Character regression for no reason

[drpblunt]

Just a thought...

I have been reading two books recently that made me angry, not the books themselves but what happened to the characters after the runs had ended. the 1st was Planet/WWhulk and the other was Brubaker's run on Catwoman.

I love comics, don't get me wrong and I really liked the writing and character development in both, especially the Hulk since he was never a fav of mine considering most of the time he was big dumb and bounced from state to state getting into fights he didn't want (yawn!) and Catwoman was great in watching how engaging she is and to a large degree still is a great anti - heroine. but then the title (in the case of the Hulk) changes hands or (in the case of Catwoman) is used in a different title, and BAM! all the character development and work is washed down the drain and is replaced by the same tired old crap that made them uninteresting.

In the case of the hulk, the new creative team comes in, ignores all the events that led up to the hand off, and just go back to so many tired and used up ideas, and in the case of Catwoman, the evolution of that character gets cheapened by saying that she would always have been a criminal and a deviant (which i disagree, many other good writers before bru had her going in a similar direction) had it not been for that inane plot device used in identity crisis, the "zatanna mind wipe"

There a many many more examples of this crap, crap I wish would end, the EIC's of both company's enforce stupid editorial edicts such as Marvel's OMD, and DiDio Slapping "Crisis" on just about anything so he can sell books, but neither has the balls stay the course with something thats actually good, Loeb is such a "yes Man" that i'm sure if he were told, this is how the Hulk is now, we would at least have some continuity of character (sub par IMO, but at least continuity) and with Catwoman, i'm tired of seeing her in one comic as a hero then in someone elses title acting like a raving loon.

it cheapens the medium, and before anyone says, well it sells books, thats a cheap response, because yeah Rulk is selling ONLY and i mean ONLY because of the art not because of any engaging plot or story.

[Sean Walsh]

Orion in JLA.

Suddenly - despite being a pretty sound guy at the time over in the NEW GODS book Byrne was writing at the same time - he was in berserker mode in Morrison's JLA (and more especially in Waid's fill-ins during Grant's run).

[Nitz the Bloody]

I'd argue that OMD wasn't a regression so much as an attempt to answer the fact that the character had reached a point of stagnation-- the existence of Mary Jane ( at least as she was when she married Peter, with her wild personality retconned away as a response to a broken home life ) removed many of the key conflicts he had, so the number of stories that could be done with Spider-Man in that status quo were limited. The Spider-marriage didn't represent story progression so much as story security, and for a character whose bread and butter is his angst, that's not a good thing ( and probably why marriage-era stories became so outlandish; if he can't have any really substantial strife in his marriage, the conflicts in his " professional " life are embellished to the point of clones and totems and public identity reveals ).

I'd also say that while I definitely see where you're coming from regarding the Hulk and wouldn't consider the Loeb Rulk stories a contribution to Marvel with any substance, the Hulk that the world at large knows is the Savage Hulk. The Savage Hulk was a concept that could easily be summarized, and was elegant in its simplicity; the myriad Hulk variants have led to some great stories, but they've also taken the character away from his marketable roots. I could easily tell a Savage Hulk story in an oral tradition without losing the audience in explanation( how well you think I tell stories is up to debate ); the plot of World War Hulk might be a bit harder by contrast.

[Omar Karindu]

I'd disagree about WWH -- the plot is actually rather deliberately modeled on epics of ancient times. The great warrior is exiled, becomes king elsewhere, loses his kingdom to catastrophe apparently caused by the people who exiled him, and returns with his armies to conquer his true homeland. It's not a million miles apart from, say, Oedipus Rex or Zeus overthrowing the Titans or any number of quest stories in oral traditions.

It's got more detail than the base version of an oral tradition -- though not more thanb a specific iteration or telling might improvise -- and deliberately twists the epic formula in various ways. But it's still a pretty recognizable story of exile, return, and revenge, themes that have been around since storytelling started.

[Nitz the Bloody]

As a story told out of any context but oral tradition, WWH works, true. But it has a clear context ( Hulk story/Marvel crossover story ), and uses a character who is well recognized by the public in one form in a radically different form; if you were to try and convince someone to read it by explaining what it's about, you'd start with their preconceptions of the Hulk ( and the Hulk has stuck around pop culture for decades, albeit in the limited context of the Savage version ), then explain why the Planet Hulk character is different from the traditional Banner/Savage model, then explain the story of Planet Hulk, and finally explain the SHRA status quo for the superheroes in World War Hulk.

