|
Post by berkley on Mar 15, 2021 16:41:11 GMT -5
Yes it happens in comics all the time, and that's likely another reason Gillen, Gaiman, et al have felt free to make such drastic, arbitrary changes to the Eternals: it's pretty much standard practice for anything owned by Marvel or DC.
But I thnk Kirby's Eternals is a special case, because it wasn't just a set of cool characters, it was an integrated story concept whose characters were essential elements crafted, along with everything else, to make the whole thing work. So if you start messing around with their personalities and inter-relations, you're going to end up messing up the whole thing.
For me, then, it's more like, say, Watchmen than like a recurring character such as Spider-Man, or the FF, or what have you. And I think it deserves the same respect as a book like Watchmen, i.e. that to be understood, to be appreciated, it needs to be read on its own terms, not as just one of many variations that have appeared over the years, and certainly not re-interpreted from the perspective of those later versions.
But for that to happen, the creators would need both opportunity and motivation, neither of which has been present in any of the Eternals revivals up to now.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Mar 18, 2021 10:37:03 GMT -5
Speaking of "creative control" or the total loss thereof...
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 18, 2021 16:44:17 GMT -5
Always like seeing and listening to Serling, one of my all-time favourite tv personalities.
Yes, it would have been great if Kirby could have retained creative control and finished his own story. I'd like to see present day writers like Gillen refuse the assignment when approached to do an Eternals series, as some writers (I imagine) turned down the opportunity to work on DC's Watchmen sequel. But to them I'm sure it's just more characters owned by Marvel and therefore open season.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Mar 18, 2021 17:46:55 GMT -5
I'd like to see the earlier part of that episode. It got hilarious when Dick Cavett seemed to be "explaining" to Arthur C. Clarke that "any sufficiently advanced technology will look like magic", and the idea that if a US tv transmission went far enough out into space, it MIGHT encounter alien technology which could translate it into a UK-style signal.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Mar 18, 2021 18:25:42 GMT -5
I'd like to see the earlier part of that episode. It got hilarious when Dick Cavett seemed to be "explaining" to Arthur C. Clarke that "any sufficiently advanced technology will look like magic", and the idea that if a US tv transmission went far enough out into space, it MIGHT encounter alien technology which could translate it into a UK-style signal. Now there is a thought. The Celestials are here because they watched our television signals and are pissed and now judging us on the lousy Star Wars and Star Trek new versions! Methinks it is the fault of the Deviants, who have infiltrated Hollywood, where they would fit right in without anyone noticing.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 18, 2021 19:16:21 GMT -5
Anyway, back to the Kirby Eternals:
I said I was going to talk about Thena, as I think she's arguably the single most important character in the series, insofar as an ensemble book like the Eternals can be said to have such a thing. I also think Kirby's Thena evokes the spirit of the Olympian goddess she's based on far more effectively than the MU or DCU versions of that goddess have ever done.
We first encounter Thena in Eternals #5 where she's playing a game of "Auto-Boxers" (remote-controlled boxer-robots) with her father, Zuras, the Prime Eternal. There is much of interest in this scene that I think has been largely ignored by later writers.
First of all, Zuras, the Prime Eternal: I find the similarities and differences of this character to Kirby's other father-figures fascinating - I'm thinking of such characters as Marvel's Odin and Zeus, or the New Gods' Highfather. For one thing, Zuras is younger and more vigorous than those prototypical comic book patriarchs. He's also more approachable and down-to-earth: no one would ever imagine Odin playing a game of rock'em-sock'em robots with Thor, or reacting the way Zuras does when he loses. While still treated with great respect by the other Eternals, there's very little pomp or ceremony attached to his position - no guards, no lofty throne, just a kind of secretary, Domo, who screens his visitors. His usual costume is basically just trousers and a t-shirt (although, this being a Kirby design, it's the coolest t-shirt ever!). And later on, we see he's much more hands-on, less distant than we would expect from the example of those other patriarchal figures.
It's striking that later writers and artists seem to have based their Zuras more on Kirby's Odin than on his Zuras, just as they've based their Celestials more on Galactus than on the Celstials themselves, as they are presented in Kirby's Eternals. John Romita, Jr, for example gave him the exaggeratedly broad and stocky physical build of Odin rather than the tall, powerfully-muscled but atheletic form of Zuras. Once again, this makes clear to me that when they read Kirby's Eternals, they don't see what's actually there before them on the page, they see what they are expecting to see.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Mar 18, 2021 21:04:20 GMT -5
Every writer has to confront the fact that the story they want to tell AFTER Kirby is "their" interpretation which is NEVER going to match, let alone surpass the King's. He alone knew his intent and story which he wanted to explore. Unlike writers of novels who may leave behind notes or incomplete stories to extrapolate from, Kirby was mostly making it all up on the spot as he created the comic.
