[Comics] Changes in Comics. How do we feel about them?

[Espy]

So lets talk changes in comics.
We have lots of threads about this or that happening and there is always rage from fans that their beloved character has changed.

Now, I'm not saying that that rage is wrong, hell, I've raged about this or that happening to characters and comics I loved, but about 6 or 7 years ago I realized that a) almost none of it was permanent and b) most of these characters were so old that there was very little new to do with them, so I began to understand why writers and editors might want to try something new or radical even, in order to garner attention to the character, help sales, and actually tell interesting stories. At least thats my take on it.

So, I ask you, fans of comics (particularly mainstream superhero titles), what do you want and why do you want it? If you have been outraged by a character or title changing, like the recent Spidey stuff or any of the other major changes to Supes, Batman, etc., here's your chance to tell us why the change is bad or why it shouldn't have happened.

If you don't like change to characters then what do you suggest writers and editors do with characters who have had everything done with them?

Also, if you think there are some other options for the poll tell em and I'll add them

 

[Bowielee]

I'm fine with change, as long as it serves a story and still stays respectful of the spirit of the original character.

If DC would have had any balls whatsoever (and yes, I've bitched about this multiple times) they would just let the heirs apparent to their main characters take over. A perfect example of how that worked just how it should have, until they reversed it, was Wally West replacing Barry Allen. IMO, I was fine with Kyle Raynor staying the new Green Lantern and Hal Jordan staying dead, but I can see why people had problems with the way in which Hal died as a villain and how that's not true to his character.

They literally have proteges for every main character in the universe that could take the mantle. I would love to see it cycle generationally, with sidekicks becoming the heroes and the original heroes retiring.

So, my added option to the above would be, "sometimes good, sometimes bad"

 

[ThatNickGuy]

I've honestly become ambivalent to changes in comics. Even DC's new 52 reboot left me thinking, "Eh."

I guess the thing I've learned is this: writers can take all the liberties they want with the characters, but really, the core stuff never changes. You boil it down to the basics and what is the comic about? Spider-Man fighting Doc Ock. Spidey's fought Doc Ock for decades and they'll fight again in decades to come. Spidey's been dead before, Ock's been dead before. It hardly matters.

At this point, the changes mean squat unless it's something other writers will use in the future on a regular basis. In other words, it's not a change to the character, the comic, or the villains, but the mythos, the stuff that will become a regular part of the character. Superman, for example, had a lot of big changes early into his first decade that are now considered common in his mythos. A lot of the things we're now familiar with actually started, for example, in the radio show back in the 40s: kryptonite, Jimmy Olsen, Perry, the Daily Planet, up up and away, the entire "look, up in the sky!" bit. All that started from the radio.

There are so few permanent changes because a new creative team can come on and just wipe it all out and start anew. Honestly, the best superhero comics for me featuring the big names are the self-contained mini or maxi series like Kingdom Come, All Star Superman, The Long Halloween, etc. It's also probably why the only X-Men books I own are Age of Apocalypse, Morrison's run, and Whedon's run: they're all relatively self contained. At least in a good, self-contained story, you've got a solid beginning, middle, and end.

These days, it feels like every event can't just end on its own, but use it as a jumping point for the next event.

 

[Espy]

stays respectful of the spirit of the original character.

Do you feel like that differs from maintaining the status quo that most are comfortable with?

 

[Bubble181]

Characters in series this long have to change, in some ways, simply to remain relevant. Society changes around us. Be it in tiny things (I'm guessing exactly what sort of terrorists forced Iron Man to make his suit has changed a couple of times over the decades; I don't know if it's ever been brought up in any Spiderman but him being the sole photographer for Spiderman is ridiculous in this day and age of smartphones with cameras on them), or in bigger ways (origin story changing, certain aspects of the personality that have to change based on society's morals changing).
Also, as has been said, changes are neccessary because otherwise comics (or any really long-running show or story) can become stale. Oh look, Spiderman's fighting the seventh Green Goblin, come back from the dead to avenge his past 3 deaths at Spiderman's hands, and this time he's teamed up with....dundunDUNNNN...*yawn*.

There are several types of changes, and almost all of them can be done "good" or "bad". Temporary changes (for one issue, for a short series) can be a nice change of pace and a way to mix things up. They can also be about a bad writer who doesn't know what to do with a character and therefore just writes about a different but similar character, than somehow forces the story on the original one. big, life-changing events could/can be a great way to update/modernize a character, or to start a new chapter in a life/story. They can also be crappy media-driven hypes which'll get retconned or reversed after a while with nothing gained. I sort of lost sight of the other two types of change I'd thought up, eh.

