Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Comic Books >

ALIAS #17

Page: 1(2)3 4

13:10 / 11.12.02

Isn't all this sort of an over dominating discussion in the comic books forum here? Because I am detecting in Cam's post bits of discussion threads that appear in almost every thread about some writer who takes a character and transpolates him to an expanded context (read "mature", more "real", what you like) leaving aside his "60s background of kids story" continuity.

13:28 / 11.12.02

>>>...says the guy drawing a book with prostitutes. <<<

A cheap shot, to be sure.

>>>You may also consider this splitting hairs, Cameron, but Scott Lang is not a Jack Kirby creation - a quick spot of research shows he first appeared in Avengers #187 by Michelinie/Byrne (as Scott Lang), and Marvel Premiere #47 as Ant-Man<<<

That IS splitting hairs. Ant-Man is Ant-Man, no matter which character dons the outfit. If I were to relaunch Superman without Clark Kent, but some other guy in the cape and tights, could I lay claim to creating that character? Of course not, because it's merely slightly altering the existing one. Had Michelinie and Byrne created Scott Lang: Shrink-Man, you'd have an argument. As long as he's called Ant-Man, he's a Kirby creation.

>>>When Kirby created characters, from the 30's to the 60's the predominant comics market was, indeed, children - it isn't now. <<<

And we have a booming, thriving industry now, don't we? No, we don't. It's sick and dying. Many factors contribute to this, but one very large one, in my view, is the fact that they're being written by and for immature adults.

No one has ever attempted to explain precisely why it's necessary or interesting to explore the seamier side of these characters - what does it accomplish (that hasn't already been covered in DKR or Watchmen, 15 years ago)? What is the appeal? These are childrens' characters, why the obsession with drawing them into the adult world? Why not do the same with The Smurfs? I would really like someone to attempt to explain it to me, because I honestly don't understand it.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:38 / 11.12.02

Well, yes:
Read any of the numerous interviews with Jack Kirby and it's very clear that he never intended Ant-Man, or any of his characters, to engage in explicit violence or drug use or sexuality, or any of the earmarks of the modern "Mature Readers" superhero comic - he was making his stories for kids.

Apart from the question of whether the Scott Lang Ant-Man is a Kirby creation (search me, I can never keep track of this crap), this seems to suggest that not only are the treatments of comic characters stagnant, but that they *ought* to be.

It strikes me that Batman indulged in graphic violence in "The Dark Knight Returns", that Superman got his rocks off in the sequel (although that *was* absurd and embarrassing, so perhaps no harm no foul), that MarvelMan, with a slightly different name, has sex "on stage" in MiracleMan, and that the original premise of Watchmen had sex scenes involving the Blue Beetle and the analogs of Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre. Were these all comic in creation and tragic in reception, and a betrayal of their creators?

13:38 / 11.12.02

>>>Is Morrison pushing it with his use of Cyclops and Emma? Because one of these is a Kirby creation, and yet clearly has a sex life, and has done so for a couple of decades at least. Is he 'debased'?<<<

The difference is in portrayal - we have not had a shot of Emma's face contorted in pain as Cyclops fucks her from behind. We've had Emma show up at Scott's door with a slinky dress and a bottle of champagne. End of scene.

See the difference?

13:59 / 11.12.02

No one has ever attempted to explain precisely why it's necessary or interesting to explore the seamier side of these characters - what does it accomplish (that hasn't already been covered in DKR or Watchmen, 15 years ago)? What is the appeal? These are childrens' characters, why the obsession with drawing them into the adult world?

What's your position on Catwoman, Cameron? I didn't intend my earlier comment as a "cheap shot" - I'm genuinely baffled by your comments in the context of your current job. Even sliding sideways a bit, your work on Hellblazer, who was originally a DCU character. I mean, do you mutter darkly when you get the scripts for this children's comic?

