TF Views

The aging thing bugs me because it keeps happening at oh so convenient times. The more contrivance and such it takes to keep a character around, the more one has to ask how worthwhile it is keep them around....especially after they keep getting written out for being too old.

I think what happened with the JSA in the 90s is that somebody wanted to bring them back for some reason or another, (it was in follow up to A:2001, "Inferno" maybe), and had no plan beyond that. All told, they might have been better off just having left the JSA in literal and figurative limbo. One "fix" led to another....led to another.

I am still not seeing how Hal's fall was "disgusting"? If nothing else, it made perfect sense. How many heroes lose "their city" on a day when they (and a few friends) are conveniently out of town? If anything, I think it is dodgy how many heroes just shrug off thing that would probably bother most people. I can see being offended by the "Hal as strawman" elements. But, Hal going bad in and of itself was fine. (And, either way, they should have left him as they did, rather than cycling back and reviving him.)


Dom
-is okay with Rayner being stupid because that was the whole point of the character at first.

Dominic wrote:I am still not seeing how Hal's fall was "disgusting"? If nothing else, it made perfect sense. How many heroes lose "their city" on a day when they (and a few friends) are conveniently out of town? If anything, I think it is dodgy how many heroes just shrug off thing that would probably bother most people. I can see being offended by the "Hal as strawman" elements. But, Hal going bad in and of itself was fine. (And, either way, they should have left him as they did, rather than cycling back and reviving him.)

It disgusted me because it was an egregious case of character destruction, whether or not it grew organically out of the story of Coast City's destruction. I can see Hal snapping and turning on the Guardians, but murdering Kilowog? Mutilating other Green Lanterns? And then he goes on to kill everyone who ever lived in his attempt to rewrite time and remake the universe? Only the Anti-Monitor killed more than Hal Jordan. Not only is all of that overkill just to replace the character with someone new, but it's a slap in the face to fans. "We know Green Lantern has been one of DC's primary heroes since the 1950s, but so what? We feel like turning him eeeeeevil for the sake of the franchise. We'll throw in some crap about it all being done with good motivations though".

Hal's fall was a commentary on the times. (DC makes much more sense if you look at them as commentator as much as participant.) The old heroes were falling to be replaced with.....guys like Kyle. If anything, DC figured the fans could handle it and would not be overly attached to a given character. Hal was an old hero gone gritty. (Remember "X-Force"?) It was only a step or two removed from Gruenwald's John Walker as Captain America comics. DC just took the idea to its logical conclusion.

Why should the fact that Hal is a main character make his status quo sacred/safe? I would argue that Hal's turn, like Barry Allen's death, was a defining moment for *comics*. (Remember. both were intended to stick.) Both events made other events promising "big changes" credible. For a time, Barry Allen, Jason Todd and Kara/Supergirl were icons of heroes who stayed dead. Their replacements, (Wally West, Tim Drake and snot-blob), did not dilute that. Main characters could, and occasionally would, die. Past context could be discarded by editorial fiat.

Post "Armageddon 2001", DC had little enough credibility. (And, they spent much of what they did have on that idiotic last minute switch from Captain Atom to Hawk.) Hal restored the idea that DC was willing to do bold new things with established characters, regardless of cartoons, action figures, lunch boxes and iconography. it is easy to laugh at the "New Blood" event and the various post "Zero Hour" series now. But, after "Emerald Twilight", we thought that little was definitively safe and sacred. As understated as "Zero Hour" was, there was real speculation about what exactly DC was going to do with the inevitably re-written time-line. (Remember, this was a time before internet fuelled spoilers.)


Dom
-and, now we count down to the restoration.....every few months.

Dominic wrote:Hal's fall was a commentary on the times. (DC makes much more sense if you look at them as commentator as much as participant.)

No, it was part of a trend that was making money at the time, not a commentary. Superman died and returned, and that was big bucks for DC. So they did it to Batman with Knightfall, and they replaced Wonder Woman as well. Now from DC's point of view, Emerald Twilight was a huge success that got lots of publicity and increased sales quite a bit, so it's hard to argue with the move from that standpoint. That doesn't mean it was good storytelling.

