|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 23:32:03 GMT -5
If comics never took cues form other media interpretations though, we would have have had Jimmy Olsen or Kryptonite in comics. It's not a new phenomenon and it's not unique to Marvel, it's been happening since the dawn of the comics age. Those weren't additions that radically altered the mythos of Superman though. They simply enhanced the character's world without detracting from any pre-existing concepts. Kryptonite didn't radically alter the mythos of Superman?....? And just because something has always been one way, doesn't necessarily mean there's not a better way to do it. Pre-existing concepts can be bettered through change as well. New doesn't necessarily mean better, but it doesn't necessarily mean worse either. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Apr 27, 2015 23:37:36 GMT -5
Those weren't additions that radically altered the mythos of Superman though. They simply enhanced the character's world without detracting from any pre-existing concepts. Kryptonite didn't radically alter the mythos of Superman?....? When I use the word "radically", I mean that it doesn't invalidate what came before it. Kryptonite was a concept that drew upon the pre-existing source material itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 23:51:23 GMT -5
Kryptonite didn't radically alter the mythos of Superman?....? When I use the word "radically", I mean that it doesn't invalidate what came before it. Kryptonite was a concept that drew upon the pre-existing source material itself. How so? There was nothing of anything except the rocket carry Superman reaching Earth from Krypton. And there was no inherent weaknesses in Superman, to suddenly introduce both when there was no hint of either is not drawing on pre-existing material, it's introducing a MacGuffin to allow writers to give Superman a weakness so they could tell different kinds of stories and add drama to the stories that didn't exist before (oh my there's a way to hurt Superman). That pretty much turns the concept of Superman upside down and invalidates the concept of complete invulnerability that existed before. But Kryptonite isn't new to fans, even though it was a more radical change than any Marvel has made because of the movies, so they accept it because it's not a new change they had to experience first hand. If DC did something like that now and Kryptonite didn't pre-date their entry into comic fandom, they'd be reacting to it the same way many are reacting to the Marvel changes. It's not the nature of the change that scares them, it's that there is change. Period. Except the properties have continually changed and evolved since their inception. The only constant has been change. It's all a matter of when they entered into the chain of events as to what is new and radical and what is acceptable change. If you stripped away the accretion of changes over the years and went back to the very original concepts on these characters, fans would be just as unhappy because it would still not be "their" version of the character. Except "their" version is an illusion. A snapshot in time of where the character was at the moment they started following or of the moment they like best, but it is not reflective of the entire sweep of the character's existence. If you want a pure version of the character, you have to go back to its initial appearance. Everything after that is change. Some works, some doesn't. Some is well received, some not. But it's all change and it's all part of the evolution of the character, and if that process stops, the characters will stagnate and die. There are iconic things about the characters, but if they are truly iconic, they can withstand multiple interpretations and radical change and the core will survive. -M |
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Apr 28, 2015 2:23:28 GMT -5
If comics never took cues form other media interpretations though, we would have have had Jimmy Olsen or Kryptonite in comics. We wouldn't even have a Superman who flies. But those changes were good because reasons, and these changes are bad because other reasons. Again, a necessary change, otherwise they'd have to jump through hoops to explain how Tony Stark isn't 85 years old. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 28, 2015 5:51:51 GMT -5
If comics never took cues form other media interpretations though, we would have have had Jimmy Olsen or Kryptonite in comics. It's not a new phenomenon and it's not unique to Marvel, it's been happening since the dawn of the comics age. I don't mind derivative concepts making their way into comics, such as the introduction of new characters ( Phil Coulson, for example). What I resent is when derivative concepts are forced onto the comics. Yes, one Fury didn't know about, one that has lost the same eye, and one that looks like the movie Nick Fury. That doesn't feel forced at all! If the problem is that comic-book Fury is too old, then let Maria Hill take his place and let the man retire. Really? I didn't know that; I must have read the Fraction series too late to realize it. Scratch that one from the list, then, but I'm pretty sure the repulsor thingie in Tony's chest arrived in comics after it did in the film. Entirely correct, but these are works that are done and over with, while comics series from the big two are ongoing. What I'm trying to say is that I'd find it wrong to edit future editions of Shelley's Frankenstein to make them better fit a recent movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 7:25:22 GMT -5
