The Longevity of Comics [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

jedipotter

2013-12-31, 02:16 PM

So how long is one meant to read a comic book? Note: by comic book I'm talking about ''super hero comic books'' and even more so ''Marvel comics''.

Like many people I started reading comics when younger and kept on reading them for years. There were good stories, bad stories, ok stories and awesome stories. And I read them all. But then, one day, not too long ago, I just stopped. Everything about the comics just changed, and I stopped reading them.

The Comics are just for Kids Theory
I'll put this here. Some would say that ''comics are just for kids'' and that ''when you get older, you should only read adult stuff.'' The idea being that something are made only for some mental ages, and that it is not the comics that changed, but the person growing up and older and wanting different things from entertainment.

Though this theory is a bunch of smoke.

Sure, there are tons of ''little kid'' comics will all sorts of silly kids stuff. And the theory is true for them. But super hero comics are much different and full of complicated plots, story-lines, deep characterizations and so on.
I'd be willing to put up a super hero comic plot vs the supposedly adult plot of anything. The story of a super hero and a drug war is miles above any reality TV show stuff. I'd like to see the smart adults that watch the typical cop/csi show where they stumble around and amazing always catch the bad guy vs a typical comic book time travel plot and see if the smart adult can get that. And dozens of comic book stories are better then dozens of novels too.

My Last Issue of Iron Man
I read Iron Man for years. Always liked the character. Until a little bit ago. I don't remember the issue number, but it went like this: Iron Man is on the cover, but the first three pages are mostly just art work showing the 'tough inner city''. Then focuses on a female on a street corner(who is 18, of course, but is drawn in that (ahem)crazy way so she looks like she is like 14) wearing tight, revealing clothing.

Then a fancy sports car drives up...and it's Tony Stark! She asks ''looking for a good time?" and he says ''get in'' and they drive off together. It makes you blink, Tony picking up a streetwalker? When he has his pick of tons of beautiful women(and if we (ahem) ignore the fact that he might of picked her up as she looks like a tween). What is up with Tony, you wonder? Is he falling into a dark spiral? Is this the start of a new, great dark story line?

No. You turn the page and Tony drives her to the Woman's Safehouse, gives a little speech and ''saves her life''. UGH. Half way through the Iron Man book, and here is Tony saving people on the street. I guess it make a good story for some: Tony does not just fight bad guys, but he cleans up the streets ''in the right way''. As if Tony saving (only tween) streetwalkers is so great.

Suddenly the comics that I had been reading for years changed. New writers came along, and things went in a new direction. I grabbed a couple of the new stuff, but could hardly look at them for long. They were just so wrong.

The worst might have been the new, younger writers that where just so hostile. The writers that changed everything with a ''Oh I hate all that old stuff, I'm the writer now and this is the way it is and you can't do nothing Bahahaha.'' Many of the new writers seemed obsessed with ruining the characters, their past and everything else. Like they hated the character, but then why take a job writing that character? Though they would jump up and say that there way is the right way and that they made everything better. But when you take 'fact A', that has been a fact for thirty years and just say 'oh, fact YGH now' it does not look or feel right. And I'm not talking about spin offs or alternate issues, just the main 'flagship' one.

Even a bad story from the past, at least was a story. But the new issues were just a huge waste of paper. Two dozen pages, and nothing exciting or interesting would happen. It felt like a huge waste of money to buy the book. And even what little did happen was just a huge slap in the face with the ''haha I changes it all to make it cool and you can't say anything as I'm the awesome writer''. So I stopped reading. And it makes me wonder how long one should read comics?

Anyone feel the same or have similar stories?

Tanuki Tales

2013-12-31, 02:26 PM

JoshL

2013-12-31, 02:44 PM

The simple answer is you should read comics until you don't want to read them anymore. And then when you feel like reading them again, start again.

I've always gravitated towards fantasy/horror/sci-fi comics more than superheroes (as a kid it was more Star Wars and G.I. Joe than anything else). That said, as I've gotten older (36 now) I find myself enjoying the occasional superhero book more than I did when I was young. I guess because I'm not that personally invested in any given character or story, I don't mind radical changes, and if they're preachy, well, they've always been a little preachy. There definitely are better writers, and writers that do some good work, but then do some crap (Frank Miller comes to mind).

There was a recent rant by Alan Moore about how superhero books are the lowest form of comic and they've been rehashing moral tales for pre-teens in the 1950s for ages. While I agree with his statement, I think the piece of the puzzle he's missing is that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. He goes on to say that the readers of comics these days aren't kids as much as they are adults these days, so why are they being written to appeal to kids? And the answer is (or rather, one answer) is people occasionally want to read something that makes them FEEL like they were still a kid. Yes, superhero books are often pretty dumb and not challenging. And I do think it's important to have challenging works that take a serious adult approach (and Moore has written some good ones). But I don't think EVERYTHING has to be that way, and sometimes you need to shut off the Bergman films and watch some Saturday Morning Cartoons.

