Are you really trying to say that the spidey cartoons of the 90s were dark and the cause of the collapse of comics? Post 9-11 sure, but thats just the last 10 years, not the 60 years prior. People didnt want comics anymore so they stopped buying them. Period. Speculation gimmicks and trendy 'dark' comics kept industry alive but just barely. In the 1930s there werent many other options for entertainment, they cant compete with todays options.
Comics have had one foot out the door for decades, although the digital comic move has been a good attempt to stay relevant the writing has been on the wall for awhile.
The only reason comic books still exist is nostalgia and parent companies buying them for their intellectual properties.
But you seem to go against that if I read your post correctly. At marvel the concept would be given the green light based on the Pitch and maybe an outline and then when the writer ran into the problems I described he's just push things past the limit. Hogan would end up being Klink's illegitimate son, Newkirk and LeBau would be secret lovers, Shultz would defeat Wonder Woman by falling on her... just about anything like that because the writer put all of the effort into the Pitch and didn't think the story through. It might be an interesting and fun story but it wouldn't be a Wonder Woman story or a Hogan's Heroes story. It would just be a story with characters named the same but acting completely different to their established characters.
This is I believe why in AvX Cyclops is suddenly a religious loon, why Captain America is pushing the panic button instead of thinking and why so many X-men are fighting so many Avengers without a real good reason. The Pitch was great and that was all. Seriously I saw no reason for that fight in X-men legacy when I read it today. I also saw no reason for that Avengers team to be even be there. But the Pitch must have been great or the editorial directive must have said "Make them fight". Either way it wasn't an issue that made a lot of sense.
Last edited by Mark_S; 05-12-2012 at 01:46 PM.
Support titles that need supporting. Quit buying, reading and complaining about comics you don't enjoy.
Adults struggle desperately with fiction, demanding constantly that it conform to the rules of everyday life when the answer is obvious to the smallest child: because it's not real. - Grant Morrison
The above section was taken from a part of the discussion talking about Bendis & his post dark reign run on Avengers. But the same holds true for the majority of writers at marvel at the moment. We've lost a lot of the technical skill involved, which can be objectiely judged.
I don't buy the "opinion" that change is good for change's sake, otherwise the non-changing thing becomes stale. How does changing Thor's speech from Asgardian to Earthly = change for the better? It's only better if the target readership is too dumb to understand shakesperean speech. It's funny...during my childhood in the 70's and my teen years during the 80's, i never had a problem with Thor's speech. I understood it just fine. If Marvel has to pander to a dumbed down audience today, who can truly say that today's comics are more sophisticated than they were 30 years ago?
I agree with you, Kelly. Marvel is at an all-time low. I believe it started to get worse than ever about two years ago, just like you said. There were titles that i was liking, such as Captain America and Hulk (Red). Marvel has never looked so lackluster, IMO. I try to find something from Marvel that i like today, and i find myself seriously wanting. And i do consider Thor's lack of Asgardian accent to be something that is an objective problem, not subjective, like some are trying to push on this board. Sure, characterization can be subjective when a character's actions are questioned and debated. I think everyone would agree, though, that if Captain America started acting like Wolverine or the Punisher, there would be a major problem, wouldn't everyone agree? We saw a different Cap in the late '80's...a psycho Cap who killed the bad guys. Would that be subjective characterization if Steve Rogers was slaughtering the bad guys? The "it's only your opinion" argument can only be taken so far until it becomes ridiculous.
The bottom line is, Marvel's iconic characters have decades of character development already under their belts by past writers who were the ones who defined them and laid the groundwork for future writers to follow. Now, if the writers today, don't want to follow those defined character traits faithfully, or if they're too lazy to research the material to write in a way that does the character justice, then that writer deserves all the criticism he gets because that criticism is factual and valid. It's objective criticism and not subjectively arrived at. This is why i said in the OP, that if Marvel wants to change their characters so much, then why beat around the bush with characters who are old and stale, now? Do it right and create a "New 52" like DC has done. I could respect that and accept it as a redefining of classic characters that has little to do with the long history of characterization, as these new characters are not the same as the ones we all know so well from past decades of comics. Rather, these new characters are loosely based on those iconic, classic characters. I could accept that, just like i can accept the changes made in marvel movies. I can accept it because i know going in, that these are characters that are loosely based on the characters i knew as a youth, not the same characters in every definable way.
And on top of it all, Marvel continuity is much closer than in real time. "Little" Franklin is still about 10 years old. In Marvel time, only like 5 years has passed since the 1980's. So, how can Thor and the Thing talk so different in 5 years? If comics have a more sophisticated readership now, then Marvel should prove it by not dumbing down their comics to appeal to those who can't understand Shakespeare. Give me a break! The argument that Asgardian speech has to change with the times is totally invalid and i think everyone knows it when they objectively think it through.
Last edited by theflyingfrogunderdog; 05-12-2012 at 06:17 PM.
Just you SAYING these things are more predominantly NOW than they were 2 years ago does not PROVE that they ARE more predominant.
That where this "demonstrable facts" come into play. You need to DEMONSTRATE these things, rather than just saying "They're there now more than they were then."
Yeah. That doesn't mean that they ARE more predominant now than they were 2 years ago. It's just people's discussion on the matter.The above section was taken from a part of the discussion talking about Bendis & his post dark reign run on Avengers. But the same holds true for the majority of writers at marvel at the moment. We've lost a lot of the technical skill involved, which can be objectiely judged.
Where is the evidence that shows that things HAVE gotten worse? That objective, demonstrable facts that would show for a certain that things are worse.
Citing passages of people bitching about Bendis doesn't prove that. From the very day Bendis took over the Avengers, people were complaining about his stories. So you're going to have to try harder than just quoting people who are disgruntled at Bendis.
It being cold in winter is pretty much common knowledge and accepted by many. The DEGREE of cold depends on the region. In addition, the individual people judging it aren't entirely a reliable source. Some people can withstand many low temperatures, some cannot. It's why meteorologists focus on the temperatures themselves, rather than stating what they think it feels like.Sure & me saying its colder during winter doesn't MAKE it colder during winter: It being demonstrably colder during winter makes it colder during winter. The fact remains that anyone looking at the work objectively & comparing it to the work we were getting as little as 2 years ago (utilising particular criteria that does not require personal preference) & it becomes demonstrably clear.
You can DEMONSTRATE that it is colder in January in Saskatchewan than it is in Kentucky by looking at the temperatures. But what YOU are doing is saying that it IS colder in Kentucky in January than it is in Saskatchewan because you FEEL colder in Kentucky, and it's "obvious." If you want to SHOW that it is colder, comparing the temperatures would do that. You don't get to say "It's colder, because it's clear that it is colder." It's a circular argument.
Nope. Sorry. Doesn't work that way. You're arguing that the comics are worse? Onus is on you to prove it. You write that 130 page comparative essay. I don't have to do anything.Not really. See i've given you the criteria using the work of Bendis: You can do the rest yourself. I'm not going to write you a 130 page comparative essay with Harvard Referencing. If you want to look into your self, then, you've been given the tools to do so yourself.
You want me to take your point seriously, prove it. Evidence and facts. Salient arguments and comprehensive conclusions. You don't get to come in and say that your position is absolute, and then claim it's everyone else's job to prove you wrong. I have no reason to believe a word you say. You want to sway me and others who don't share your opinion? The hard work is on you.
Problem is people aren't "pointing out facts." They are stating opinions. And "Opinions" =/= facts.pointing out facts =/= bitching.