Personally I believe none of the current writers even wish to explore or extrapolate what came before them. Tom King uses other people's characters, totally changing them to tell the story HE wants to tell. Gaiman wants to tell new mythological visions but forgets that mythology is meant to reflect and teach humanity. Max Allan Collins knows to incorporate historical moments and the people into his stories but utilizes his own characters in the main story. Rather than creating their own vision with their own characters (which Kirby encourages) it is easier to bastardize someone else's. All in the "name" of brand/name recognition in the hope it sells since people want "more" adventures of their favorites.
I would rather read the original and have my own "dreams" which will hopefully have more resonance with Kirby's creations.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Mar 18, 2021 21:19:50 GMT -5
Typical writer picking up any given Kirby series: "Now... HOW can I FIX this?"
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Mar 18, 2021 22:02:32 GMT -5
Typical writer picking up any given Kirby series: "Now... HOW can I FIX this?" You can't fix what ain't broken! There I said it!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 18, 2021 22:10:39 GMT -5
It's symptomatic of Hollywood, too, as adaptations are always someone "fixing" the original story to their own ideas or to suit some executive or star ego. Stories and facts are manipulated to fit into a new agenda, rather than adapt the original to a new medium or, Kirby forbid, coming up with something original (or at least their own take on an old archetype or genre). Biopics are rarely an actual biography of the subject and more of a greatest hits twisted to fit some narrative cooked up by the writer, producer, director or star (or some combination of all) and writers of docu-dramas will invent events that match their narrative, instead of telling what really happened in a dramatic fashion.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 18, 2021 22:47:00 GMT -5
I think the cases of Gaiman and Gillen with respect to th Eternals are very similar: in both cases, it seems that Marvel came to the writer with the idea that, "Hey, you're a mythology guy, right? You'd be perfect for this new Eternals series we want to produce!" And in both cases, I think the writer accepted partly because, knowing very little about the Eternals, they saw it as a more or less blank slate upon which they were even more free than usual to do whatever they want.
More free than if it were a question of, say, a new Batman series or something. Because they know that The Eternals is a relatively obscure property that doesn't have many fans, so there wouldn't be much backlash from that direction. They know the owners, Marvel, don't care much what they do, as long as it's commercially successful, whereas they would have certain minimum requirements with an already popular character. They know that the series hasn't even received much critical appreciation, as the New Gods has done - it's ridiculous how often in interviews with both Gaiman and Gillen, the interviewer says something like, "This is fourth-rate Kirby", or "Kirby didn't exactly knock this one out of the park".
And I thnk that since, by their own admission, they hadn't ever paid much attention to the Eternals until accepting the assignment, they were influenced by this perceived attitude. I also think that when they tried to do their due diligence and read the Kirby series, they were incapable of assessing it on its own terms, they could only see it in terms of the MU as a whole, later versions by other writers, and even other, better-known Kirby creations (e.g. Galactus, Odin, as I mentioned above).
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 18, 2021 23:26:51 GMT -5
Anyway, back to the scene from Eternals #5 introducing Thena and Zuras:
We learn several things about Thena in this introductory sequence: that she has a good rapport with her father, Zuras; that another high-profile Eternal, Makarri, follows her commands without question; that the Prime Eternal doesn't hesitate to allow her to take charge of a critical situation, the Deviant attack on NYC; that she is coolly and forcefully decisive in the way she sets about dealing with this very serious and completely unexpected problem.
I think the Thena/Zuras relationship is one of the most attractive things about both characters - the best father/daughter act in comics! Actually, I can't think of any others at the moment, but still. Anyway, once again, the differences with, for example, Thor and Odin are striking: Zuras and Thena are much more familiar with each other, playing games together, Thena boasting when she wins, Zuras not standing on his dignity, showing surprise ("Wha-?!") when he loses and then trying to come up with an excuse ... all this is so refreshingly different to Thor and Odin and their highly formal and reverential (on the part of Thor) interactions.