So anyway, yeah, if the stories you like are taking directions you don't like, maybe it is time to give the book a rest for a while. Come back when the writers switch, or try out some new things (helpful if you have a circle of friends you can trade issues with, to find something that you do like). There are TONS of comics being published these days, both by the big guys and indies and unless you've completely lost your taste for the form, there are plenty of things to keep you busy until you're in the mood for Iron Man again. And if you've spent years reading him, odds are you probably will want to do so again.

erikun

2013-12-31, 02:46 PM

The Comics are just for Kids Theory
Eh...

On the one hand, I can understand the sentiment. Comics are not known for their great narrative. Part of it is perhaps thanks to having multiple different authors, who don't have the convenience to consistently work together to preserve consistency or plan out events. Then again, most TV shows and books tend to have the exact same problem. It's a bit silly to criticize comics and then assume that sitcoms are really any different. :smalltongue:

On the other hand, there have been some comics (even mainstream) that I thought were really good. World War Hulk and Hulk: The End are two that really stood out, and the X-Men tend to touch on some very good subjects at times. The biggest problem, I think, is that comics don't consistently do so - as such, it's easier to just ignore them and miss the one really great story while ignoring the 99 mediocre ones.

BWR

2013-12-31, 02:51 PM

Sturgeon's revelation applies to comics as well as SF.
Give me stories like Moonshadow or Kabuki, which are as moving or intricate as almost anything I've read in pure text form.

Karoht

2013-12-31, 04:40 PM

1-Spiderman taught me how to read.

2-Writers don't go out of their way to ruin characters or ruin stories. If they did, no one would hire them. They also don't operate without at least some levels of oversight. I often think that some writers try and challenge notion X about character Y via stress testing said notion until it breaks. Sadly, a lot of writers think that these notions need to break before any character development can come of it. IE-Tony Stark gets pushed and pushed and pushed. He starts drinking again. His conviction is tested and then broken until he goes back into a bottle. This is the point from which his conviction will be tested again by... battling the Crimson Dynamo AND alcoholism. With a new Iron Man Mark 78 Modular Solar Quantum Gravametric Magnetic Armored Combat Chassis.

3-A lot of the writing and art is unfortunately influenced by the business model. That is, often a monthly publication where a character has to overcome a challenge (or be defeated by a challenge) up to 12 times a year, per title, while still including some characterization and development/set up of larger story arcs. Consider that Iron Man is largely already Iron Man. After this many years, how much character development is really possible? Especially in the context of a 'villain of the month' format?

4-The format of comic books may or may not be the best place to tell these stories anymore. Back in the day, it was the only place to tell them. Now there are more media options. Which brings me to problem 5

5-You can't write for comics the way you do for movies. Ask anyone in the business, it doesn't work.

Just some insights I picked up over the years, most of which have already been said in newspapers, magazines, TV interviews, and various corners of the internet, regarding some of the challenges facing comic book companies these days.

CarpeGuitarrem

2013-12-31, 05:01 PM

For what it's worth, I've almost always gone for standalone stories or fresh lines, like the first year of Ultimate Spiderman or Gaiman's Sandman run. Though I've also heavily enjoyed what little I've read of Fraction's Hawkeye run, as well as Gillen's Journey Into Mystery.

I don't think I've ever read a single comic "line" as such.

TheEmerged

2013-12-31, 07:53 PM

I've been reading comics as long as I've been reading. That's longer than some of the people on this board have been alive - I came in on the tale end of the Silver Age / beginning of the Bronze Age. I've bought comics more or less constantly since the mid-80's.

I recently considered shutting down my pull list for the first time. I'm at the fewest items on it in a long time. I've hit a low point in my interest, really - I almost feel like I'm buying them more out of habit and loyalty to a store I've traded with for decades than because I feel I'm getting my money's worth.

Really, you should treat comics like any other media. You should stop buying them when you stop enjoying them, and feel perfectly free to come back if something gets your interest. I have found that things tend to run in cycles, so I'm hoping the trend starts going up again soon.

Traab

2013-12-31, 08:13 PM

I am a little odd with my comic reading. I never actually went out looking for them. My aunt in upstate new york would clean out her sons rooms of all their old ratty comics, fill up a garbage bag or two, then give them to me to read, and I would slowly work my way through the massive disjointed pile. So my old comic knowledge is very scattergun. I stopped reading them when she stopped giving them to me. :p Every now and then I would go to a book store and randomly read an xmen or spiderman story, but I never really followed them. I caught chunks of the onslaught storyline, which grabbed my attention a bit, collected the entire midnight sun series, (I still have the 6 part poster pinned to my wall) and read a few scarlet spider comics. I have snap shot views of hulk in his hulk smash green, smart grey mr fixit, and intelligent green modes, but no sense of the connection between them. And similar things for comics like ghost rider. For me the interest was very minimal. I would read them, it just never motivated me to go out and buy them. But I was in my mid teens I think when I finally just stopped even reading them at book stores.

jedipotter

2013-12-31, 09:13 PM

He goes on to say that the readers of comics these days aren't kids as much as they are adults these days, so why are they being written to appeal to kids? And the answer is (or rather, one answer) is people occasionally want to read something that makes them FEEL like they were still a kid. Yes, superhero books are often pretty dumb and not challenging.