This is a problem I've encountered when I've told non-comics people about my favorite franchise superhero comics; it's not just about telling them " hey, this story is good, check it out " , but also " hey, this story uses Franchise Character X in an interesting way, based on that character's history ". It's gotten somewhat easier given the proliferation of these characters in popular movies, but it still comes across as canonical fan fiction.

Then again, the topic of how to get non-comics people into comics, even if just on a friend-to-friend level, is a whole other can of worms...

[Pól Rua]

If you don't like a particular character direction, the best thing you can do is stop reading the title.
Honestly, I'm not seeing anything here other than 'this creative team did something I don't like'.

[Dard]

It's not so easy.
I don't know about you, but I only read titles that are good. "Good titles" mostly implies that it contains characters that I care about. If I care about characters, I wan't to know what happens to them. If something bad happens to them, I get mad. If I get mad at them, I stop reading the title.

So far, so good. Like you said.
But that's not all.

If it happens too often, I realize that I'd better not look for other books to read, because I know I shouldn't care about the characters. Because I would just end up being disappointed in the end, because they are ruined by some other writers. I do not want to be disappointed in the end!

Because of that I have mostly switched to series that belong (or mostly belong) to one writer. That means creator-owned stuff or series with non-important characters.

Catwoman is an iconic character that is important to the DC universe, so it was clear that any true change in direction would end up being reverted. Although I really liked Brubaker's run, I would not buy it again.
The same goes for my other past DC series. Batgirl. Young Justice. PAD's Supergirl. Notice a trend there?
I'm down to only one regular DC series, and that is Secret Six. And you want to know why I didn't scare away from it? Because most of its characters are so unimportant that after Gail is finished with it, they will most likely drop out of sight without being ruined by other writers.

Besides: I don't even think Catwoman was ruined all that much. In some way that mindwipe retcon even makes sense and opened the opportunity for other character developments. But it was still pretty non-satisifying. Still, she got away better than most other series that I have read.

All I want to say is: There may be people who can discard the characters they used to love without looking forward or back. There may be people who can fondly read back issues with characters they used to care about but don't anymore. But there are many who can not, who may even get a bad taste looking at those old glorious issues because they have to think of how bad it ended.
So "if you don't like it, stop buying it" isn't the whole truth.

[drpblunt]

If you don't like a particular character direction, the best thing you can do is stop reading the title.
Honestly, I'm not seeing anything here other than 'this creative team did something I don't like'.

yeah, that's exactly what i do, if a creative team i don't like comes to a book i drop it, but thats not what my initial post was about. sorry if you misinterpreted it

[Shellhead]

It's not so easy.
I don't know about you, but I only read titles that are good. "Good titles" mostly implies that it contains characters that I care about. If I care about characters, I wan't to know what happens to them. If something bad happens to them, I get mad. If I get mad at them, I stop reading the title.

So far, so good. Like you said.
But that's not all.

If it happens too often, I realize that I'd better not look for other books to read, because I know I shouldn't care about the characters. Because I would just end up being disappointed in the end, because they are ruined by some other writers. I do not want to be disappointed in the end!

Because of that I have mostly switched to series that belong (or mostly belong) to one writer. That means creator-owned stuff or series with non-important characters.

Catwoman is an iconic character that is important to the DC universe, so it was clear that any true change in direction would end up being reverted. Although I really liked Brubaker's run, I would not buy it again.
The same goes for my other past DC series. Batgirl. Young Justice. PAD's Supergirl. Notice a trend there?
I'm down to only one regular DC series, and that is Secret Six. And you want to know why I didn't scare away from it? Because most of its characters are so unimportant that after Gail is finished with it, they will most likely drop out of sight without being ruined by other writers.

Besides: I don't even think Catwoman was ruined all that much. In some way that mindwipe retcon even makes sense and opened the opportunity for other character developments. But it was still pretty non-satisifying. Still, she got away better than most other series that I have read.

