Absolutely. I completely agree. But Spider-Man or the Fantastic Four or the X-Men aren't oral stories. They are printed stories that, for better or worse, are much more set in stone. This is where your analogy with the likes of Robin Hood or King Arthur falls down, I feel.




Looks kind of interesting actually.




I can't comment about the others because I'm pretty ignorant about them, to be honest, but I do know that Mallory's Le Morte d'Arthur didn't appear until the 14th or 15th century, I think I'm right in saying. But clearly it was based on oral stories that had evolved and coalesced in various forms ever since the 5th or 6th century. So, while it was written down at one point 600 ago, it was done so only after centuries of organic oral evolution. I can't really see how the body of Spider-Man or Fantastic Four or X-Men comics published over the past 60 years is really comparable.




That's a fair enough point, I guess. I'm not sure I agree wholeheartedly that stories being committed to static text or "calcified", as you put it, was a tragedy, compared to the existing form of orally passed down stories, but it's a fair enough comment. However, I'm still failing to see how that's relevant to a discussion about 20th century comic books.

Comics are what they are. They are printed matter and therefore inherently more static in terms of their plot or narrative. That's just the way those stories are and how they were when first published.




Well, I don't agree with this wholly because, actually, popular music history is littered with occasions where a cover or copy/interpretation of a song has become much more popular than the original.

Likewise, there are a number of songs where a live recording has superseded the studio recording, in terms of public acceptance as the "definitive" version, such as Bob Marley's "No Woman No Cry", or the Grateful Dead's "Dark Star", or Peter Frampton's "Show Me the Way", or Cheap Trick's "I Want You To Want Me". Admittedly, it is rare, but it's not unheard of.

I think if you've given them a chance, that maybe they can pull it off, and then they don't for you, that's fair enough. When they outright kill a character though there's not much to do but not read the comics that won't be because of that. I am so sick of main story characters who still have possibilities and can still find an audience being sacrificed for effect. At least even if they mess up Iceman or The Doctor they can maybe find a way out of it and back to something that has worked or on to something else that might work where the failure didn't.

I guess the last I would've read of Iceman would be X-Factor #3, and then jump to 1999/2000 where I now have Hidden Years, and the X titles around a couple Alan Davis written Apocalypse stories where Iceman barely figured (but was one of the '12').

I got hooked on the original Phoenix story back in 1979-80 but disliked so many of the attempts afterward to milk it that I now refuse to really even try any of the stuff since the alternate future Rachel Phoenix. The one major exception; I did like that they brought Jean Grey back separate from Phoenix (Fantastic Four #286)... but only to undo that anyway and put them together after all, urgh!!!

OT, Seattle: I lived in the First Hill area briefly and spent weeks at various times all around the place, and I almost don't recognize much of it now... after losing The Funhouse, I hope they at least save The Showbox (and The Neptune in the U district if that ever becomes threatened again). I've always said when the Elephant Car Wash and Dick's Drive-In signs go it won't really be Seattle to me anymore.

Why?

I like to try and see the argument from both sides. Altering sexuality or gender seems to be 'easy' way DC/Marvel (as said don't read them so correct me if wrong) are trying to be diverse characters. But being Bi myself I know it not a thing that can be changed, and if I was to see the reverse like if a character was gay and suddenly made heterosexual just to tick a box I don't think I would be happy about it since it be done for the wrong reasons rather then any actual want to be diverse so I totally understand why some might be upset.

I really don't see what being a fan and reason have to do with each other, as they are by definition polar opposites.

The main issue with Richard Zack Meyers and his ilk is that all they want is the characters to remain the same and the stories to be inconsequential, claiming the new stuff is garbage while not even reading it.
But when you watch Meyers' videos, he often starts by saying the comics he's reviewing is actually not that bad, if not good (the recent Waid Dr Strange issues, the recent Iron Man issues), before trashing those anyways. Even his detailed analysis of Squirrel Girl #25 showed he saw the depth and amount of good ideas within it.
But if you read the comment section, you will always find a vast majority of viewers mostly expecting the kill shot, when Meyers shreds the comic and throws it on the floor.

I've read a few posts here about how terrible it was if Spidey suddenly turned out to be gay. But the thing is he didn't, so way spend so much time fearing an abstract? Complaining about how Thor magically turned into a women is only proof that you've not read the book as it couldn't be further from what actually happens in the book.
I believe most people here greatly enjoyed Alan Moore's Supreme run, where a Superman analogue is depicted in all the variables possible, and we loved that. So why is it so problematic when a few characters out of the more than 8000 ones in Marvel's library get some real change that as adults and experienced comic book readers, we know very well could see their new status quo change again?