It does feel like ''society/ the world'' has changed so much. When I was reading Iron Man I watched him struggle with things like killing the 'alive' super computer The Supreme Intelligence. And older stories dealt with things like his stole tech in the Armor Wars and, of course, Tony drinking. Those were the ''stories made for kids'' for me as a kid, and for the kids before me. Yet go pick up a copy of Iron Man today. Who exactly are they writing for? The kids stuff is just so bad...that even if I was a kid, I would not read it. The story is so pointless...Tony stands around, bad guy pops up, Iron Man fights and wins! Yippie! I flip through the book and think what a waste of paper. Even the worst old stories were not that bad.

They would have me as a fan (and my money) if they wrote stories like I read as a kid.

MLai

2014-01-01, 10:22 AM

I think it's reader fatigue in that eventually you do grow out of the comics phase, considering it doesn't ever change. As your tastes mature, you lose interest in the outright childish stuff, and also see right through attempts on lame superficial changes such as "grimdark" or "xtreme".

And it's also medium fatigue in that if it's never allowed/expected to change, then it can never break its own shell without antagonizing readers. It doesn't even get the luxury of repeating the storylines, which manga can do freely as it ends one story and begins another just like it except with a different premise suited to the times.

Some ppl like that kind of static story + static characters forever, understanding that comics isn't like novels or movies. Many ppl don't accept that. They start to want more of the finite story arcs with development and thematic focus that they see in movies and novels, and they realize that comics don't have that. That's the point where they drop comics and never look back, despite comics occasionally having brilliant authors with good runs.

And no, nobody on the fence is going to spend an iota of extra money/energy to look/wait for the good authors with good runs. They're not beholden to the comics industry and don't need to be volunteer playtesters.

Yora

2014-01-01, 01:49 PM

The superhero genre has always been one of the most enigmatic for me (at least as far as "mainstream" genres go). It's appeal has always eluded me.

Now the media format is a completely different thing. I've seen many writers doing great things with the possibilities the medium offers, but the superhero genre always seemed to me as something incredibly silly that usually takes itself way too seriously. But that might be caused by limited exposure.

BWR

2014-01-01, 04:51 PM

The superhero genre has always been one of the most enigmatic for me (at least as far as "mainstream" genres go). It's appeal has always eluded me.

Up to a couple of years ago I would have agreed with you. Some of the stories seemed interesting when you read about them on Wikipedia, but actual comics, even the so-called 'deep' ones didn't work for me. It's not that silly unreality or stuff that took itself seriously despite ridiculous premises didn't work for me. Sandman, Hellblazer, Kabuki; all those were wonderful. I even enjoyed Watchmen, which one really shouldn't read unless one has read a lot superhero stuff. I would try reading some stuff evey now and then but it was either bad or just meh.

It wasn't until I started watching Young Justice that I started liking superheroes and went back and enjoyed B:tAS, S:TAS, JL/JLU etc. I started reading some of better comics like Red Son, TDKR, Kingdom Come.

In short, once I started accepting superheroes and their handwaving of their powers and effects on the world the same way I ignored the innate silliness of most D&D worlds, I liked them better. I don't like them enough to bother reading or collecting them in general. I might, after lengthy deliberation, read something that is almost universally liked. Even so I will often not bother wasting money on them. It boils down to I'm more interested in reading about superheroes than reading the actual comics. Some of the stuff is really good, but rarely enough that I only have half a dozen suerpheroc comics.

But it's superheroes in animated or live action form that's surprisingly good. The DC animated stuff is often good (can't say the same about the Marvel animated stuff I've seen. At best it's ok, often not), and some of the the movies are pretty good.

jedipotter

2014-01-01, 09:02 PM

The superhero genre has always been one of the most enigmatic for me (at least as far as "mainstream" genres go). It's appeal has always eluded me.

I'm the opposite. Growing up I was exposed to all the other types of comics. Not that I had much choice, as the places were I bought comics like bookstores, grocery stores and 7-11's did not carry anything other then super hero comics.

Though I still don't much get the other comics. They seem like such a waste of money. The other comics seem to forget the whole graphic novel idea: that your telling a story with words and art. So while they might have a good story, they really lack in the art. I can really see paying good money for bad art. Some of the other books have things like ''blobs of blackness with a couple white lines'' and that mess is meant to represent a dark city street. But really it is ''art'' that any three year old can do better. And I can't see paying for it. Now the story might be great, but I can't stomach the green blob that someone dropped on a page to represent a tree.

Yora

2014-01-02, 09:36 AM

I wouldn't call Sandman a superhero story.

BWR

2014-01-02, 10:13 AM

I wouldn't call Sandman a superhero story.

Are you talking to me? Because I listed Sandman (and Hellblazer and Kabuki) as comics that take themselves seriously despite a somewhat silly premise, like many superhero comics do. I wasn't calling it a superhero comic despite being an outgrowth of them.

Tanuki Tales

2014-01-02, 12:11 PM

I wouldn't call Sandman a superhero story.

