|
Post by tingramretro on Sept 26, 2015 12:21:08 GMT -5
I kind of prefer origins without tragedy. Barry Allen is a super-hero because it's the right thing to do and because he was inspired by comic books. Same goes for my preferred Flash, Jay Garrick, a character who was always portrayed as a positive, lighthearted individual.
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Sept 26, 2015 13:14:29 GMT -5
I kind of prefer origins without tragedy. Barry Allen is a super-hero because it's the right thing to do and because he was inspired by comic books. Why do current writers think you can only do right because you're trying to make up for some deficiency in their formative years? They can't just do the right thing. I think many current writers have moved away from the tragedy in origins, actually. Most new superheroes seem to be kids inspired by other superheroes: Kamala Kahn being a major example, but many of the Young Avengers, Future Foundation and recent X-Men students don't have a tragedy in their origin. Miles Morales is inspired by a tragedy (the death of Peter Parker), but it's not really a personel tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Sept 29, 2015 22:45:51 GMT -5
I kind of prefer origins without tragedy. Barry Allen is a super-hero because it's the right thing to do and because he was inspired by comic books. Why do current writers think you can only do right because you're trying to make up for some deficiency in their formative years? They can't just do the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Oct 21, 2020 20:52:12 GMT -5
While many heroes have a tragedy in their origin, I tend to think that ONE tragedy is all someone "needs".
I'm speaking out against the sick, twisted thinking involved in the never-ending crusade to make Peter Parker's entire life a non-stop LIVING HELL on the part of some writers & editors.
STEVE DITKO got it right. ONE tragedy-- the murder of Uncle Ben. A couple years in, Ditko wrote a story in which Aunt May ALMOST died, and it sent Peter into a angry whirlwind of violence against anyone who'd stand in his way of trying to save her life. In the end, he DID save her life... and the same day, FINALLY stood up to his psychotic boss and demanded he be paid what he was worth. It's almost a shame the series didn't end there, as later writers didn't take the hint. In short order... George Stacy, who could have been a surrogate father to Peter, KILLED needlessly in a pointless accident, and Spider-Man got blamed for it. Then, George's daughter, MURDERED by a bad guy Peter misguidedly showed too much sympathy for. Then, that man's son-- Pete's best friend-- driven INSANE. And when I look at what's gone on since then, this was just the beginning! What's WRONG with the people guiding these series?
Isn't it enough to just have someone deciding to dedicate their life to fighting crime, to make the world a better place? Do the people chronicling their adventures have to get their jollies making the characters a MISERABLE as they can on an ongoing basis?
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,049
|
Post by Confessor on Oct 24, 2020 2:14:56 GMT -5
While many heroes have a tragedy in their origin, I tend to think that ONE tragedy is all someone "needs". I'm speaking out against the sick, twisted thinking involved in the never-ending crusade to make Peter Parker's entire life a non-stop LIVING HELL on the part of some writers & editors. STEVE DITKO got it right. ONE tragedy-- the murder of Uncle Ben. A couple years in, Ditko wrote a story in which Aunt May ALMOST died, and it sent Peter into a angry whirlwind of violence against anyone who'd stand in his way of trying to save her life. In the end, he DID save her life... and the same day, FINALLY stood up to his psychotic boss and demanded he be paid what he was worth. It's almost a shame the series didn't end there, as later writers didn't take the hint. In short order... George Stacy, who could have been a surrogate father to Peter, KILLED needlessly in a pointless accident, and Spider-Man got blamed for it. Then, George's daughter, MURDERED by a bad guy Peter misguidedly showed too much sympathy for. Then, that man's son-- Pete's best friend-- driven INSANE. And when I look at what's gone on since then, this was just the beginning! What's WRONG with the people guiding these series? Isn't it enough to just have someone deciding to dedicate their life to fighting crime, to make the world a better place? Do the people chronicling their adventures have to get their jollies making the characters a MISERABLE as they can on an ongoing basis? Personally, I like the tragedy, drama and soap opera being piled onto Pete. It makes for much more interesting and emotionally engaging stories, which is why writers do it, of course. I also disagree with your description of the Ditko era as having only had one, maybe two instances, of tragedy or angst. During Ditko's run Uncle Ben died, Aunt May was constantly hovering mere inches away from death (ending up hospitalised at one point), Peter was mercilessly picked on and bullied by Flash Thompson and others, Pete's relationship with Betty Brant was on then off then on again, Betty's brother got shot (and she blamed Spider-Man for it), and that's without mentioning the likes of the Master Planner, Green Goblin, Scorpion, Vulture etc giving Pete a hard time. I think that, in fact, Pete had a slightly easier time of it generally during the Lee and Romita era than he did during the Lee/Ditko one. It wasn't til the Gerry Conway period that you got Lee/Ditko levels of tragedy in the series again.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 24, 2020 9:43:59 GMT -5