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:12 / 11.12.02

That IS splitting hairs. Ant-Man is Ant-Man, no matter which character dons the outfit. If I were to relaunch Superman without Clark Kent, but some other guy in the cape and tights, could I lay claim to creating that character? Of course not, because it's merely slightly altering the existing one. Had Michelinie and Byrne created Scott Lang: Shrink-Man, you'd have an argument. As long as he's called Ant-Man, he's a Kirby creation.

This is interesting- how far does it go? Are Supreme, Majestic, Apollo et al essentially Seigel and Schuster creations? When Dick Grayson, Azrael, Bob Cratchett, old Uncle Tom Cobbly and all assumed the Mantlepiece of the Bat during Knightfall, was it a betrayal of the legacy of Bob Kane (?) to see tham acting in ways unfaitful to the original conception of Bruce Wayne? One might suggest that it's an interesting pthing about comic books that an argument can be made that what is important is not who a person is, but what they are wearing.

But it sounds from The difference is in portrayal - we have not had a shot of Emma's face contorted in pain as Cyclops fucks her from behind that you don't actually object to characters being portraye as sexually active - itself presumably a) not kid-friendly and b) not all that Kirbyesque - apart from Lashina, of course, who was at it like knives - but to characters being portrayed during the sexual act. So if Alias introduced a totally new Bendis-created character who was a superhero and portrayed that superhero having sex, it would be OK in betrayal-of-Kirby terms but not OK in having-to-think-about-Bendis-thinking-about-sex terms? And if it just implied heavily that Jessica Jones had been playing Mount the Face with Spider-Man (maybe some web-fluid sachets by the bed....), tat would be OK in both senses?

As a matter of interest (and this could be spun off into a new thread), what else do we feel shoudl be kept out of comics in order to keep them kid-friendly? I'm voting continuity...

14:22 / 11.12.02

There's no need to be short with me, Cameron. I've shown you respect, but disagreed. So:-

If your distinction is only graphically based, I'd note that there is a ratings system in operation. And I think it's quite clear to a teenager, the intended audience for New X-Men, that the characters have sex, and that Cyclops is somehow sexually repressed.

Jessica Jones is Bendis/Gaydos character, so they can do what they like with her, your point is about Ant-Man - who's not being fucked from behind. Nor is he, and I think this is fairly crucial, ever in costume (unlike, as Haus says, Nite-Owl.) He's portrayed as an ex-superhero, just a guy - Scott Lang. Hibbs' sensationalism has set many of you off on the wrong track, I think - while some jokes are made about Jessica not wanting to date 'Ant-Man', and so on, we've never seen the costume, and such is Bendis ease at character writing I've never thought of him as 'Ant-Man', because he isn't even the original Ant-Man...Alias has, I think, entirely deliberately concentrated on these second (or ninth-)stringers, so as not to offend such delicate sensibilities. Scott Lang, and the like, would be in 'character limbo' if they weren't utilised in places like this. No-one would care. At all.

And it's not even seamy, here. It's a couple of people who like each other having sex. Unless sex is, a priori 'seamy' and off-limits.

I'm really not sure about this hearkening back, either. I wish that the big two would create more characters, and make a success of them, but that doesn't look likely - they can't, and/or won't. So they spread what they've got thin and overcook the stew. That's part of the problem to me - and you're right, the industry isn't doing well financially. What relation that has to creator's abilities I'm unsure, though - the early 90's saw a robust industry, and Todd McFarlane, among others, making an immense amount of money. I do not consider Image comics early output either mature, or for chidren. Or a creative highpoint. And just as an aside, should Darko Macan and Igor Kordey have had Rob Liefeld in mind at all times as they wrote Cable? Should Stan Lee still write all, or even some of, the characters he (co-)created? Because we'd see their respective visions there for sure, then. But I wouldn't want to.

14:45 / 11.12.02

As a matter of interest (and this could be spun off into a new thread), what else do we feel shoudl be kept out of comics in order to keep them kid-friendly? I'm voting continuity...

Hands up everyone here who entered comics solely through the first issue of entirely new series. Keep your hands up if you only watch TV shows provided you catch the first episode.