And yet several of DC's iconic characters (a lot from yester-year, a few modern) do show up over the course of the story. And the way I've heard it, the storm during the whole World's End trade was the Zero Hour event.

Selrahc

2014-01-02, 12:30 PM

And yet several of DC's iconic characters (a lot from yester-year, a few modern) do show up over the course of the story. And the way I've heard it, the storm during the whole World's End trade was the Zero Hour event.

It *definitely* isn't a superhero story even though it occasionally features superheroes. It's just a story which relies on looking at existing patterns and characters. In the same way, the presence of Loki doesn't make it a Norse myth.

I've heard the "Zero Hour" idea before. Even disregarding the publishing gaps between the events, it seems an odd interpretation. World's End posits that the storm comes about because of events of universal significance... and ends with a view of the funeral of the Dream King. The thematic interplay seems obvious.

Tanuki Tales

2014-01-02, 12:35 PM

It *definitely* isn't a superhero story even though it occasionally features superheroes.

I wasn't saying it was. But I am saying that it isn't completely divorced from the superhero genre.

Jayngfet

2014-01-02, 12:43 PM

I've encountered the same fatigue that you have. I pick up a story from the 70s or 80s or even early 90s and then compare it to a comic released since...let's say the early 2000s (I personally found Our Worlds at War as being the last story I really seriously enjoyed on the whole) and there's no real comparison.

I just don't feel the same heart and soul and artistry in those modern comics compared to those of yester-year. Sure, there are a few diamonds in the rough, but for the most part I've given up on buying comics on a whole outside of a few select titles (I'll usually pick up anything with Wolverine and Deadpool in it since I'm a sucker for Healing Factors and I want to get into that story where the young X-men are pulled into the future).

I usually enjoy the Alternate Reality stuff these days more than anything (like Old Man Logan, Exiles and Extreme X-men).

.....

I liked Planet Hulk a lot...I think that's the last modern event I liked.

I started in the early 00's and I'll be the first to admit you have a point.

The bulk of my favorite comics are bronze age precrisis stuff and by the mid-90's there's only a few titles that were still active and good and on my list of favorites. In the last decade there's probably even less worth caring about than that, given the constant flow of big events interrupting the flow of individual comics.

So to me, it's not a case of nostalgia or fatigue. It's a case of the industry and it's talent being objectively worse now than it's been in years. At this point I'll just ignore most of the new floppies and head straight to the back of my comic store to pick out whatever they have left from decades ago.

Closet_Skeleton

2014-01-02, 01:00 PM

I wouldn't call Sandman a superhero story.

That would be because its clearly a horror comic, just with more elaborate plotting.

Zrak

2014-01-02, 03:25 PM

The story of a super hero and a drug war is miles above any reality TV show stuff.

Yeah, but that's not really a fair comparison. Comparing a story of a "super hero and a drug war" to, say, The Wire or Breaking Bad might yield different results.

As if Tony saving (only tween) streetwalkers is so great.
The way you've phrased this makes me feel as though you don't think taking a young girl away from a life of prostitution is a good thing.

''haha I changes it all to make it cool and you can't say anything as I'm the awesome writer''.
From where are you getting the idea that "you" can't say anything? Do you mean you, personally? Because you can always write in to the comic's letter page, or do as you have done and say something in places like this. Or is the "you" the management? Because they most certainly can and often do say something, by doing things like forcing changes/retcons or canning the entire creative team.

Soras Teva Gee

2014-01-02, 04:14 PM

I have a pet theory that Marvel/DC superhero comics are essentially doomed and the whole thing is just waiting for the bottom to fall out once and for all.

The graphic-novel/sequential-art medium will probably survive but the sprawling two ongoing universes of super heroes... yeah I'm completely cynical there.

And yet several of DC's iconic characters (a lot from yester-year, a few modern) do show up over the course of the story. And the way I've heard it, the storm during the whole World's End trade was the Zero Hour event.

An essentially meaningless detail. Rewrite Morpheus tracking down the Ruby and you have removed the only thing of even slight significance connecting the comic proper and the DCU. You have Supes, Bats, and Darkseid attending an event but their presence is immaterial to the story itself. Same with Cain/Abel/etc predating Gaiman's series.

You sure as hell don't hear "Zero Hour" in the books, and said storm is adequately sensible without knowing of the event. At all. They are not impossible to tie together given the nature of the events but nobody without a concerted interest in the DCU would care to. Certainly not the people that pick up Sandman trades and don't follow the rest of DC worth a damn.

Sandman is not a superhero story. Only the unique (and never to be replicated again) circumstances of Marvel/DC as publishers gives you a few threads to argue otherwise.

For anyone (ie: most people) not obsessively detail oriented and literalist arguing otherwise is going to be actively counter-productive because the essence of the series is in an entirely different direction. All you do is muddy any useful definition of "superhero" for them because you reach the level where everyone is a superhero so quoth the Incredibles... no one is.

Sandman is urban fantasy mixed with a goodly helping of old fashioned fairy tale.

Tanuki Tales

2014-01-02, 05:33 PM

Sandman is not a superhero story.

