, not just a new, current comic or episode). The characters appeal and resonate with you purely because you were exposed to them at an early, formative age. There's nothing about them, specifically that resonated with you (save for the same general stuff that made them popular in culture overall, and again, pretty much any successful cartoon would have had the same affect on you for the franchise it represented), they just happened to be the ones that were there when the time was right.

BWprowl wrote:You actually hit upon the word for it right there: Attachment. These characters 'imprinted' on you at an early age (likely *because* it was an early age and they're what you happened to see. Had you happened to see the 60's Spider-Man cartoon instead of Super Friends, you'd likely be a Spider-Man guy for the exact same reason),

Very likely! Marvel missed out on a customer!

It makes me wonder how many new comic fans they're "creating" with the current crop of Marvel movies. I have friends with young kids who love Captain America and Iron Man and the Hulk, and I'd be willing to bet it's either from the movies or the various cartoons of the last few years, and all the merchandising that follows.

and now they resonate with you automatically when you see them on the page or screen, via the warm, sweet glow of nostalgia. I'm not sure if you notice, but when you review things that have one of those 'imprinted' characters you've got an attachment to, you often say "It was good to see {Character} again", as if they were some friend or relative that you wanted to keep in touch with (never mind that you can do so with ANY media they have appeared in, not just a new, current comic or episode). The characters appeal and resonate with you purely because you were exposed to them at an early, formative age. There's nothing about them, specifically that resonated with you (save for the same general stuff that made them popular in culture overall, and again, pretty much any successful cartoon would have had the same affect on you for the franchise it represented), they just happened to be the ones that were there when the time was right.

It's not nostalgia, otherwise I'd accept just the Adam West/Burt Ward style Batman and Robin for example, and no other version. I'd be trying to recreate old memories or feelings or whatever, when in fact I prefer other versions of Batman far more than the first version I encountered. I didn't start reading comics until I was 17, when the death of Robin/Jason Todd got me interested enough to actually pick up a Batman comic and investigate the storyline. But you're absolutely right about the emotional attachment to certain characters. I genuinely enjoy continuing to read about them on a regular basis. I like picking up the old books and delving into the fictional history of the characters before I started reading. It's a fun hobby.

BWprowl wrote:Liking and enjoying a character because they're a good character, and doing so simply because you can pretend they're you are very different things. The latter isn't exactly a key ingredient in great stories.

You're right, those are two very different things. But being able to identify with a character doesn't mean you pretend to be that character. It just means you can relate to them in some way, which can greatly enhance how one likes and enjoys that character.

Tons of conversation in the last few weeks while I've been away. I've read some books and have a small pile waiting for more attention. The only noteworthy thing I can remember though...

Death of Wolverine fizzled out hard. Issues 1 and 3 were really good, they were interesting, not too compressed and not too decompressed, they weren't quite "All Star Wolverine" but they did have a bit of flavor. Unfortunately, issue 2 was a waste and the final issue, #4, just failed so goddamned hard it was embarrassing. A nothing Weapon X character wants to redo Weapon X without Logan's personality in the way, so he wants the healing factor, and then for the pointless heroic death our hero gets covered in liquid adamantium to save the new program's guinea pig young people before chasing down the evil doctor whocares to give him a goddamned heart attack before the adamantium hardens. Why not just give your audience the middle finger on the last panel instead? The extra content was adequate in issue 1 but not living up to that in the subsequent issues, making the overpriced book of 22 pages of story and 10 pages of nothing a pain in the ass.