Will Marvel`s fear of change and age eventually destroy them?

[Docker2.0]

Yes, I know what Marvel's official line is. That doesn't change a thing. You should stop looking at these things from a continuity perspective and more from a story perspective. The former is headache inducing ; the latter allows you to keep the jive talk and still have Luke Cage progress as a character.

Stop overthinking it and just enjoy your comics.

Agreed! I actually like that Marvel characters don't age. I love GL, he's one of my favorite characters, no doubt my favorite DC character and the single reason I got back into comics, but the one thing that does bother me is that there is so many of them. I like Kyle Rayner, but he kind of reminds me of Peter Parker and in my eyes Hal Jordan will always be THE GL to me.

 

[gildea]

The thing is that it is the name and iconography that is really what is selling in 9 out of 10 cases. They simply could have the characters grow old and then pass their legacy on to a new character. Green Lantern, Robin, Iron Man and The Flash proved this could work well.

Except in all but one of those examples the original guy in the suit is back. So they really are just an example of change undone and don't fit.

 

[BrianWilly]

Why would anyone consider that a good thing? Everything that changes is just going to go back to the way it originally was? Why the heck even read stories then?

And also...

marvel aren't going to write stories that eventually, if follwed to logical conclusion, allow their main icons to die (without a retacon).

It's selfish of us to even want this.

Or, it's selfish to always retread to a certain status quo at the expense of storytelling just because you know it'll make you money.

 

[gildea]

Why would anyone consider that a good thing? Everything that changes is just going to go back to the way it originally was? Why the heck even read stories then?

Not getting into an entirely subjective discussion but i didn't say it was a good thing merely highlighting that these aren't examples of a change as they were undone.

And also...
Or, it's selfish to always retread to a certain status quo at the expense of storytelling just because you know it'll make you money.

Selfish for whom? Marvel are legally obligated to do what makes the most money for shareholders.

It just seems to me that we are arguing for stories told in a certain way despite the characters existing quite merrily for many many years without this and if we do this the characters have to die which means future generations can't enjoy them in the same way.

The legacy character argument doesn't work. Look at spider-girl.

 

[BrianWilly]

The character that hundreds of readers fell in love with and constantly petitioned for more of when it seemed like the series was going to be canceled? Twice? That Spider-Girl?

 

[Harlekin]

But she doesn't make money.

 

[Hans]

She makes more than enough to cover the production and printer costs.

 

[gildea]

The character that hundreds of readers fell in love with and constantly petitioned for more of when it seemed like the series was going to be canceled? Twice? That Spider-Girl?

Hundreds isn't much.

the sales charts don't lie.

Which is unfortunate as spidergirl is by all accounts very good.

 

[fifthfiend]

Selfish for whom? Marvel are legally obligated to do what makes the most money for shareholders.

You're confusing your terms here - Marvel's corporate governance is legally obligated* to make the most money for Marvel's shareholders. Which is really just saying that Marvel is trying to make the most money for Marvel. Which is to say that Marvel is selfish. Inasmuch as this is a matter of legal obligation*, that just makes it legally obligated selfishness, which is still selfishness. Which is exactly why claims that a given party or set of actions is "selfish" is meaningless in relation to this discussion.



*Incidentally, this is an arguable proposition.

 

[gildea]

You're confusing your terms here - Marvel's corporate governance is legally obligated* to make the most money for Marvel's shareholders. Which is really just saying that Marvel is trying to make the most money for Marvel.

Um, that was my point.

Which is to say that Marvel is selfish. Inasmuch as this is a matter of legal obligation*, that just makes it legally obligated selfishness, which is still selfishness. Which is exactly why claims that a given party or set of actions is "selfish" is meaningless in relation to this discussion.

Not really, if you are obliged to do something you can't really claim selfishness as it's not a choice.

Meaningless? Only as meaningless as every other opinion offered.

*Incidentally, this is an arguable proposition.

Of course it is, though it is commonly used and marvel aren't likely to argue against it.

 

[SuGarRush]

This is just me chiming in here, but I never cared for Spider-Girl. EVER. Couldn't stand her. I like her less than Supergirl. Which is saying something.

On the other hand, I dropped GL when Kyle was introduced, picked it back up now that Hal's back.

Robin is still Dick Grayson to me, although I'll accept Tim as a second place since I enjoy Nightwing so much.

Iron Man is and always will be Tony Stark.

I dropped Captain America as soon as Bucky tried to take over. As soon as Steve's back, I'll jump right back on board.

I dropped Aquaman (one of my favorite titles) because they killed off Aquaman and brought in some newb. If Orin ever comes back, so will I.

Are you guys sensing a trend here? It's not just the mask people, it's the person behind the mask. And when they try and change that, I'm done with the book. PERIOD.

 

[Hans]

This is just me chiming in here, but I never cared for Spider-Girl. EVER. Couldn't stand her. I like her less than Supergirl. Which is saying something.

On the other hand, I dropped GL when Kyle was introduced, picked it back up now that Hal's back.

Robin is still Dick Grayson to me, although I'll accept Tim as a second place since I enjoy Nightwing so much.

Iron Man is and always will be Tony Stark.