Might have want to have read the thread before posting Soras, I already addressed that misunderstanding of what I was saying. :smallwink:

Edit:

But hey, why don't we list all of DC's folks who do show up?

Martian Manhunter
John Constantine
Lyta Hall
Doctor Destiny
Wesley Dodds
Scarecrow
Phantom Stranger
Doctor Occult
Mister Miracle
Hector Hall
Element Girl
Carter Hall
Ted Grant

Superman gets a passing mention in one story also. Don't remember Darkseid to be honest and I know Batman and Green Lantern pop up in a flash back.

Edit Edit:

Also, was the level of passive aggression necessary? You act like I spoke some great, heart wrenching insult about Neil Gaiman, his work and his children.

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-01-02, 05:47 PM

Tanuki Tales

2014-01-02, 05:50 PM

And apparently there were tie-ins outside of Gaiman's series, especially as a post-script to the main Sandman run. Since the Sandman was a DC character to begin with...just not quite as Gaiman portrayed him.

It's certainly a title rooted in superhero comics, if nothing else: it's a mythic portrayal of a superhero.

Sandman characters have also appeared in flat superhero titles as well.

Daniel popped up as Dream during Grant Morrison's run on Justice League of America and in one of the tie-ins to Day of Vengeance. Destiny appeared for one or two issues in Brave and the Bold when his book was stolen. Death showed up in Action Comics itself to have a personal discussion with Lex Luthor.

GloatingSwine

2014-01-02, 05:52 PM

I have a pet theory that Marvel/DC superhero comics are essentially doomed and the whole thing is just waiting for the bottom to fall out once and for all.

Not until their actual corporate owners have utterly run out of ways to wring cash out of them.

They don't really make money on comics, they just get IP they can farm for movies and toys.

Soras Teva Gee

2014-01-02, 08:24 PM

Might have want to have read the thread before posting Soras, I already addressed that misunderstanding of what I was saying. :smallwink:

Edit:

But hey, why don't we list all of DC's folks who do show up?

You missed that I'm pointing out the factual case that Sandman technically is in the DCU is completely unimportant. Its only a detail. On a "Top Ten Things to Know About The Sandman" list it would rank... like 15th.

You don't need to know a thing about the DCU to understand Gaiman's story. If it was being adapted to another medium or remade you should leave them out because they aren't important and are arguably detrimental. Not that I advocate touching a thing since you don't fix what isn't broke, but the awareness of the irrelevance of the DCU is still important to remember.

Superman gets a passing mention in one story also. Don't remember Darkseid to be honest and I know Batman and Green Lantern pop up in a flash back.

Darkseid sat in the same pew as Emperor Norton. I think Jeb and Rose (iirc) were between them. Its a cute little visual gag... but I'd delete Darkseid in a second without regret.

Clark Kent appears along with Batman, you, me, and everyone else but you are talking about Dream's chapter of Endless Nights from after the series wrapped. Also its not Green Lantern but a Killala of the Glow a proto-Malthusian/Oan/Zamaron. The Endless Nights has a neat-o mythology gag for Supes, but while Killala is an important character her DCU connections are deletable not terribly important in their own right.

Also, was the level of passive aggression necessary? You act like I spoke some great, heart wrenching insult about Neil Gaiman, his work and his children.

No but trying to cram something like Sandman into the DCU is indicative of the sort of conceptual mindset problems that have more/less ruined comics under the bloated weight of their own history.

Not until their actual corporate owners have utterly run out of ways to wring cash out of them.

They don't really make money on comics, they just get IP they can farm for movies and toys.

Well I imagine they still turn a profit when its all said an done. But the gross sales for the like whole industry range like somewhere between Iron Man 3 and the Avengers. IE divide between companies and at least Marvel (because Warner is just comically inept) rakes in a bigger gross amount on single films compared to their entire comic publishing combined.

Though movies can be less profitable in the end then people think comics would need some truly hefty margins themselves to still be bigger money makers. And that's just single films in a sea of movies, which I think speaks volumes about how niche comics themselves have become.

Closet_Skeleton

2014-01-03, 06:40 AM

No but trying to cram something like Sandman into the DCU is indicative of the sort of conceptual mindset problems that have more/less ruined comics under the bloated weight of their own history.

Both the Marvel and DC universes had a variety of genres in them from the start. What's the point of a shared universe if its only available for one kind of story?

GloatingSwine

2014-01-03, 08:17 AM

Both the Marvel and DC universes had a variety of genres in them from the start. What's the point of a shared universe if its only available for one kind of story?

The strictures of a shared universe impose too many limits on storytelling which are best ignored if you want to tell certain kinds of story.

Sandman may have used elements of the DCU but it's better to not try to regards the events or cosmology of it as part of DCU "canon" (especially since its spinoff Lucifer was written during a period when Vertigo titles were explicitly seperated from mainstream DCU).

Even if Sandman elements appear in the DCU, you should regard them as seperate.

Soras Teva Gee

2014-01-03, 11:19 AM

Both the Marvel and DC universes had a variety of genres in them from the start. What's the point of a shared universe if its only available for one kind of story?