I'm speaking out against the sick, twisted thinking involved in the never-ending crusade to make Peter Parker's entire life a non-stop LIVING HELL on the part of some writers & editors. The character would have been quickly forgotten if it ended in the Ditko era. The character became a true sensation--the can't miss title (and outsold then then-top Marvel title The Fantastic Four) in the Romita/Lee era because Parker and his alter-ego were not only thrilling, but he had a growing, three-dimensional personal (civilian) life that was more relatable than most characters. So, I guess he should have killed Norman outright? That is not who Parker is. His humanity prevented him from being judge, jury and executioner--the very thing that elevated him above almost all other characters. The very thing that made him such a great contrast to The Punisher whenever they clashed. Moreover, when Conway, Romita, et al., made the decision to have the Goblin murder Gwen, it was the series soaring above all other Marvel titles, in a way rarely matched. There's no wondering why it remains one of the greatest, most impactful plots in the medium's history--something that was not seen during the early years. It is called taking the medium to new heights and truly knowing how to evolve a character, as opposed to someone who once tried to avoid real character depth to the degree that Spider-Man was not going to grow as all teenagers / young adults do, or face serious or grave issues. Again, that's the relatable business. [/quote] You are making the augment many readers used against comics during the early Silver Age, when it was all punch, grin, wink, rinse and repeat. That kind of "writing" led to stagnation in the superhero genre, and nearly finished it, until the creators were allowed to give the people what they wanted.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Oct 24, 2020 22:33:05 GMT -5
Though I can't really say whether or not this applies to other "tragic" figures in comics or even if it affects this one particular character these days, when I last followed Batman on a monthly basis (back in the 90's) you had to accept the fact that not only were his parents murdered by criminals, but that it was the only event which had any kind of impact on his life. From the time of their deaths being the combination to get through the grandfather clock into the Bat-Cave, to references made of Bruce Wayne dreaming of their murder every night, to learning that DC actually had a policy in place that Batman was not allowed to smile (I believe it was Alex Ross who discussed this edict after working on Kingdom Come), to the Bat-offices revising their own Joe Chill revision to let readers know that The Wayne's killer was never caught thus adding more teenage angst to Batman - you knew that Batman's parents were dead, that is was the most traumatizing thing to happen to anybody anywhere, and that if you wanted to understand Batman's mindset at any second of the day, all you need to know was "his parents are dead". What was once a great explanation for how a normal kid could grow into the brilliant athlete Batman is, soon became the milestone which prevented any sort of character traits, interests, or personality from taking shape.
Sometimes then, a tragic origin can be looked upon as an invitation to go no further with a character.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Oct 24, 2020 23:08:47 GMT -5
BAH! Revisionist history. The 2nd event that had an impact on Bruce Wayne's life... was the murder of Dick Grayson's parents, which he ALSO saw with his own eyes... as did Dick. To prevent Dick from being murdered as well... and, to spare him the kind of solitary heartbreak he had when he was growing up... Batman took Dick to the Batcave, revealed his identity to him, and spent the next 6 months training him to be his partner in crimefighting. His first foray as a costumed crimefighter, Robin, was to go after the gangster responsible for his parent's murder. This was in DETECTIVE COMICS #38 (March 1940). After that... Bruce & Dick became like adopted older & younger BROTHERS. And if you follow the stories that came after this, you can see a noticable change in Batman. He began to really ENJOY his life as a crime-fighter! He was OFTEN seen smiling. This goes for the comics, and the 1943 movie serial, which really captured their personalities from the comics of the time better than ANY later film adaptation ever did. As far as I'm concerned, any later changes just DON'T count.