The old heroes were falling to be replaced with.....guys like Kyle. If anything, DC figured the fans could handle it and would not be overly attached to a given character.

And they turned out to be dead wrong. They've split the fan base to this day.

Why should the fact that Hal is a main character make his status quo sacred/safe?

Why shouldn't it? There's a reason why DC's top characters are still around after 40, 50 or more years. It's because they're successful and proven concepts. Their popularity and sales levels go through cycles, but over the long term characters like Superman or Batman or Green Lantern are continually successful. It's stupid to throw that away for a temporary sales boost.

Go back to when Wally replaced Barry. That was how to do it right, with respect for the fans and decent treatment of the characters. Emerald Twilight is a case study in how to do it wrong. But I've said all of this before. You don't agree, but for me, the iconic characters were who I wanted to read about, and to see more than one of them destroyed was not something I wanted to pay to read. So I voted with my wallet and quit buying. I even threw in $25, the cost of a year's worth of GL comics at the time, to help buy that ad in Wizard magazine calling for DC to undo what it had done.

Dominic wrote:The characters and settings are consistently restored to a previous state. None of the big "nothing will ever be the same" changes seem to stick. Johns is hardly the one one guilty of this. Marvel is currently doing this with "Heroic Age", setting things back to pre "Civil War", if not pre-90s hype, standard. (Bendis' "Avengers" keeps me from saying it is a fully pre-90s standard.) I am sticking with a few of the Bendis titles largely because Bendis' writing is very readable. I am thinking his "big ideas" ran out with "Dark Reign".

I really have to disagree that they're "consistently restored to a previous state". That really depends on the writer and how they handle things. Like I said before, Johns really builds off of what has been established rather than "resets to a previous state". Hal might be back to being a good guy and lead Earth GL, but it isn't like he hasn't faced backlash for being Parallax. We still are reminded from time-to-time not everyone has forgiven him and that it weighs on his conscience. Really, those events helped set the stage for the continuing 'War of Light' storyline. Those events have stuck. Johns just expanded on them and then took it in a new direction.

Marvel on the other hand, now they actually have been resting characters to previous states. Quesada really set Spidey back about 20 years by literally resetting parts of the character's history, magically erasing his marriage, among other things. Iron-Man they've kind of done something similar by having him erase his memories, effectively resetting his character to a pre-"Civil War" state. And like you say, that seems to be the direction they're talking Marvel with the "Heroic Age".

Brightest Day #3

The series seems to have narrowed its focus to five main storylines: Deadman, Aquaman, the Hawks, Firestorm and the Martian Manhunter. I haven’t read a book like this before, and in some ways it’s frustrating to just get each character’s story in bits and pieces. At least it’s only every other week, and not a monthly book. That would be annoying.

It’s interesting to me how the various heroes have differing levels of proactivity. Deadman is being jerked around by the white ring, without any degree of control that I can see. Aquaman had attempted to go back to his old life, but the problem with the dead sea creatures is forcing him to look for answers. The Hawks are all gung-ho and determined to find their enemy. And so on. I get the feeling that all of this ties into the white ring’s attempt to make Deadman fight, thought I can’t see how. Fight for life, perhaps? It does tell him to “help them live”. Which leads me to wonder if J’Onn, Aquaman and all the others aren’t actually alive. Maybe they’re still partially black lanterns. Maybe they’re not entirely free of Nekron. There’s no telling.

I’m also wondering if the housewife that we saw killing her family and then ripping off her skin (yeah, gory… so much for a Silver Age comic, right?) was the second Martian we saw last issue? J’Onn certainly recognizes it when he reads the mind of the murdered family’s dog (which is a clever use of his telepathy).

Of all the storylines, it seems like the Hawkman and Martian Manhunter’s are progressing the most, while we still don’t really know anything more about what’s wrong with Aquaman, or what the white ring wants with Deadman. Firestorm’s storyline has moved on with the two guys that form him separated, but there’s something else going on there as well.

Overall: the mystery is interesting, but I’d like some answers some time soon. Not all of them, necessarily, but at least one good revelation would be nice.