Let's say you're a reader with no interest in comics but lots of interest in Neil Gaiman. He's a reasonably high profile writer after all.

And you pull out the first volume and a couple issues in you have Morpheus talking to the "Justice League" and not a timeless one but a from a very specific time-frame in the publishing of the team.

What's it doing there, is this supposed to be a superhero comic my friend told me its Gaiman's magnum opus, what about these yahoo's in tights then. And why don't they show up again after volume 1?

Do you see how that can be just a little confusing? Especially since they really don't matter because its just an artifact of the series finding its footing and being published by DC in the late 80s. That shared universe doesn't add anything to the story because its not used... so why is it there. Conservation of Detail, that's like Writing 101 what's the deal Neil?

Now Sandman's not the worst case, its not a patch on say Moore's Swamp Thing. Which at one point has the JLA sitting on its duff saying they can do nothing while Swampy does all the work and an odious COIE crossover among other things. And they're selling it right now in graphic novel volumes starting with Moore, who started things by killing off a lot of stuff in Swamp Thing lore with nary an explanation as to what it all was.

That last bit is a giant structural problem with comics in general.

I openly question any point to a shared universe (in the long run) even should all your stories be in a single coherent genre.

CarpeGuitarrem

2014-01-03, 11:24 AM

No but trying to cram something like Sandman into the DCU is indicative of the sort of conceptual mindset problems that have more/less ruined comics under the bloated weight of their own history.

I'd say it's something to the flipside: Sandman wasn't crammed into the DCU, Gaiman spun part of the DCU into a mythic story that became Sandman as we know it.

Jayngfet

2014-01-03, 11:25 AM

Well I imagine they still turn a profit when its all said an done. But the gross sales for the like whole industry range like somewhere between Iron Man 3 and the Avengers. IE divide between companies and at least Marvel (because Warner is just comically inept) rakes in a bigger gross amount on single films compared to their entire comic publishing combined.

Though movies can be less profitable in the end then people think comics would need some truly hefty margins themselves to still be bigger money makers. And that's just single films in a sea of movies, which I think speaks volumes about how niche comics themselves have become.

I remember during a PBS documentary recently someone with Marvel or DC(I think Geoff Johns) said that even if they aren't the focal point, you kinda need the comics up and running, since they form the "core" of the IP. If you take out the core, the whole thing could stop running.

Which is totally fair. Comics are a reasonably fast paced and low risk medium to try out new ideas and characters before sending them out to the big leagues. If Green Arrow stopped being made a decade ago and Arrow somehow existed still, we'd have fewer characters to populate it. I mean heck Blue Beetle never sold well, but Jamie Reyes still almost got his own TV series.

Keeping comics alive, even if in a secondary role, is just good business.

I'd say it's something to the flipside: Sandman wasn't crammed into the DCU, Gaiman spun part of the DCU into a mythic story that became Sandman as we know it.

I'd say it's more accurate to say it's a testament to the versatility of something like the DCU that you can tell so many inherently different stories in it. It's not a place that's ever "only" been for superheroes: Gun slinging space cowboys, epic fantasy heroes, and everything in between has managed to coexist in their own little corners from day one.

The only problem is when you have something like the New 52, where every character needs to come from the same school of design and every story seems to have the same tone to it.

Soras Teva Gee

2014-01-03, 01:08 PM

I remember during a PBS documentary recently someone with Marvel or DC(I think Geoff Johns) said that even if they aren't the focal point, you kinda need the comics up and running, since they form the "core" of the IP. If you take out the core, the whole thing could stop running.

I've either heard that idea floated before or cooked it up myself once, can't remember. On the face of things well it sounds nice and might have a point... but I'm not sure.

Or rather I don't think that would nessecarily occur without subtantive changes to the basic status quo of comics themselves. Namely the Claremont running soap-opera model. Sure since you adapt this stuff you need something to adapt, but does that justify the model that came out of the Bronze Age? Its sustained I think because you have a niche loyal base that buys multiple titles every week so it pays to interconnect everything because your trying to please people that have been at it for years... but when your no longer going for outright profit why are you still doing things that way? Not like you can really adapt that sort of continuity.

As a sort of market research tool you might find something like... a couple of anthology titles like what Superman technically started out as in Action Comics. Or like exist in other countries like Shonen Jump in Japan or 2000 AD across the pond.

Course I'm biased here since I quietly think that would in the long run end up with better stories once you don't have everyone hog-tied to fifty years of history dictating expectations and what can/cannot be done.

Selrahc

2014-01-03, 01:39 PM

I think Sandman gained a lot through it's confusing lack of context. The ambiance that the series is trying to bring together is that of dreams, with a confusing, impossible stage, that nonetheless contains a great deal of meaning. Characters from the DCU stable (Matthew! Destiny! Cain and Abel!) added to that feeling, rather than detracted from it, in the same way that the constant characters from mythology and history did. The effect was to create a world that felt vast and mysterious, in which to tell stories.

