Right, to try and nail this down, we'll go with what you say is "what we're talking about". IE, how we are to actually definte "the superhero genre is dead" for the purposes of this, and the original writer's argument. According to you here, just looking at your words, what you mean by this "the superhero genre is dead" idea ISN'T the actual death of the industry, it isn't even about comics being good or well written.
Oh well, that's what I've been talking about it. Which is why dead isn't a good word, but it catches attention.
How we are to define it is, no matter how good a superhero comic is, unless it's doing something totally new that isn't a variation on something that has at some point been done before, then it falls under the writer's definition of "dead". To make sure I'm not accused of spouting BS or just pulling this out my ass, I'll even requote you:
You're limiting it too much. It's more on a broader market level as opposed to just a single comic or comic series.
You can tell the exact same thing a hundred times with just slight variations and still make it good and well written, but that doesn't make it new, which is what we're talking about.
I was just referring to the fact that you assumed I thought everything not new wasn't good, and that was my rebuttal. Didn't really mean that as an outline of my entire argument
And I must say... damn. If that's all it takes to define a genre as "dead", then it's not just the superhero genre that's dead. Just about all genres in all mediums out there are in the writer's "dire straits", as he puts it. I mean, if just executing conventional stories with class and precision, or with a clever new twist to it, isn't enough to be creatively "alive" anymore, and instead writers have to reinvent the wheel and give us something totally new every time they put pen to paper, I think they're all just about screwed. THERE ARE NO NEW STORIES. All we have is new ways of telling old stories.
Heh, I'm really not too sure why you keep arguing about the whole dead thing. I not not only agree with you here, but I was the one to say it first.
As far as the bolded part goes, that has always been the Great Coup Out. You take 'new' and 'original' too literally. As an example, I want to take a look at Alan Moore's Tom Strong. He was not a completely original character in the literal sense, taking elements from multiple different Western heroes, but he's still an original character in the sense of not being around before. He goes on familiar missions (multiverse like adventures, battles with archenemies).
Yet, he's his own character, he's not just a rip of Doc Savage, and his adventures are his own. He has his own characteristic, quirks, ways of doing things, supporting cast, city to regulare, roles he plays, etc. When you read a Tom Strong comic, it's a Tom Strong comic, and not something that comes before.
I think it all comes back around to creating new characters. Sure, Moore could have gotten DC to let him do Tom Strong as an Elseworld Superman. Yet, it wouldn't have been Superman, so why not create a new character and let it go from there.
That, to me, tends to be a core difference between the two viewpoints. One will look at it and say, 'Well, since you're drawing so much from other characters, why not use one of those characters' and the other will say, 'Well, why wouldn't you want to create a new character even if based somewhat on other creations'.
Yes, with the superhero genre is more foregrounded than other genres, because they're actually using the same characters through many of these retellings. But that's something pretty much unique to the comic book superhero genre, these sagas continuing and growing over the span of decades, outliving their creators and their legacies being added to by new generations of writers. It's what makes them practically unique in the realms of fiction. And I think it's sad when people look at their most exciting, remarkable trait as what signals their "death knell". Why should the old characters be dropped for new ones, if it's the old ones that people like reading about?
Heh, no one ever said anything about dropping old heroes. In fact, I actually specificly said there was nothing wrong with the tired and true, just there was something wrong with nothing but the tired and true.
You are displaying a common mindset (that I've never understood, to be quite frank) of old vs new. I never said anything about old vs new, I said old with new. I never said or implied that I think we should sweep away all the old characters for new ones. I, personally, think you can have both. Unfortunately, this mindset seems to be the one that the majority of people have
Now, yes I did say something about bringing back old characters as opposed to making new ones. In some cases I do believe there is a progression of when old characters should be left alone (Barry Allen, for example), and in that case, I admit, then it becomes a case of old vs new, but not in the case of dropping one for the other, but in the case of regressing back to something from the past instead of attempting to go forward with something new in place of the old. In this case, I guess it falls into the vs category, but in the others, simply creating and introducing new characters doesn't neccessarily void the use of older characters.