So no, in that specific conversation, I really don't see how being a fan is reasonable.
As kids we used to trust the storyteller, had disappointments, and simply waited for the next instalement with hope.
I believe Marvel has never published that many books than they are right now, they have created far more new major characters in the past few years than they had in the naughties. But we're all now older readers, often with way too many books already at home to read. So basically, this brand of complaining often is targeted at books we're not even reading anymore, change or no change, as is evident from the comment section of the Richard Meyers videos. Basically, they want to prevent others to read something they wouldn't read even if it still was the same old book it was in the 70ies/80ies.
If one is the exception and actually is still buying AND reading those new books and is genuinely bothered by the direction of a character, you know the character you love will return eventually, and until then you have all the back-issues and trades to enjoy, plus the other 472 monthly books currently being published (plus more collections than ever as well, treasury editions etc), damn if you won't find something for you

And if you don't, give the books a chance, because you may be mistaken anyways. I'd actually be really surprised if you could find me more than a handfull of major marvel/DC/pulp characters that have been radically/magically changed of recent, simply to create hype. I keep hearing that, but all he exemples I get don't hold, as there's almost always a build in for the change, and most big change isn't of the character, but simply another/new one taking over, the classic one eihter assuming a new role, or going in the shadows to be creatively regenerated...

So please talk about Spider-man here when they actually change him to a gay man, because until then, it's just some oddly placed fear-mongering, as when it happens, when Marvel trusts a writer to pull it-off, we may have a new Ed Brubaker or Alan Moore! And if not, who says comics always have to have it right?! Are we offended by all te abyssymaly bad comics from the 60ies and 70ies? What's the greatest offence? Most of the 70ies books I love dearly, I wouldn't evoke reason as part of hte equation. Sure I love the artwork, but let's forget there even was a writer...

What have I misunderstood? I'm just saying that as hypotetical it is, you and others use it way too much for something that remains an abstract.
You're denouncing what you feel could be a pattern by using an exemple of "could be", while there are so few actual exemples of such a pattern in actual publications being enforced. In essence, I guess I'm disputing the merits of such a fear and the whole spiel of Meyers and co, who badly hide a dark agenda behind a claim of supposed reverse-representation going crazy.
Because let's be honest and count the atcual occurences of such a drastic transformation of a beloved character : at Marvel, I've heard so many exemples of that (Ghost Rider, Iron Man, Captain Marvel, Captain America, etc), and they all turned out to not be what the polemists claimed it to be (all the original incarnations still exist, none were magically turned female, gay or black).
So basically, this whole debate is essentially based on a fear of something spreading, despite it even happening in the first place, and using that fear to push a backward agenda to keep the boys club a boys club.
This pattern is happening in movies and TV, a little, with a few exemples coming to mind such as Carrie Ann Moss in Jessica Jones, Tilda Swinton in Dr Strange, Idris Elba in The Dark Tower, but even there, it's still minor. The biggest case of outrage probably was for the female Ghostbuster movie, by people who complained long before the movie even being finished (as if this movie was erasing the previous ones, and as if you could be a big enough Ghostbuster fan that you would feel betrayed by this studio move... ). Would the Dark Tower movie have been better with a good white actor in the lead? Highly unlikely, so it again all comes back to what others have expressed here : is it a good story well told or not?

My statement about Thor isn't subjective to the least : Thor hasen't been transformed into Thorette, since he still exists in the same universe, and the story has actually told how he came to lose the hammer, and how someone else came to lift it, Jane Foster. There wasn't anything sudden, random or magical about it. Claiming otherwise is indeed proof of having not read the storyline. One might not like the storyline, but claiming Marvel suddenly changed's Odinson's gender to please minorities is a 100% false statement, that I'd rather believe is based in not having read the story and jumping the gun than based on pure disingeniousity.
Moreover, anyone who trully follows comics should be well aware that those kind of changes only are temporary, and in this case absolutely about telling a story.
All the outrage at this supposedly abrupt change either comes from people who don't actually buy comics, or from bad faith, mob mentality, instant complaining gratification. This is even more evident since the same writer has been in control of all the Thor titles for over half a decade now, hinting at that very story developement quite some time before it actually happened. And that story arch has actually come to an end, in the long-planned fashion the author had in mind, as anyone should have expected.

The resentment you talk about, we all fully understand the mechanics behind it, I dare believe. What I was saying is that when you step this far into being a fan (the "diversity" crowd), there's something very unhealthy about it, or at the very least opposite to reason (as the word fan more than implies)
I say that fully aware that the few objects of my own fandom, I shouldn't even try to justify those rationnaly to a third party, since the very notion of being a fan means that you are abandoning a significative chunk of your critical judgement.