The anti-continuity argument is absurd. If it had even the slightest shred of merit, programs like EastEnders wouldn't be so fucking popular.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:02 / 11.12.02

Ah, but we're not talking about the "anti-continuity" argument, my half-cocked chum. We're talking about making comics friendlier for kids. I would hazard that Eastenders does not have, and is not aiming for, a primarily pre-teen audience. It also, of course, has a far smaller cast and characters with a greater tendency both to stay dead and not to be used by another writer for a totally different creative enterprise either while or after they are on Eastenders. Unless we assume that the bloke in Harbour Patrol actually is Wicksy.

So, more "hands up who doesn't watch a Tv series if it becomes clear that in order to understand the characters they will have to have watched 30 years of previous programming, much of which is either unavailable or can only be purchased at massive expense from men who smell of milk", really. Do I see many kids' hands? Thought not.

15:15 / 11.12.02

Ah, but we're not talking about the "anti-continuity" argument

You must have been using some bizarre connotation of "kept out of comics" that I hadn't previously been aware of, sorry.

When did most of us start reading comics? When we were kids. How many years of backstory was there to Batman or The Avengers by that point? Decades.

Continuity isn't a problem for kids; they're brighter than you think. The issue is storytelling - comics used to stick to the maxim that every issue is sombody's first. No matter how much it annoyed regular readers, comics constantly re-established their characters and situations - often in the course of a single story (how many Claremont/Byrne issues of X-Men included a recap of the previous issue?). Modern writers don't seem to do this. That's the barrier, not continuity itself.

Unless of course you want to make an argument that the only people reading comics today all started with the various series' first issues. No? Thought not.

15:26 / 11.12.02

These are childrens' characters, why the obsession with drawing them into the adult world? Why not do the same with The Smurfs?

I can't believe you are actually asking this. So, if it were for you, Batman would have stayed frozen as he was portrayed in the TV series, c'mon. First easy answer: why the obsession with drawing them into the adult world? Simply, becuase someone out there is going to read it, and is going to be interested, even if it is for a single 1st issue, and especially if he got sick of how they were treated in the seventies, or simply became curious and receptive enough to spend a few bucks to learn about a new, different approcah to the character he has been reading for twenty years. And if he has avoided it for twenty years, then the same may happen.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:28 / 11.12.02

I see your point, and agree entirely. The problem is *shit* continuity. If you don't need to understand the entire continuity to understand a story, then well and good. Take "X-Men; Evolution" as an example of "kid continuity": There are established characters and established situations, the character interactions are consistent but the characters are recapped, and storylines build, close and are replaced by new ones, which can be read alone or as part of the continuing narrative.

On the other hand, when a storyline hinges on something Moses Magnum said five years ago in a different comic, you're in trouble.

(Yet further offtopic - has anybody noticed that Flux and Lawrence diagree about everything, but argue in almost exactly the same way? It's very strange...)

Cameron is certainly right that, from my experience at least, kids *aren't* buying comics. Whether that has to do with the "immature adults" they are being aimed at, the deficiencies of the writers, the milky stench of comic shops or the lure of the Playstation is another question.

So, is Jessica Jones getting bagpiped by Ambush Bug killing comics?

(And can we just clear up this Ant Man thing? Is he or isn't he Scott Lang? I mean, in the mainstream MU.)

15:34 / 11.12.02

Yeah, Flux, tell us for once and all how many of you are here and stick to one identity.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:51 / 11.12.02

Unless we're in an episode of Birds of Prey, I think it's safe to assume that Flux and Lawrence are different people.

15:55 / 11.12.02

Yes, but I currently think ol' Flux is just one side of a multi-sided player here.

16:02 / 11.12.02

I see your point, and agree entirely. The problem is *shit* continuity. If you don't need to understand the entire continuity to understand a story, then well and good. Take "X-Men; Evolution" as an example of "kid continuity": There are established characters and established situations, the character interactions are consistent but the characters are recapped, and storylines build, close and are replaced by new ones, which can be read alone or as part of the continuing narrative.