No, it was part of a trend that was making money at the time, not a commentary. Superman died and returned, and that was big bucks for DC. So they did it to Batman with Knightfall, and they replaced Wonder Woman as well. Now from DC's point of view, Emerald Twilight was a huge success that got lots of publicity and increased sales quite a bit, so it's hard to argue with the move from that standpoint. That doesn't mean it was good storytelling.

The thing to keep in mind is that "Emerald Twilight" was intended to stick, making it more than just a cheap event at the time. Superman's death and Batman's gimping were never intended to be permanent. I know the ages of comics are more segmented now, (we have passed bronze and copper at this point), but at the time it was Gold, Silver and modern. DC was trying to use the fall of Hal Jordan as an epochal event for the industry.

"Emerald Twilight" had flaws. But, disrespecting a fictional character is hardly the worst thing any story could do.

Why shouldn't it? There's a reason why DC's top characters are still around after 40, 50 or more years. It's because they're successful and proven concepts. Their popularity and sales levels go through cycles, but over the long term characters like Superman or Batman or Green Lantern are continually successful. It's stupid to throw that away for a temporary sales boost.

Denny O'Neil summed it up nicely in the introduction to "A Death in the Family". Change is good. His example was that nobody cares about Paul Bunyan because the character is static. Unless the point of an ongoing story is ennui, stagnation or stability, something needs to change.

The big 3 are anamolies. There are plenty of other characters that have either changed or faded away. (Does anybody really care about "Project Superpowers"? Really?) And, as much as you might hate Kyle, the character has ample staying power. Like I said, as easy as it is to laugh at those "new" characters from the mid-90s, DC made a credible attempt with most of them. (Kon-El carried his own title for a time. Steel and the Eradicator may not have their own books, but they refuse to stay dead. Damage is still floating around. Impulse too. Yeah, Mark Waid's little indulgence is still around.)

The need for change is greater in a genre or medium that is as event driven as comics. Who the hell cares what the characters are doing if the status quo is guaranteed by editorial fiat and simply longevity? Yeah, I like idea based stories. But, those are a minority in comics and in other mediums. I cannot see reading about the same character....in more or less the same setting....doing more or less the same thing.....for years on end. (I get bored with real people doing that, and we change automatically over time.)

I really have to disagree that they're "consistently restored to a previous state". That really depends on the writer and how they handle things. Like I said before, Johns really builds off of what has been established rather than "resets to a previous state". Hal might be back to being a good guy and lead Earth GL, but it isn't like he hasn't faced backlash for being Parallax. We still are reminded from time-to-time not everyone has forgiven him and that it weighs on his conscience. Really, those events helped set the stage for the continuing 'War of Light' storyline. Those events have stuck. Johns just expanded on them and then took it in a new direction.

Heel, erm Hal, is alive again. He is a good guy. Run ins with guys who have not forgiven him tend to end with them saying, "maybe ol' Hal is okay after all". Coast City is a viable setting again. Barry is back. But, too many people are attached to Bart and Wally, so we have too many damned Flashes, which only draws attention to how skewed time passing is.

The Manhunter is back. Professor Zoom is back. Hawk and Dove are back to pre A:2001 spec. So is Captain Atom. Goddammit, I am waiting for Ted Kord to come back. (They will find a way. Oi....)

Marvel on the other hand, now they actually have been resting characters to previous states. Quesada really set Spidey back about 20 years by literally resetting parts of the character's history, magically erasing his marriage, among other things. Iron-Man they've kind of done something similar by having him erase his memories, effectively resetting his character to a pre-"Civil War" state. And like you say, that seems to be the direction they're talking Marvel with the "Heroic Age".

I would argue that "One More Day" created an all new, if less defined, status quo for the "Spider-Man" books. (Either way, it is being undone in the near future, so how we figure it out is largely academic.) But, your point is taken. Like I said though, Bendis's writing is highly readable. I will stay likely with the Avengers books for maybe 6 months to a year.

Ironman resets are particularly irksome, just because they happen so frequently. Never mind his memories, how often is he unmasked, and how often does everyone else forget? (I can almost buy Tony Stark having spotto-blotto memory.)


And, this week's reviews.......