I dropped Captain America as soon as Bucky tried to take over. As soon as Steve's back, I'll jump right back on board.

I dropped Aquaman (one of my favorite titles) because they killed off Aquaman and brought in some newb. If Orin ever comes back, so will I.

Are you guys sensing a trend here? It's not just the mask people, it's the person behind the mask. And when they try and change that, I'm done with the book. PERIOD.

Personally, Kyle will never be a Green Lantern in my eyes. Hal and Alan Scott are the only two worthy of the name.

Tim Drake is Robin, for my money. Since I started reading comics, Tim has always been my Robin and Dick has always been Nightwing.

As for Cap, Steve is and always will be Captain America, but I can accept Bucky as a solid fill-in, no matter how long it take Steve to come back.

 

[Varient]

I think it truly depends on the individual.

I feel it cheapens the sacrifice of Barry Allen to bring him back in any form.

I also feel that killing characters because you need realism is overdone.

Killing Tim Drakes Dad was wrong and clunky in my book.

Some Heroes should be "Legacy"

Green Lantern Qualifies
Aquaman does not.

The Fantastic Four should be the Fantastic seven by now.

Just me.

 

[Hans]

I used to be of the mindset that legacy heroes were poor imitations of the originals, but over the last few years, that's changed a lot. Jaime Reyes is probably the best example of legacy heroes really working. Bucky Barnes would be a close second, but I don't think there's anyone reading Captain America that thinks Steve won't come back and reclaim his role as Cap.

 

[fifthfiend]

Meaningless? Only as meaningless as every other opinion offered.

I can see where you would be confused on this point. The problem is that your statement wasn't an opinion, it was what is called a tautology. Pointing out the "selfishness" of a party engaged in a commercial relationship with a party which itself is definitionally selfish, is akin to pointing out the "blueness" of blue.

Incidentally as far as this --

Not really, if you are obliged to do something you can't really claim selfishness as it's not a choice.

Considering as such behavior still remains indistingishable from selfishness in every conceivable respect, I would be interested in knowing what word you would choose to describe it.

 

[gildea]

I can see where you would be confused on this point. The problem is that your statement wasn't an opinion, it was what is called a tautology. Pointing out the "selfishness" of a party engaged in a commercial relationship with a party which itself is definitionally selfish, is akin to pointing out the "blueness" of blue.

I was ascribing the position to readers wanting iconic characters to complete a life cycle not marvel itself. Marvel readers are not, by definition, selfish so it's not tautological.

ps your analogy doesn't work entering into a commercial relationship is not by definition selfish.

Considering as such behavior still remains indistingishable from selfishness in every conceivable respect, I would be interested in knowing what word you would choose to describe it.

As pointed out it's not a personal choice which is where i personally make the distincition. I don't really believe marvel has one in this regard. I would probably describe it as "rational" btw.

 

[kainedamo]

Hundreds isn't much.

the sales charts don't lie.

Which is unfortunate as spidergirl is by all accounts very good.

Especially recently.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I think it truly depends on the individual.

I feel it cheapens the sacrifice of Barry Allen to bring him back in any form.

I also feel that killing characters because you need realism is overdone.

Killing Tim Drakes Dad was wrong and clunky in my book.

Some Heroes should be "Legacy"

Green Lantern Qualifies
Aquaman does not.

The Fantastic Four should be the Fantastic seven by now.

Just me.

I agree with pretty much all of this. I think Aquaman could've been a successful legacy if the Aquanewb were in any way likeable, too. Instead, he was basically an angstier Orin, which sucked because Orin himself had just gotten over his angsty phase and it was looking like he'd move onto interesting things. Then he died.

And killing Tim Drake's dad was the second-worst thing to ever happen to Tim. It's just behind Tim being adopted by Bruce, which I affectionately refer to as "the moment Tim lost every last bit of unique individuality he had left."

 

[Hans]

How does Tim being adopted by Bruce take away his individuality? It's a logical character progression and I don't see how it makes Tim any less Tim.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

It takes away a big part of his social life. He used to split his time between his "normal" life and his time with the Bat-family. Now his "normal" life is his time with the Bat-family. That removes an essential bit of balance from the character. I used to love Tim, but now all I see when I read his comics is a combination of Bruce and Dick. His defining characteristic used to be his resistance to the idea of ever becoming Batman, but he's been wrapped in so much angst since OYL that he practically already is a mini-Batman.

 

[Hans]

Eh, I suppose. I always figured Tim would grow up to become Batman anyway, so it's not as big a deal with me.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

Oh, I agree. He was definitely better suited for it than Dick, and it seemed almost a foregone conclusion that he would make a great Batman. But in the here and now, he 100% didn't want to be Batman, which only created an internal conflict between his own wishes and his apparent destiny that enriched the character.

 

[Hans]

Well, what with this new storyarc, we very well may see those internal conflict about not wanting to take up the cowl arise again.

 

[TheCorpulent1]

I quit reading Robin after Dixon left. I've heard Niceiza's doing pretty well, though. I'll probably give it another try after the RIP tie-in.

 

[Hans]

Isn't that when it becomes "Batman and Robin" or something? Tim will probably assume the matle of Batman for a bit while Spoiler puts on the Robin costume again.