Anyway, change will often be viewed negatively by hardcore fans, because it changes something they love. Refurnishing the living room can be an improvement, but a lot of people will still have difficulty accepting the change and getting settled back in, in a new groove. You can also refurnish your room with absolute crap and hope no-one'll notice, but that doesn't often work.

 

[Espy]

Also, I added the sometimes good, sometimes bad, with the caveat that people elaborate because as a stand alone answer it's to much of a cop out.

 

[Gryfter]

I think that when it is a case of an interesting story playing around with the expected status quo of a character but remaining it's own thing the results can be fantastic. The minute they use a phrase like "this will change the character forever!" or "things will never be the same again" you're into the horrible realm of marketing and story is no longer the focus, the event is.

When DC proposed the New 52, the meeting wasn't how can we tell a great story here, it was how can we make the most money. The whole Superior Spider-Man thing might have started out as an interesting story but once they decided to end the run of one of the most classic comic series in Comicdom and replace it with something that is supposed to be better, it ceased to be a story and it became an event. It's like they are trying to force canonical changes instead of letting them evolve through storytelling. For instance, when Moore wrote the killing joke and crippled Babara Gordon, it was a move that lead to the creation of one of the more interesting heroes of the 90's, Oracle. And it was because of other writers building on what Moore had done that she became the fleshed out character she did.

Now take the recent Marvel "events" which rather than being one writer saying,"Hey I have the idea for a cool story, where Cyclops has to decide whether to ultimately became Magneto or Professor X." you have an editorial office that is saying "What if we have an event where lots of heroes have to fight each other because Cyclops goes baddie, ooo that'll get us media attention.... oooo that might increase sales, let's do it, but now all our writers will help us change the status quo so that we get more media attention even after the event is over!'

So I guess what I am saying is, stories good, events bad.

 

[SpecialKO]

I think "change" is a misnomer when speaking about American comics (at least the Big Two, anyways). "Change" tends to mean two things in this context.

1) A writer pulling something out of nowhere because "NOTHING WILL EVER BE THE SAME!" because that writer wants to leave a mark on that comic. The change is completely unearned in the story and usually involves completely ignoring previous character development in order to push through the change. Then by the time the holes have been filled in and the story is finally able to stand on its own, everything goes back to status quo. Recent examples: Spidey comics, X-men comics, and how the DC Reboot is essentially pushing back on itself on a book-by-book basis.

2) A more recent trend that we've started to see with comics returning to earlier status quos because that's the era that the writer preferred when they were a kid reading those comics. Presented as being edgy, but really just walking the clock back even further. Recent-ish examples: Brand New Day, Hal Jordan coming back.

The Big Two don't exactly do new things that are able to build on what's come before. And they used to be good at that, which is a bit perplexing.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

decided to end the run of one of the most classic comic series in Comicdom and replace it with something that is supposed to be better

By my count, Marvel has actually done this twice with Amazing Spider-Man. Once during the Clone Saga, where the Scarlet Spider took over the books, then another where they teased that it was a new Spider-Man (which turned out to be, I think, the new Spider-Girl or something).

 

[fade]

I don't care much for it because it feels like a sales tactic. It's the modern growth of the trick cover. Only now it's a trick arc. If they made it mean something, I'd be fine with it.

 

[North_Ranger]

Couldn't give a rat's ass, to be honest. But that's just because DC and Marvel publications are nowadays such goddamn morasses of decades of mythology that it's hard for a newbie like myself to get into them. Or appreciate why Character X is being such a whiny emo, or why Character Y just sits around navel-gazing.

 

[BananaHands]

I am digging Superior Spider-Man.

There, I said it.

 

[Gilgamesh]

The convoluted histories on both major mainstream productions make enjoying comics near useless for anyone who tries to enter into it safely. Even the fake reboots burn out within a year in the eyes of newbies.

I really wish there would be a permanent solid reboot of some of the staple mains. I could really get into that.

 

[BananaHands]

No, but seriously. Superior #3 had some good moments without the annoying

Spoiler

ghost Peter

.

Spoiler

 

[Bowielee]

The convoluted histories on both major mainstream productions make enjoying comics near useless for anyone who tries to enter into it safely. Even the fake reboots burn out within a year in the eyes of newbies.

I really wish there would be a permanent solid reboot of some of the staple mains. I could really get into that.

But then, those histories themselves eventually become a labyrinth of history that you have to know to jump on. The Ultimate Universe, for example. One thing that I love about DC is the Elseworlds books. They basically say, OK, let's have our main continuity and just have a bunch of stories that are outside of that.