Entirely correct, but these are works that are done and over with, while comics series from the big two are ongoing. What I'm trying to say is that I'd find it wrong to edit future editions of Shelley's Frankenstein to make them better fit a recent movie. They won't edit Shelly's Frankenstein, but all versions of Frankenstein moving forward will take that version into account, either building off of it or rejecting it to cleave closer to Shelly's original, but once it(the Karloff movie) is out there, it will inform all versions of the story (whether produced before or after the movie itself) in the minds of future audiences and will factor into any version of Frankenstein produced afterwards. Same with the Marvel movies. They will inform all future versions of Marvel stories because they are the cultural standard for Marvel now. They have reached a larger audience than the comics have and had as significant cultural impact in 7ish years as the comics had in 75. Anyone producing a Marvel story now or in the future has to account for them now, whether to incorporate the ideas from them or to reject them, but either way there will be no escaping that the movies now define Marvel culturally to the mass audience. -M As for the Fury thing, I was okay with up to the eye patch. An illegitimate son he didn't know I could deal with, even one of mixed race that looked like SLJ. But the eye injury/patch did stretch credulity. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 28, 2015 8:15:52 GMT -5
Entirely correct, but these are works that are done and over with, while comics series from the big two are ongoing. What I'm trying to say is that I'd find it wrong to edit future editions of Shelley's Frankenstein to make them better fit a recent movie. They won't edit Shelly's Frankenstein, but all versions of Frankenstein moving forward will take that version into account, either building off of it or rejecting it to cleave closer to Shelly's original, but once it(the Karloff movie) is out there, it will inform all versions of the story (whether produced before or after the movie itself) in the minds of future audiences and will factor into any version of Frankenstein produced afterwards. Same with the Marvel movies. They will inform all future versions of Marvel stories because they are the cultural standard for Marvel now. They have reached a larger audience than the comics have and had as significant cultural impact in 7ish years as the comics had in 75. Anyone producing a Marvel story now or in the future has to account for them now, whether to incorporate the ideas from them or to reject them, but either way there will be no escaping that the movies now define Marvel culturally to the mass audience. As for the Fury thing, I was okay with up to the eye patch. An illegitimate son he didn't know I could deal with, even one of mixed race that looked like SLJ. But the eye injury/patch did stretch credulity. Regarding Frankenstein, there is no doubt that the Boris Karloff version had a huge societal impact; I'd even say a defining impact. However, I'd argue that said impact was due to the intrinsic quality of that particular representation, to its memorable look, and not to the simple fact that more people got to see the 1931 movie than read the book. The 1910 Frankenstein movie certainly didn't have as much of an impact, nor did Robert de Niro's monster in the Branagh film. But yeah, a strong impact made by a derivative product is sure to influence the way the source material is handled. I have no objection whatsoever in seeing the best aspects of the Marvel movies affect how the comics are made. Case in point, I doubt that anyone can now write Tony Stark without having Robert Downey Jr over their shoulder; the actor totally owned the character. To illustrate the situation with an example: Tarzan is another character whose movie appearance went against the literary and the comic strip continuity. Unlike what happens nowadays with the Marvel movies (or the 1931 Frankenstein film), the Tarzan movies were mostly crap; it was a business decision to make the comics more like them, and a poor decision it was. The public was quite happy to get a proper Tarzan once Russ Manning took over the strip, so the perception that derivative products must be consistent strike me as incorrect. Not that the public insisted on a proper Tarzan in the Sunday comics: I'm sure it just didn't care, the same way someone who's just been made aware of the Marvel universe via one of the movies doesn't really care what happens in the books. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Apr 28, 2015 8:27:56 GMT -5
If I've learned anything at all studying the histories of the Marvel and DC characters, it's that these characters are and have always been in a state of flux. Any status quo in their books was unintentional. If someone thought a strip needed revamping, they revamped it, without worrying about how it impacted what stories came before. It wasn't until the '70s and the rise of the fan-turned-pro that anyone seemed to care about the kind of continuity we're discussing here, guys like Mark Gruenwald and my boss, Roy Thomas, who fetishized the "shared universe" concept. Had guys like that been in place in the mid-'50s, there might not have been a Silver Age as we know it.