Most comics don't make anywhere near as good a use of a "shared universe". I don't think the concept is inherently bad though... sometimes it's a shackle. Sometimes it is a tool. As long as people don't get too prescriptive, I think it's mostly positive for storytelling.

JoshL

2014-01-03, 02:38 PM

I agree with the Sandman stuff, and add that they were trying to sell the series to comic book fans, not fantasy/horror fans (though there are plenty of folks who are/were both). Connecting a style of book that wasn't popular at the time with touchstones in the books that they're already reading makes for a great entry point. And they made wise choices; with Cain and Abel, Sandman is going to appeal to folks who read House of Mystery/Secrets. Pull some folks from Batman? How about Etrigan, Scarecrow and Dr. Destiny? And, of course, John Constantine was almost a no-brainer to throw in.

The first arc deals a lot with other DC characters, but after that (with a few exceptions), they get pushed to the background. At that point, readers were already sold on what the Sandman is, as a book, giving Gaiman the freedom (and readership) to go forward with the way he wanted to tell stories.

It's an excellent way to introduce new ideas. Take a look at Avatar...everyone can make fun of the Pocahontas-In-Space story (or Dances With Smurfs, which I liked better), but the story was very clearly not challenging and familiar because Cameron was trying to sell audiences on something else. In this case, new 3d technology when it had been a good 20 years since anyone cared about 3d. Unless he totally drops the ball, the sequel should give him the opportunity to make the story as interesting as the format. I could also draw parallels in music, where the innovators are never as popular as those who blend the innovations into a form that people already listen to. THEN the innovators sometimes get the recognition that they deserved in the first place.

Moral of the story: marketing is complex!

Raimun

2014-01-03, 03:44 PM

I think superhero comics are fantastic light reading. When the mood takes me, nothing beats the adventures of unrealistic violent man in a funny suit fighting other men such as him.

I'll agree, there a lot of bad ones but sometimes you find stories that matter.

And in that way, they are exactly like other storytelling media, such as books, movies or tv-series.

Closet_Skeleton

2014-01-03, 05:10 PM

Comics are a reasonably fast paced and low risk medium to try out new ideas and characters before sending them out to the big leagues. If Green Arrow stopped being made a decade ago and Arrow somehow existed still, we'd have fewer characters to populate it.

Except not, since Arrow prefers to use Batman and Teen Titans villains over Green Arrow ones.

Jayngfet

2014-01-03, 07:47 PM

Except not, since Arrow prefers to use Batman and Teen Titans villains over Green Arrow ones.

Well there's China White and Eddie Fyers, then there's Shado(who's been spotted in the background with Slade in the modern day, so she's probably still alive somehow). Ollie's relationship with Dinah only really got Arrow-level complicated into the modern day. Not to mention Count Vertigo, who's bit with the suicide squad and villains popping up from the dead means he may show up later as well. Not to mention that Thea is very clearly based on Ollie's second sidekick, who didn't show up until like 2006. Given Robert Queen was the name of Shado and Ollie's son there's still plenty of material there as well.

It's a show with heavy ties to the rest of the DCU, but it's still very much a show about Green Arrow, guest starring his friends from the comics and a couple of OC's and imports.

Speaking of, this is me going full fan-theory here but if Robert had an affair that's probably a good way to bring in Conner Hawke, as Ollie's brother rather than bastard son. It's reaching, I know, but I REALLY just wanna see Conner again.

jedipotter

2014-01-06, 03:26 PM

What's it doing there, is this supposed to be a superhero comic my friend told me its Gaiman's magnum opus, what about these yahoo's in tights then. And why don't they show up again after volume 1?

I openly question any point to a shared universe (in the long run) even should all your stories be in a single coherent genre.

It's not just the shared universe, it's the long run of the book too. In general, only the last couple years of a comic ever happened. At least as far as anyone cares about. No one reading issue #347 cares what happened back in issue #41.

And even worse is that the writers don't know or don't care....or both. The kinds of things that drive fans crazy, but writers just sit back and say ''whatever, just buy my book".

Generic Example: You follow the Hero from issue 1 to 50. And in #50 is is revealed that the hero that you thought was the hero, was in fact a robot from the future. See back in #11 when the building blew up, that is when the robot switched with the human(though you don't see it happen in #10 wink wink). So in #50 the human retires and the robot takes over. Then in #57 the evil Mind Master can't read the heros mind...because he is a robot. And this allows the robot to have the upper hand. But wait, back in #22 the (robot) hero had his mind read and they used that information to kill people. Er, what? Oh the robot has mind stealth so it can project thoughts to read. Ok, but um, why 'project ' sensitive information that gets people killed? Why not just switch it off? And then again in #60 and #71 the problem that ''as a robot telepathy does not work on me and there is nothing I can do about that law of physics'' comes up. Though it was not a problem in #11-#50. And why did not the robo lord draft him into his army? And why was it all that drama in #22 about running out of air underwater?