There are 2, maybe 3, posts worth of FCBD comics left. And, barring any real upsets, (like me deciding I want more than a few hours of sleep a night), the rest of the FCBD haul should be posted by the end of next week.


After that, I will catch up on "Dark Reign" and hopefully start reading "Heroic Age" by early July. . I am picking up my comics as usual, but am holding off an reading any new arcs until I have wrapped up FCBD.


Transformers (For All Mankind):
This compilation of the first arc from the current ongoing is....damn. Besides reprinting the complete arc, it includes every cover. Every cover means all of that gorgeous Don Figueroa art. I think I need some time alone.
Grade: A


Batman #700: With all of the renumbering the big 2 have done over the last 15 or so years, I have no idea how valid "#700" is. On the other hand, DC has generally been more consistent about its numbering than Marvel. The plot focuses on 3+ generations of Batmen and Robins, (Wayne/Grayson, Grayson/Wayne, and Wayne). Blah blah blah, Morrison fetishizes Batman and works in some meta-commentary on the characters, (Catwoman admonishes Joker for not being fun any more). Wow. Oh, there are some "far future" Batmen, including Terry McGuiness and some guys who are probably from some "Elseworlds" comics. There are several pages of pin-ups, and a guide to ther modern Bat-Cave. Oh, and apparently Frank Quitely cannot even manage to draw an 8 page story...in an anniversary issue on his own. Still, it is $5 worth of content.
Grade: C



Dom
-should consider reading real books at this point.

Dominic wrote:Heel, erm Hal, is alive again. He is a good guy. Run ins with guys who have not forgiven him tend to end with them saying, "maybe ol' Hal is okay after all".

Actually, Hal had to spend the time convincing Batman he was good again. It was far from a simple run in. Even that didn't really end with Batman saying "Maybe he is okay after all". At best, Bruce gave Hal the benefit of the doubt. The Lost Lanterns on the other hand are still openly hostile towards Hal and have made it quite clear they aren't going to forgive him.

Coast City is a viable setting again. Barry is back. But, too many people are attached to Bart and Wally, so we have too many damned Flashes, which only draws attention to how skewed time passing is.

The Manhunter is back. Professor Zoom is back. Hawk and Dove are back to pre A:2001 spec. So is Captain Atom. Goddammit, I am waiting for Ted Kord to come back. (They will find a way. Oi....)

Again, just bringing characters or a city back isn't the same thing as "restored to a previous state". Even you have to admit, Barry's life isn't the same as it was before he died, especially given Wally is still in a Flash costume having taken up the role when Barry died. A lot has changed while Barry has been gone and so things have hardly been "restored" for him just because he's back. And as I have previously said, most of these other characters really have not been dead for very long to make much of an impact either way.

I would argue that "One More Day" created an all new, if less defined, status quo for the "Spider-Man" books. (Either way, it is being undone in the near future, so how we figure it out is largely academic.) But, your point is taken. Like I said though, Bendis's writing is highly readable. I will stay likely with the Avengers books for maybe 6 months to a year.

Peter is back to hanging out with Harry Osborn and company in a coffee shop, he is single, and was living with his Aunt again, but has moved into an apartment of his own. He was working as a photographer again, recently fired and is generally poor. I don't see how you can say you can argue this being an "all new" status quo when you can describe the '60-70's status quo pretty much exactly the same way.

I've really liked Bendis' work in the Ultimate Universe, but I have to say, I've never been that impressed with how he has handled things in the main Marvel universe.

andersonh1 wrote:I get the feeling that all of this ties into the white ring’s attempt to make Deadman fight, thought I can’t see how. Fight for life, perhaps? It does tell him to “help them live”.

Fight for life is exactly what the ring has been trying to make him realize. When he tells it that he'll use a safety net next time he leaps into the air, it simply says "Okay". I'm wondering if "help them live" means that the others will also need to come to similar revelations. There certainly seems to be a disconnect between them and the world of the living to some degree.

Dominic wrote:The thing to keep in mind is that "Emerald Twilight" was intended to stick, making it more than just a cheap event at the time.