Then they go ahead and make the entire cannon an Elseworlds story.

If there's one thing that I like about Marvel, it is that even with all the messes it creates, they do have (for the most part: I'm looking at you One More Day) a cannon universe. When I want characters that I don't have to invest in over extended periods of time, I go to DC because I know in a couple of years, the history will get rebooted/rewritten.

 

[Gilgamesh]

I mean like X-Men #1 and Avengers #1 being an actual part 1, with zero connection to previous histories. A complete do-over that's permanent and not a marketing ploy.

I thought the DC 52 was going to do that, boy was I wrong.

 

[Bowielee]

The whole point of the Ultimate universe was just that. It's a completely new universe that you need no previous marvel experience with to enjoy. Which is exactly what it was. Until it went on for a few years and developed its very own convoluted cannon. It's always going to be a problem in any serialized medium that lasts over long periods of time, unless you just say screw it and ignore cannon (Doctor Who, for example).

 

[Gilgamesh]

The whole point of the Ultimate universe was just that. It's a completely new universe that you need no previous marvel experience with to enjoy. Which is exactly what it was. Until it went on for a few years and developed its very own convoluted cannon. It's always going to be a problem in any serialized medium that lasts over long periods of time, unless you just say screw it and ignore cannon (Doctor Who, for example).

The problem was Ultimates suffered from -EXTREMIFY EVERYTHING- in alot of it's titles, even the artwork in some were very off putting. They called it -modernization- I didn't find it as appealing. Then again, maybe I'm just off put by comics these days alltogether sadly.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Like its regular universe counterpart, I thought there were good and bad things about the Ultimate comics.

-Ultimate X-Men was good for the first 30-some issues. Basically, up until the end of Bendis' run. Everything past that was really hit and miss, not to mention bogged down with messy continuity as mentioned above. Then again, that could describe X-Men in general, no matter the universe.

-Ultimate Spider-Man had some amazing (heh) character moments. The Peter Parker stuff was some of the best in comics in a long time. I wasn't as crazy about the Spider-Man stuff, though. left me feeling "meh" sometimes. A lot of the classic villains were "EXTREMIFIED" (to use a Gilgamesh term) to the point of ridiculousness. Rhino, for example, was some guy in a giant robot suit or something, taking away all the fun of the character. Doc Ock became like Magneto later on instead of juts the arms. Kraven was a joke. Scorpion was wasted. Green Goblin and the goblins in general were basically The Hulk but could throw fire (whereas all the goblin gadgets was half the fun of the original character; just look at the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon). Character development was great, but the superhero stuff was really lacking.

I will say, though, that the new Ultimate Spider-Man, with the new kid, is quite good.

-Ultimates 1 & 2 are just plain fun. They're like a giant, summer blockbuster with a lot of fun flash, but little substance. Also, I kinda dug some of the versions of characters in this, such as Cap and Thor. Anything past these two Ultimates, though, is garbage.

 

[SpecialKO]

Ultimate Spider-Man was fantastic. Anyone who says otherwise is a poopy-face.

 

[Espy]

Ultimate Spider-Man was fantastic. Anyone who says otherwise is a poopy-face.

Agree. I think all the reworking of the villains was fantastic. Why keep everything the same? If you don't mess with the formula whats the point?

 

[BananaHands]

Agree. I think all the reworking of the villains was fantastic. Why keep everything the same? If you don't mess with the formula whats the point?

I need to re-read that. It's been a while.

I'm liking Miles too. There's no reason to keep pulling the "WHO IS SPIDERWOMAN" schtick, considering everyone should know.

 

[Yoshimickster]

Now I am generally okay when they make changes in comics like when side-kicks become full on super heroes, characters gaining love interests, new costumes,turning out to be part Eskimo demon that sort of thing. The kind-of change that really bugs me however is when they go back on something they all-ready changed. Like characters coming back from the dead in stupid ways(Hal Jordan is exempt as he died in a stupid way), characters breaking up in pointlessly contrived ways, those bug the hell out of me.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Totally disagree on Hal Jordan, man. He redeemed himself by relighting the frigging sun. You can't get more badass than that.

 

[Yoshimickster]

Totally disagree on Hal Jordan, man. He redeemed himself by relighting the frigging sun. You can't get more badass than that.

True, I meant to say it was dumb how he needed to redeem himself in the first place because the writers made him evil right after Mongul and Hank Henshaw murdered his entire home city. Why did they make that story-line a thing? Was it cos Hal Jordan wasn't popular?