New New New New

[PatrickG]

And I'll start this thread cribbing from posts I've made elsewhere, edited together...

Paul Dini made the following comment on Mary Marvel:


"Let’s just say this: A character who stays cute, charismatic and funny isn’t very interesting. So, it’s better to put that character through some tests and see if they come out the way they came in, or if they undergo some changes that ultimately make them a stronger, more interesting character"


Okay... I have to bite on this.

No. A character like that is NOT interesting.

But not every character has to be interesting on their own and treating every character as a lead is a mistake.

Some characters work as part of a dynamic.

A character who is almost always cute, charismatic and funny is pure gold with a character who is ugly, misanthropic and serious. Or recoiling from a character who is cuter, more charismatic and funnier.

Mary doesn't need to be a lead. Half the characters DC gives books to don't need books. They need to be garnish for other books.

A soup and salad is an awfully light meal. But maybe writers and editors should consider adding three more courses to the meal instead of dumping half a pound of raw hamburger on top of a soup and salad.

Not every character needs to Hamlet and IMO it spoils the delicate machinery of drama if they're expected to be.

As for the sidekick who becomes the lead or the secondary character who works in a spin-off... Sure. That can happen.

But comic fans and pros seem obsessed with the idea in an unhealthy way.

So what happens is that you have these characters who have been around for decades, who have NEVER been able to sustain a book -- at least not with consistent numbers. People SCREAM for the character to get their own book.

And the publisher agrees eventually.

And people either yawn and ignore the book or the publisher does something drastic and extreme, gets a temporary sales spike, and then sales plummet as fans mutter words like "clone saga" grumpily.

I have the perhaps unpopular view that beyond the really big icons, the companies should invest more time, talent and creativity into developing new properties and characters rather than trying to keep every (or even most) of the properties they own vital.

And fans should stop harping on their favorite B-list character. Enjoy the occasional back issue or guest appearance. Ask for those. Please don't ask for any character who isn't a headliner outside comics to be pivotal because they'll just wind up smashed to bits. Ask for new pivotal characters. Let your old favorites enjoy retirement and don't take satisfaction from their zombified corpses.

Demand NEW material. NEW characters. And actually support good new stuff when it comes out.

I wish that companies and fans wouldn't regard characters like Mary as anything other than a stock ingredient, a spice on the shelf that may compliment certain stories.

You want something big? There are characters popular enough to have stayed in a pretty recognizable form without interruption. You want something fresh? I'd rather see twenty new characters created a year than twenty old ones paraded out to blackmail readers into a sense of investment.

1. Name for me the premiere robotic super-hero.

Robotman? Had his day.

Deathlok? Only in the mind of Dwight Vhalos. Zoombadaboom.

Cyborg? What is this? 1985? Do you have a mullet? Do you dress like Don Johnson from Miami Vice?

2. Name the premiere magnetic powered super-hero.

Magneto? Thanks for playing, Mrs. Cockrum.

Polaris? Eh? What?

Triumph? Who?

3. Name the premiere gay or lesbian super-hero. *

Batwoman? Really?

Shrinking Violet? Which version?

Northstar? Is he a hero?

Responses by Marvel Comics Employees may not necessarily reflect the views, opinions or policies of Marvel Entertainment, Inc.

I'm not dense. I'm not retarded. I'm glad we have the goddamn Batman.

But do we really need Nemesis acting as a spermbank or should he step aside for a new character?

Are the Marvel Zombies closer to meta-commentary than we'd like to acknowledge?

Sure, readers have investment in old characters. Which can easily turn into an excuse for creators to get lazy.

And I've heard Didio's lament about how hard it is to introduce new characters and how it's easier with an old name. But when's the last time you tried? Using Bloodlines and Planet DC as examples is no defense. Those concepts sucked. Those setups sucked. And for the characters lacking in suckitude, the non-sucky characters got lost in the suckage.

Seriously, hire a consultant. Or the next time you're trying to get someone from Hollywood, go for somebody like Brad Bird and don't seduce him with the chance to work on that B-list 60s property he loved as a kid but treat him as a genuine consultant and get him to whip up something like the Incredibles that, yes, he may ask for some real money for as opposed to the C-list sci-fi character that some suit your grandfather's age swindled out of a cartoonist in the 40s.

Anybody with me on this?

[Charles RB]

3. Name the premiere gay or lesbian super-hero.

Midnighter?

[Buzz Dixon]

I have to disagree with Paul on this one.

First off, if a character is charismatic and funny (genuinely so as opposed to merely being tended to be charismatic and funny), then that character is clearly succeeding as is and should be left alone.

Second, not all characters can sustain "tests" designed to make them stronger and/or more interesting. Charlie Brown's persona never significantly changed in 50 years; what was interesting about him was the way he responded to a specific situation, not what he did.

(Or, to clarify by putting it in musical terms, his style was more important than his song.)

Third, not all stories have to be dark, not all character development has to be gritty. It's easy to write about a character driven by revenge, it's more difficult to write about a character who is driven by a positive emotion.