It was clearly intended to stick, hence the utter and nearly-irrevocable destruction of Hal Jordan as a character, along with the Guardians, the Corps, the crippling of John Stewart, turning Guy into Warrior, changing Alan Scott's name... everything it took to make Kyle the only Green Lantern. However, I don't think the simple fact that the change was meant to be permanent gives it any inherent value. Sure, the death of Superman was never intended to be permanent, but it led to the creation of other characters as well as a compelling story. Replacing Batman with Jean-Paul Valley showed us just why turning Batman into a killer was a bad idea. It underlined something vital about the character. The temporary nature of both those stories and the character shake-ups doesn't diminish the quality of the respective storylines any more than the intended permanent change from Hal to Kyle gives Emerald Twilight any quality.

DC was trying to use the fall of Hal Jordan as an epochal event for the industry.

No, they weren't. They were bandwagon jumping in an attempt to boost sales and attract new readers to a title that Kevin Dooley felt no one cared about.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=2938

Ron Marz: "So the thinking at the time was that something drastic was needed, something that would attract a lot of attention back to what had become a moribund franchise. That much worked."

"I guess I saw Hal as a classic character who had turned into a dull character that not many readers cared about. Very often it's not the character itself, it's the portrayal. And once readers become bored with a portrayal, it's very hard to get them to come back. 'ET' certainly jump-started interest in GL, so from that viewpoint, it was a success."

"As to whether it was necessary, apparently sales were sliding enough that something drastic was needed. "

But, disrespecting a fictional character is hardly the worst thing any story could do.

And that's not my complaint. My complaint is that fans of the character were treated with disdain.

Denny O'Neil summed it up nicely in the introduction to "A Death in the Family". Change is good. His example was that nobody cares about Paul Bunyan because the character is static. Unless the point of an ongoing story is ennui, stagnation or stability, something needs to change.

Change can be good, but then it can be bad as well. It depends on what the change happens to be.

The big 3 are anamolies. There are plenty of other characters that have either changed or faded away.

Green Arrow's been around since the 40s, and keeps being retooled and published. The JLA has been a long running group that's usually been successful. Green Lantern and the Flash have both been around in their modern form since the late 50s. Don't forget that Wally goes almost as far back as Barry Allen, so it's not like he's a new character. It's not just the big three that have had decades of success. And even the big three wane in popularity from time to time and need to be shaken up. The Batman of the 60s is nothing like the Batman of the 90s.

And, as much as you might hate Kyle, the character has ample staying power.

I don't hate him now. He's become a great character these days.

Like I said, as easy as it is to laugh at those "new" characters from the mid-90s, DC made a credible attempt with most of them. (Kon-El carried his own title for a time. Steel and the Eradicator may not have their own books, but they refuse to stay dead. Damage is still floating around. Impulse too. Yeah, Mark Waid's little indulgence is still around.)

I'm not criticizing every 90s character. I think Damage is dead now, but I like both Impulse and Steel. And the clone Superboy has grown into a great character as well.

DC needs to keep trying to create new characters and explore new concepts. Maybe 1 in 10 actually stick, but it's worth the effort.

The need for change is greater in a genre or medium that is as event driven as comics. Who the hell cares what the characters are doing if the status quo is guaranteed by editorial fiat and simply longevity? Yeah, I like idea based stories. But, those are a minority in comics and in other mediums. I cannot see reading about the same character....in more or less the same setting....doing more or less the same thing.....for years on end. (I get bored with real people doing that, and we change automatically over time.)

I agree completely. But necessary change doesn't necessarily equal turning your decades-old hero into a mass-murdering psychopath.

Sparky Prime wrote:

andersonh1 wrote:I get the feeling that all of this ties into the white ring’s attempt to make Deadman fight, thought I can’t see how. Fight for life, perhaps? It does tell him to “help them live”.

Fight for life is exactly what the ring has been trying to make him realize. When he tells it that he'll use a safety net next time he leaps into the air, it simply says "Okay". I'm wondering if "help them live" means that the others will also need to come to similar revelations. There certainly seems to be a disconnect between them and the world of the living to some degree.

True. I find it funny how the white ring talks to Boston Brand so informally. "Ok".

Supposedly we'll get some answers about why these characters were resurrected around issue 7. I'm still not able to figure out any common element (apart from the fact that most of them are A or B-list DC characters).