Then #75 reveals the true hero comes back, and he....er...traveled back in time to..er,um, every time a 'human' mistake came up that was him. So the human traveled back in time, replaced the robot without the robot knowing, and had all the normal human effects. So that was the human In #22, for example. But it was the robot in #26 when he went to Cuba and met Lacy. But then in #78, when the real human hero randomly bumps into Lacy, he talks about how great it is to see her again.....although they have never met. But then in #80.....

Soras Teva Gee

2014-01-06, 04:51 PM

It's not just the shared universe, it's the long run of the book too. In general, only the last couple years of a comic ever happened. At least as far as anyone cares about. No one reading issue #347 cares what happened back in issue #41.

And even worse is that the writers don't know or don't care....or both. The kinds of things that drive fans crazy, but writers just sit back and say ''whatever, just buy my book".

This issue is why I think that the only way out for comics (qualitatively) is to just plain burn down their own published history... and never rebuild it. Remove the entire concept of continuity from their publishing.

Doing so is more then likely to finally really offend the niche base that still does the buying (because their collections are now "worthless" you see) into not buying. And you won't attract replacements overnight... leaving you with nothing at all to make money from. Never mind the publishing method encourages the continuity/shared-universe because when most books are only monthly but people buy every week it should help keep them sated.

An absolute mess anyway I've been able to cut it. Why I'm so pessimistic.

Ultimately I just think everyone learned the wrong lesson from Claremont's X-soap. It was fine while he was there to juggle all those balls maybe, lots of great iconic stuff in there... but it needed to end when he left. Course decades ago I don't exactly expect that to have been clear.

They need a Doctor to sell them some timey-wimey....

jedipotter

2014-01-06, 05:14 PM

This issue is why I think that the only way out for comics (qualitatively) is to just plain burn down their own published history... and never rebuild it. Remove the entire concept of continuity from their publishing.

Some have tried. I've seen the theory of ''Everything is a Legend''. The idea is that a character is so popular that everyone tells stories about them. But everyone tells an unrelated, different story. And that is all that they are, stories....legends.

A lot like real famous hero types, you can find a story that they did just about everything. People just love to tell stories, after all.

What is your Claremont's X-soap thing? I just don't like Claremont as I don't like his style.

Horrible Claremont Stlye Example
Beast, Banshie and Wolverine are in the sewers getting read to sneak into a bad guy place. When....suddenly Bishop pops in behind them. Bishop says ''look up'' and the others turn and look...and Bishop shoots them! You get some beautiful full page art work of the solid ray blast going through each one of their chests, causing them huge amounts of pain and sure looking like he killed them. The last page is Bishop standing over the dead bodies with his smoking gun saying something utterly dumb like ''Like i have always said, the only good X-man is a dead X-man''. Now, you the dumb reader are meant to read this and go ''woah he killed them!" and then camp out at the store and wait for the next issue.

And what do you get with your next issue......oh, everyone is alive! See the three of them were infected by nanites. And instead of Bishop being normal and just saying ''hold on guys, your infected, lets clean you up'', he decides to do the whole fake kill thing.........

Zrak

2014-01-06, 06:51 PM

The ubiquitous Claremazons are pretty obnoxious, too. It started off pretty cool, I guess, but really just got totally out of control.

Soras Teva Gee

2014-01-06, 08:54 PM

Some have tried. I've seen the theory of ''Everything is a Legend''. The idea is that a character is so popular that everyone tells stories about them. But everyone tells an unrelated, different story. And that is all that they are, stories....legends.

Well officially I've never personally seen it other then a bit of Marvel's sliding timescale thing. As opposed to say hypertime or the like which I loathed upon first hearing about though have more sympathy for now.

I've never heard someone just outright attack the beast at the sort of editorial/publishing. Like propose they should just put out a letter in the front saying:
"We're not going to require any writer give a single **** about anyone else's writing and stories. Or even their own if its not this story. Nor will we keep a history going forward. Nor will we be explaining this in-universe because god damn it these things aren't freaking real. The universe is dead, have a nice day and now enjoy this story about Wolverine fighting a monkey"

Or some such.

Heck I'm just said it and I don't know if I would actually do it.

What is your Claremont's X-soap thing? I just don't like Claremont as I don't like his style.

While not the only one its the difference between the Silver Age and the Bronze Age. And the latter is more or less comics transitioning from kid's books to teen/adult/fan products by becoming the full on soap opera high drama, high continuity world we all grew up with.

Chris Claremont's epic X-men run more/less made the franchise as we know it and is a by all accounts a major trendsetter for that transition.

Go dig in superdickery and find where they have Jimmy Olse as a werewolf, twice. In unrelated stories not like a reprint mind you. Just hey here's a story about Jimmy becoming a werewolf... two (or whatever) years they presume nobody remembers so they run a different story with the exact same premise. Maybe not even them. Not to mention all the silly fake-outs and "imaginary stories" and such.

Now given it was all probably the right choice for the time and probably would happened under a different writer so forth so I really don't blame Claremont per say... and a lot of it is pretty damn good though he's rubbish in later decades. Plus we likely wouldn't have say truly awesome stuff like all of Moore's work which in turn birthed Vertigo... etc and so on derived from comic's growing up as it were.

However now that whole history is a giant load on the weight of everything.