Cei-U!
I summon the early morning ramblings!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Apr 28, 2015 9:17:36 GMT -5
There always has been some back and forth between various forms of media:
in some cases it works (Mr. Freeze being reworked to resemble his animated counterpart for instance), in some cases it doesn't (Nick Fury Jr.).
Though when it comes to Nick Fury Jr., even after they introduced him, they didn't do away with the original Nick Fury (he even got a great series with "My War Gone By"). I actually have to think really hard to come up with appearances by Nick Fury Jr. in the comics I've been following. I can only remember a short appearance in Hawkeye. In most other comics I've seen Hill takes the spot of SHIELD commanding officer.
All in all, over a longer period of times the things that work remain (Kryptonite, Firestar, Harley Quinn, Blade's new look), things that have some fans and some opponents come and go depending on writers and artists (the X-Men's school having a larger student body or not) and things that didn't work are soon forgotten (Mystique becoming scaly like the movies)
|
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Apr 29, 2015 6:16:56 GMT -5
Really? I didn't know that; I must have read the Fraction series too late to realize it. Scratch that one from the list, then, but I'm pretty sure the repulsor thingie in Tony's chest arrived in comics after it did in the film. That retcon happened in Warren Ellis and Adi Granov's Extremis storyline. |
|
|
|
Post by Spike-X on Apr 29, 2015 6:17:21 GMT -5
Good lord the quote system in this board software is an abomination.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Apr 29, 2015 10:57:04 GMT -5
Looks like my post didn't post:
Re: Iron Man:
Tony needing the suit to live isn't new... if fact, if anything, it is recently removed... I think when he re-booted himself after Civil War his health problems were either gone, or just ignored. For a while, he had to weird the chest plate most of the time... then it was only occassionally, then all the time when his nervous system collapsed (after Armor Wars but before he was shot by Kathy Dare). What IS new with the movies is the center piece being the energy source, and that energy source being a major Stark invention. They have sorta carried that into the comics, but it's certainly not a focus.
They definitely brought his house from the movies into the comics, but he already had a similar one, so that wasn't huge.
To be honest, I'd say the biggest Movie impact was making Pepper Potts a major character.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Apr 29, 2015 11:00:07 GMT -5
Back to the original Topic...
So I was reading this month's Magneto (which has quietly been a really good comic... if you take it at face value)... and I realize that what Magneto is doing on Genosha is EXACTLY like what Bendis' new 'Utopians' are doing... If that's on purpose, it could be the beginnings of a pretty cool story line. Sadly, I suspect it's just a co-incidence, and it'll just lead to more continuity stuff that annoys the crap out of me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 29, 2015 16:07:11 GMT -5
Looks like my post didn't post: Re: Iron Man: Tony needing the suit to live isn't new... if fact, if anything, it is recently removed... Didn't Tony get an artificial heart transplant in the late 70s or early 80s that made the armor redundant? During the years I followed the title (early 80s to early 90s), he didn't need the armor. (Good thing too, since he was penniless and drunk for a good while back then). |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Apr 29, 2015 16:33:57 GMT -5
Stark had a heart transplant in Iron Man #19 back in '69 so he no longer needed to wear the chestplate 24/7 to live. That was still the status quo in '86 when I quit following the character.
Cei-U!
I summon Dr. Jose Santini!
|
|