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Oct 24, 2020 23:41:10 GMT -5
the 1943 movie serial, which really captured their personalities from the comics of the time better than ANY later film adaptation ever did. Glad to see I'm not the only one who appreciates what Lewis Wilson and Douglas Croft accomplished. Wilson's Bruce Wayne remains the definitive portrayal of the character whether people are even familiar with it or not. I agree with the rest of your post - there's a reason I haven't follow the new stuff in 20+ years.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Oct 25, 2020 10:09:06 GMT -5
BAH! Revisionist history. The other night, I read Ego by Darwyn Cooke. Basically, 60 pages of Bruce Wayne arguing with "Batman," and anecdotes about Bruce and his parents that I'm sure are "cannon" now.
I like Cooke, so the concept was probably executed as well as it could be, but it really felt unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by String on Oct 25, 2020 11:02:01 GMT -5
I kind of prefer origins without tragedy. Barry Allen is a super-hero because it's the right thing to do and because he was inspired by comic books. Why do current writers think you can only do right because you're trying to make up for some deficiency in their formative years? They can't just do the right thing. I think it would be interesting that today, someone who gains powers wouldn't necessarily be inspired by comic books, rather they be inspired by all the big-budget popular superhero films. Barry Allen's inspiration is the noble highest ideal but it's hardly practical though. I love that Peter's first thought on learning of his new powers is how do I make money from this? That kind of motivation and thinking is more realistic I believe, selfish rather than selflessness. Yet it takes a more personal motivation to switch their focus towards using their abilities to help their fellow man and society. Does that mean such a change has to be something tragic ie someone dies? Maybe, maybe not but there's room for creative thinking in that area which I would hope the writer would take reflection upon. For example, Steve Rogers employed that noble highest ideal by joining the Army and then serving as the test subject for the super-solider project. The tragedy comes for him later becoming a Man Out Of Time. I think it's also interesting that from the very beginning of the Marvel Age, Barry's noble ideal was immediately picked up and used by Reed Richards after their crash landing and mutation. My fellow astronauts, we have to use these newfound powers for the betterment of Man! However, retconning an origin to include such a tragedy is nigh upon a sin. If it's there from the beginning, fine. But including it later on is just lazy. Sure, you could say that Barry Allen was boring in some ways but it was his values towards truth and justice that helped make him such a strong character. In fact, one could possibly argue that just as much as the Kents informed a young Kal-El about proper values so did Henry and Nora Allen did for a young Barry, sentiments that were bolstered more by his reading of the old Jay Garrick Flash comics. But noooooo, Barry is more interesting, more relevant if his mother was killed. Usually I like Johns for the most part but that, that was a big mistake.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Oct 25, 2020 11:23:16 GMT -5
Glad to see I'm not the only one who appreciates what Lewis Wilson and Douglas Croft accomplished. Wilson's Bruce Wayne remains the definitive portrayal of the character whether people are even familiar with it or not. I have one main problem with the 1943 serial... it's a 15-chapter serial!
Multiple times, the stories reached points where the villains should have killed Batman or found out his real identity, or, Batman shold have found their lair and stopped them. But they had to stretch it out for 15 chapters.
My favorite of the 3 Buster Crabbe "FLASH GORDON"s is the 3rd one, the only one that's 12 chapters (instead of 13 or 15). And the story is structured in such a way, it almost feels like a 3-act play. So there's not much in the way of repetition.
By comparison, both the 1940 and 1941 "GREEN HORNET" serials are structured more like modern-day TV series, in that, each chapter focused on a different, separate crime pulled by the same crime gang. They managed to keep things varied enough that the repetition wasn't as annoying.