All I want to say is: There may be people who can discard the characters they used to love without looking forward or back. There may be people who can fondly read back issues with characters they used to care about but don't anymore. But there are many who can not, who may even get a bad taste looking at those old glorious issues because they have to think of how bad it ended.
So "if you don't like it, stop buying it" isn't the whole truth.

Many superhero comic fans start out this way... following specific characters. If they keep reading comics long enough, they eventually learn to follow favorite creators. Because if you blindly follow specific characters long enough...

1. Some artist will draw them badly.
2. Some writer will make them do something that is completely out of character.
3. Some editorial mandate will completely invalidate a central concept of the character.

Just ask Spider-man fans... about Ben Reilly, about Parker backhanding pregnant MJ, about putting Aunt May and MJ in grave danger by revealing his identity, about a certain notorious deal with the devil.

You will be better off once you identify the writers you like and the artists you prefer. There is unfortunately nothing that you can do about the editors, because both Quesada and Didio have made terrible decisions without suffering any repercussions.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I loved how Austen wrote Hawkeye as someone who hated Hank Pym, despite what was shown in West Coast Avengers, and had Janet Pym act like a complete whore.

[Dard]

Many superhero comic fans start out this way... following specific characters. If they keep reading comics long enough, they eventually learn to follow favorite creators. Because if you blindly follow specific characters long enough...

What's the use of following writers instead of characters?
Sure, an excellent writer will give you excellent characters. And just when I start to love the characters I should leave them, just because the writer leaves? Then why get into the characters to begin with?

Although I have no proof, I think most readers who got into series because of the characters won't switch to follow writers when they notice that they can't trust the consistency of characters.
Instead, they will leave comics altogether.
I think this is one of the biggest conceptual problem of the north american comics industry.

[Ryan Day]

If it happens too often, I realize that I'd better not look for other books to read, because I know I shouldn't care about the characters. Because I would just end up being disappointed in the end, because they are ruined by some other writers.

Try more creator-owned material. No other writer is ever going to mess up Bone, or Madman, or Preacher, or Sandman.

[Shellhead]

What's the use of following writers instead of characters?
Sure, an excellent writer will give you excellent characters. And just when I start to love the characters I should leave them, just because the writer leaves? Then why get into the characters to begin with?

Although I have no proof, I think most readers who got into series because of the characters won't switch to follow writers when they notice that they can't trust the consistency of characters.
Instead, they will leave comics altogether.
I think this is one of the biggest conceptual problem of the north american comics industry.

Whatever you loved about that character, someday, some writer will change that, possibly because some editor made him do it, or maybe just because that writer had a grudge or a bias or an issue with that character. And these kinds of changes often divide the fanbase, between those who like the change and those that don't. Later on, different writers will re-visit that change, and either change it again, retcon it away, or change something else. Eventually, your beloved character will seem like a familiar stranger, or even an imposter.

[Dard]

@Ryan Day:
Like I wrote, I do. Since north american superhero comics are not the comics I grew up with, this wasn't really hard. And yes, I have read Bone, Preacher, Sandman. Not Madman, but other comics from Allred. For example X-Statix. An excellent example for what I wrote earlier: That I would read superhero comics featuring unimportant characters because I know they won't leave the hands of the writer.

@Shellhead:
You summed it up very well. That's why it doesn't pay to read most Marvel or DC comics.

[Nitz the Bloody]

What's the use of following writers instead of characters?
Sure, an excellent writer will give you excellent characters. And just when I start to love the characters I should leave them, just because the writer leaves? Then why get into the characters to begin with?

By that logic, why would anyone want to read a self-contained novel or watch a self-contained movie? If Winston Smith dies at the end of 1984, does this mean the book wasn't worth reading? It's kind of a quantity over quality statement...

Although I have no proof, I think most readers who got into series because of the characters won't switch to follow writers when they notice that they can't trust the consistency of characters.
Instead, they will leave comics altogether.
I think this is one of the biggest conceptual problem of the north american comics industry.

I think that North American franchise superhero comics have been conceptually dead for years, maybe decades, and haven't been aware of it. This doesn't mean they haven't given us some excellent stories, just that the paradigm of the corporate-owned continuity-based comic is a fossil.

There are other avenues of comics in North America that do well, by the way; please don't confuse " comics " and " superheroes ".