What you're actually asking for isn't new stories (of which there are none), but for writers to work harder to make it seem like they're telling new stories. Would All-Star Superman have been more "original" if Morrison had created a Superman analogue and told a "new" story with him instead? Perhaps. But I think it would have had less impact, because for all the emphasis you put on a character being around for decades making them "stagnant", the flipside of that is their tenure heightens their cultural impact, deepens their connection with readers. You were quick to dismiss reader's connections with these characters as just them being pre-programmed to accept what Marvel/DC will spoonfeed them, and the article writer dismisses it as merely "making them a brand", but what you in fact have is a growing, living mythology - characters we grew up with as children, who are still having adventures and doing new things now that as adults we can still find relevant, and when we're old they'll still be around for OUR children to discover and enjoy. And far from that being the death knell, I think it's in fact a powerful, amazing thing. And I don't think Morrison's story could have been told with anyone other than Superman (well, it COULD have been, but it wouldn't have been anywhere near as powerful as it was).
Again, there's that overly negative view of the word program, but you posted this before my addressing your edit, so I forgive you
I guess just see above since I think that pretty much goes for this, too. You're addressing it too much as new vs old
If it seemed like I was overlooking it, I apologise, that was not my intention. Of course I accept you acknowledge creativity exists. My problem is that seems creativity in itself just isn't good enough for you. Superhero comics are landlocked and stagnant, and no amount of creative writers telling great stories is going to change that fact. That's the problem with the writer's stance, he keeps on setting the hurdle higher and higher for superhero comics to overcome this label of "dead". Being healthy isn't enough. Being successful isn't enough. Being GOOD isn't enough. Even being ORIGINAL isn't enough, unless it's on a widespread blanket basis rather than just in some cases.
Yep, being good isn't what it's about. It's not that being original isn't enough. When you carve new characters and new things, seeing those things happen every once and a blue moon (and seeing about 3/4 of those fail to make it) isn't enough. Though you're against what I said about the two POWs, I think you're illustrating it quite well.
I in fact added a disclaimer after that remark of mine apologising it, echoing much of what you yourself said about it here. But you may have missed that, or my edit may have come after you started writing.
Yes, I was in the process of responsing towards your post before the edit. I addressed it earlier
You're the one that made the comment, not me. "However, for those who like to see progression, new characters, pushing forwards, we do see a problem." So, if you like progression, new characters and pushing forwards, you must see a problem. The implication about those who don't is pretty clear. Of course you were setting up a VS dynamic, intentionally or otherwise. As you yourself said, it is possible to like new ideas and concepts being introduced, while also liking the tried and true.
You're trying too hard to adapt what I said to the whole new vs old mindset.
Of course, no one is completely on one side of that scale or the other, but everyone leans more one way or the other. It would seem to me that those who lean more into that group would see a problem. I mean in the last decade there's not been many new superheroes that have succeeded. Many new ongoings don't last much longer than 2-3 years unless they have an attachment to a main character or series, and even those that do tend to stay low sellers (like Herc. and Marvel's space stuff) even when Marvel and DC tries their dammest to get behind them. We've also seen a rash of regression in this last decade with stuff like OMD, bringing back Hal Jordan, bringing back Barry Allen, returning Eddie Brock back to his anti-heroics from the 90s, Dick Grayson basially back to sidekick status, and yadda yadda.
For someone who really wants all those things, I don't think it's difficult to see where they would see a problem in a lot of the stuff I listed. Yes, there are new faces and things popping up (Blue Beetle, Invincible, Irredeemable, etc.), but we also have to look at where those things fall. Most of them either don't succeed or just stay stuck in the depths of low niches in what is basically become a niche market. In a shrinking market like the comic sales one, that's a good sign that we'll see less and less of them for the sake of what sells in the future.
I would love to see what Moore and others did at ABC happen to the whole industry. Though based somewhat on old characters, but some new characters (Tom Strong, Greyshirt), but also with intellegence and skill behind it (where I believe the rash of new characters from the 90s failed, since it seems more of them were basically just souless attempts at being cool for that era) or taking old characters from age's past and putting them in new contexts to explore new ideals (League of Extrodinary Gentlemen). You don't have to drop and kill off the old for that, but you have to be open to something beside the old. Which, quite frankly, I'm just seeing less and less of despite what people say otherwise.