[PatrickG]

Second, not all characters can sustain "tests" designed to make them stronger and/or more interesting. Charlie Brown's persona never significantly changed in 50 years; what was interesting about him was the way he responded to a specific situation, not what he did.

(Or, to clarify by putting it in musical terms, his style was more important than his song.)

Y'Know, that just brings to mind some warped scenario where Linus becomes a vampire and Charlie Brown is forced to kill his best friend.

Or Charlie Brown goes through puberty and gets raped by Peppermint Patty.

If something in your brain doesn't short circuit a little bit, if you don't react in laughter or disgust, you might have a future in super-hero comics.

[NickThompson]

I don't think the problem is creating characters. LOTS get created every year. The problem is that they never appear again afterwards. Would Echo, the Hood or Sentry have ever been seen again had it not been for Bendis reusing them? Very possibly not. You can create 10 new characters a month, means nothing if no one else ever uses them.

[PatrickG]

That strikes me as a flaw in the creation process and the level of corporate and editorial inititiative in PROMOTING creation.

But I also think 10 new characters a month sounds like a start, with about one percent of those getting more appearances.

[Charles RB]

I don't think the problem is creating characters. LOTS get created every year. The problem is that they never appear again afterwards.

I have to agree there - I remember reading Frank Tieri stating the same thing, that lots of potentially great characters get made but no one bothers using them. (We won't go into Tieri's writing skills...)

I really, really liked Junta in The Crew. He's a great character, he could go far. Except nobody has used him since - nor the White Tiger, who was also a character with great potential (though they're using the other White Tiger, who herself was being ignored until then).

[NickThompson]

I have to agree there - I remember reading Frank Tieri stating the same thing, that lots of potentially great characters get made but no one bothers using them. (We won't go into Tieri's writing skills...)

I really, really liked Junta in The Crew. He's a great character, he could go far. Except nobody has used him since - nor the White Tiger, who was also a character with great potential (though they're using the other White Tiger, who herself was being ignored until then).
Was Junta the one that made people sick? I seem to remember liking him.

[Charles RB]

Yeah, that was him.

[MartinRedmond]

Or you could just give the character a personality...

[Sarah Beach]

Yeah, personality helps. As for UNinteresting cute, charismatic and funny, I refute the idea with one example: KERMIT THE FROG!




Just try and tell me he isn't all three of those: I have a full size Kermit sitting in my office at work, and he charms all my visitors. :)

[Red Jack]

I have a full size Kermit sitting in my office at work, and he charms all my visitors. :)


Nah. It's probably you that does.

[yo go re]

But why create a new character that's just going to be a copy of an old one? So, no one at Marvel should use Magneto, because he's played out? It would be better if they created a knock-off character, to the point where we have a dozen people with the same power?

I don't entirely disagree with you, though - for instance, I think DC just needs to stop trying with Aquaman (http://www.oafe.net/yo/dcdfa4aq.php), and let the guy sink into the obscurity he so richly deserves. Bring him back every few years as a guest star, sure, but just admit that the character doesn't deserve to headline his own book...

[Charles RB]

I don't entirely disagree with you, though - for instance, I think DC just needs to stop trying with Aquaman (http://www.oafe.net/yo/dcdfa4aq.php), and let the guy sink into the obscurity he so richly deserves.

Except his comics, while they get cancelled, do seem to last for quite long runs - his current one is still hanging on, and the one before that managed 75+ issues IIRC. If he deserves obscurity, his sales don't reflect that (unless you're willing to have many others also lapse into obscurity).

[Night Swordsman]

Nah. It's probably you that does.

Awwww! That was the NICEST thing i heard anyone say this week. Well done.
And Sarah deserves that remark. :)

[Red Jack]

The character is only as good as the writer.

Check out Wolverine's first appearance. I don't think anyone planned for him to blow up the way he did.

A lot of people who LOVE Alan Moore's Swamp Thing can't stand the Wrightson/Wein version.

Mainstream Doom Patrol or Morrison's?

ANIMAL MAN. Total throwaway character until he fell into the hands of a gifted writer.

Blue Beetle? The Question? The Golden Age Sandman? Hal (blech) Jordan? The Punisher. These are all "nothing characters." Except they're not.

it's in the telling.

With the exception of Gunfire, ANY character can be made to sing.

[Sarah Beach]

Originally Posted by Red Jack
Nah. It's probably you that does.
Awwww! That was the NICEST thing i heard anyone say this week. Well done.
And Sarah deserves that remark. :)

You guys are sweet! Heh. Thanks.

[yo go re]

Except his comics, while they get cancelled, do seem to last for quite long runs - his current one is still hanging on, and the one before that managed 75+ issues IIRC. If he deserves obscurity, his sales don't reflect that (unless you're willing to have many others also lapse into obscurity).
I'm totally willing. And if his sales were THAT great, they wouldn't keep rebooting him every few years. He's a good character to use for brief stints a few years apart - but because he's been around forever, DC feels like it HAS to put him in a monthly title of his own. You don't need Aquaman for Aquaman to be recognizable...