Thena is much more independent and irreverent with respect to Zuras than Thor is to Odin, though there is always an implicit respect. Zuras gives her permission to deal with the Deviant attack but she has already made up her mind to do it - though I imagine she would have obeyed if Zuras had given her a direct command. Actually, though, Zuras, unlike Odin, doesn't give many direct commands to anyone. But this gets into the socio-political situation of the Eternals, which I want to put off for now.
Anyway, I like how the two enjoy one another's company and feel at ease with each other. It seems that Thena spends a fair bit of her leisure time with Zuras, perhaps lives in or near the "Temple of Command" going by this intro and the Annual, where she is with him again, watching some more Deviant attacks against the human world. He trusts her to deal with serious problems and to choose her own methods, tactics, personnel, in doing so. Insofar as the Eternals have a ruling house, Thena seems to be the only other member of it besides Zuras. However, I think it's misleading to think of Zuras as an absolute monarch or even as a ruler at all: in this too, the Eternals are very different to Kirby/Marvel's Asgard or to the New Gods of New Genesis - but again, this something I want to put off getting into for the moment.
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Mar 19, 2021 11:23:20 GMT -5
Personally I believe none of the current writers even wish to explore or extrapolate what came before them. Tom King uses other people's characters, totally changing them to tell the story HE wants to tell. Gaiman wants to tell new mythological visions but forgets that mythology is meant to reflect and teach humanity. Max Allan Collins knows to incorporate historical moments and the people into his stories but utilizes his own characters in the main story. Rather than creating their own vision with their own characters (which Kirby encourages) it is easier to bastardize someone else's. All in the "name" of brand/name recognition in the hope it sells since people want "more" adventures of their favorites.
Tom King's work annoys me a lot less than other people's. I frequently disagree with his interpretations of characters, but he at least seems to recognise that certain characters have a meaning, rather than just being superheroes/supervillains, and tries to communicate something meaningful with them.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on Mar 19, 2021 11:27:43 GMT -5
"playing games together"Of course, here, it's Zeus & Hera, so it's husband & wife, not father & daughter. Even so, it seems to me most depictions of them, Hera is shown as an evil angry B****, perhaps rightly annoyed in the extreme at her husband's repeated affairs with mortal women. Honor Blackman's Hera is the most likable version I've ever seen, and it's subtly suggested that she's fallen in love with Jason. The Olympian couple in this case accept and tolerate each other's flings. They're with mortals, so they know they won't last. Hera may be the most likable character I've ever seen Honor Blackman play. Mind you, I admire the hell out of "Cathy Gale". Her AVENGERS episodes grow on me more each time I watch them. But Cathy's someone I could picture myself becoming good friends with, if I ever met her... but probably, not anything more. It's Venus, Emma & Purdey I see myself asking out to dinner... especially Venus. (Emma is too often cool & distant, while Purdey has too big of a chip on her shoulder.)
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 19, 2021 14:53:40 GMT -5
I think the game-playing also tells us something about the Eternals as a whole, not just Thena and Zuras: they like amusing themselves, playing games, doing things just for the enjoyment of it. Even, as we see here, two of the most serious Eternals in terms of persona and position, indulge in this kind of activity. In earlier issues we saw that even a Polar Eternal like Ikaris likes flying around high in the atmosphere or getting into brawls with the Delphan brothers just for enjoyment, not necessarily for any set purpose.
We've mentioned Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End as a useful comparison to make with the Eternals from a certain perspective. In my view, there's also a bit of Moorcock's Dancers at the End of Time in this pleasure-seeking aspect of the Eternals - and of course, more obviously, the Olympic pantheon of ancient Greek mythology. It's characterisic of them that they see nothing wrong with pleasure and enjoyment for its own sake. Sersi is the most obviously devoted to the pursuit of pleasure, but many others, especially in Olympia, spend the bulk of their time in what might seem trivial activities: Makarri with his love of speed and fast vehiciles, the Eternal who likes playing the samurai and acts in movies, and many un-named Eternals such as the females who admire the handsome Reject when Thena brings him and Karkas to Olympia; and even, as I say, the oldest and most serious of them, the Prime Eternal himself, as well as the no-nonsense Thena, are seen playing a game in their very first appearance.
In most of these cases, the specific acitivity is connected to the particular character and the game Thena plays - and wins - with Zuras is no exception: it's no accident that it happens to be a game that is directly connected with one of the basic aspects of Thena's nature - a game of combat.
|
|