When I watch the 1943 "BATMAN", I enjoy the characters immensely... but I keep wishing they'd instead done a series of "B" movies, each one with a short, tight story, and different villains. Imagine if they'd actually done one with Hedy Lamarr as Catwoman (she was Jerry Robinson's model for the character!). Or, Vincent Price as The Joker. Or, Charles Laughton as The Penguin!
The one really baffling thing about the serial... is the lack of Commissioner Gordon. Only a few months earlier in the comics, Gordon, who had been enthusiastically following Batman's career, had stepped forward and officially deputized Batman, so from then on, he was working WITH the Gotham Police. Yet in the serial, Batman is doing a favor for someone in the FBI (who apparently KNOWS Bruce Wayne is Batman), and you have this arrogant Police Chief who wants to arrest Batman so he can then FORCE him to work FOR him!
In the comparitively-inferior "BATMAN AND ROBIN" in 1949, I thought Lyle Talbot did the most authentic (and authentic-looking) Gordon ever seen on film!
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Oct 25, 2020 12:57:31 GMT -5
I find it rather odd to speak of alleged "revisionist history" with superhero characters, when many of the most famous characters have had numerous alternate interpretations, such as Superman; aside from being a baby rocketed to earth, the reason he was sent, why Krypton was destroyed, what his father's motives were, have all been changed, embellished or re-interpreted over the decades to the point the Action Comics origin can seem like a sketch of the character's beginnings.
Captain America? Same. The second he was brilliantly brought into the Silver Age in 1964, his history had been retconned in one of the most significant ways ever seen in the medium. About his origin--even that was never as straightforward as presented in the Timley era over the many re-tellings of that story, right down to who was behind the Super Soldier project, who knew about it, how Bucky became Cap's partner, and how Bucky was not just some grinning sidekick.
Then, there's the Hulk...
Superhero origins are not etched in stone, but keep some basic framework, while building on it to either explain that which was not clear in the first place, or addressing long-questioned elements like character motivation, etc.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Oct 25, 2020 15:53:56 GMT -5
Well, as "Scum of the Earth" once said... "THAT'S IT FOR HIM!"
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Oct 25, 2020 16:10:25 GMT -5
But noooooo, Barry is more interesting, more relevant if his mother was killed. Usually I like Johns for the most part but that, that was a big mistake. My best friend gave me THE FLASH season 1 box set, and I recently finished plowing thru it one episode a week. It's been fascinating, very well-done, and it was holding my attention with its season-long MYSTERY story. My best friend said it was driving him crazy, NOT being able to talk about it in advance. Meanwhile, it was driving me crazy, trying to figure out, WHAT's really going on with this one character??
Of course, so much focuses on the fact that Barry's mother was murdered. By who? WHY? Most of that has come out, but at the end of the season, there's still so much we don't know. And I let my friend know how INFURIATING it was that-- unlike, say, the 1st season of CHARMED-- this season still managed to end ON A CLIFFHANGER. So now I gotta get season 2 for the full resolution of the year-long mystery. To me, that's damned near unforgivable.
The other crazy thing was-- how, seemingly out of left field (well that's how it struck me), the bulk of the regular cast were fully behind the idea of Barry going into the past and CHANGING HISTORY-- despite how this would, almost certainly, WIPE OUT their entire lifetimes and replace them with other things. WHAT?? WHAT??
So, what, has DC gone and rebooted the comic's history and now, Barry's mother was killed in the comics, as well? Sheesh.
Geoff Johns has long struck me (in JSA, HAWKMAN, GREEN LANTERN) as a writer who is almost schizophrenic in his approach. On one hand, he'll go to extreme lengths to restore or fix horrific damage done to characters by other writers. Then in the same breath, he'll turn around and dump NEW horrors on them, potentially even worse, and usually involving EXTREME violence that, to me, it totally ot of place in a superhero book.
He's like Denny O'Neil AND Andy Helfer in ONE person.
|
|