This must be some sort of timing record, because I agree with you here!

On the other hand, when a storyline hinges on something Moses Magnum said five years ago in a different comic, you're in trouble.

I don't think this is necessarily the case, provided everything is re-established. It's difficult to tell meaningful stories if the past can't impact on the present. The key thing is to provide new readers with the tools to follow the narrative.

Sebastian - I am not Flux. You can find me arguing with him on the first page of this very thread.

Haus - I don't think Flux and I disagree about everything...

16:14 / 11.12.02

I find that in these kind of debates, various people will only see the other side in absolutes. Feel that superheroes are holding back the industry and that there should be more diversity of product? Well, you must hate superheroes. Think that there should be more comics for kids? You must think comics are a juvenile medium that doesn't have a place for product for adults. Think continuity can hamper the introduction of new readers and that there should be more stand alone issues? Fuck, it was good enough for me and if other people can't hack it, they should spend their money elsewhere.

They are.

Whenever I read threads like this, it reminds me that the superhero comic book industry is dead. Three decades left, tops. The only large influx of new readers are those that are bypassing the superhero phase and going directly into alt-comix like Ghost World and Jimmy Corrigan, or comic strips, which will almost surely survive, if in a diminished form.

Do I think superheroes are bad? Do I think that adult comics, or more specifically, superhero comics targeted at adults, are bad? Do I think continuity is bad? No. But some people do, and they have very little in the way of reading material available to them.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:24 / 11.12.02

But do we think that Ant-Man shagging is bad, or at least worse tan Ant-Man not shagging?

16:39 / 11.12.02

Do you really think superheroes are dead (in 3 decades,) moriarty? I don't - I genuinely think it's an oscillating thing. But fair points, otherwise.

Marvel produce excellent superhero comics for kids too - Ultimate Spider-Man and Waid's Fantastic Four, off the top of my head. And both are fairly unconstrained by continuity.

I think it's the direct market, and these publishers inability to get comics into a public forum that's killing the industry. An economics student might have something to say about the 'speculator craze' effects, too, possibly. I also think less kids read stories, sad as that is.

And I haven't applied absolutes to this argument at all <-- apart from that one.

Can we retitle this thread, please?

Regrettable Juvenilia

16:40 / 11.12.02

As long as Ant-Man isn't man-shagging. He's too good a character to be put through that kind of unnecessary, cheapening nonsense.

Ahem.

16:47 / 11.12.02

So far as I recall, Scott Lang has a child, so this probably wasn't his first time. Though, it is the Marvel Universe, so maybe he conceived using unstable molecules.

I'm far past caring what any of the comic companies have their characters do, and that includes Ant-Man knocking boots. They change their characters all the time. It's like how people complain about how the newest Doom Patrol is nothing like the "old" DP (read:Morrison's) while ignoring the fact that Morrison's run is nothing like the original DP. Whether you think it's for the best or not, someone out there was upset by Morrison's revisions.

Sorry, got off-topic. Worse things have happened to Kirby's charactersin the past, and worse things will happen in the future. I will sometimes wonder what they think they're doing with the characters, but I never get upset.

17:17 / 11.12.02

>>>What's your position on Catwoman, Cameron? I didn't intend my earlier comment as a "cheap shot" - I'm genuinely baffled by your comments in the context of your current job....do you mutter darkly when you get the scripts for this children's comic?<<<

Actually, Ed and I have had words several times over the content of Catwoman. There have been a few scenes that I have refused to draw and asked to be changed, because I felt that they were inappropriate in a book that doesn't even bear the "mature readers" stamp.

When I get the script I read through it thoroughly and if there's something that I particularly object to, I'll raise it with Ed and our editor. I'm not a hired monkey paid to keep my mouth shut and draw everything that I'm told, and like it - I do have input (not as much as I'd like, but that's another story). Ed's included panel descriptions and/or dialogue in the current storyline that I have not felt comfortable with, and so I have asked for revisions. Sometimes I get my way, sometimes I don't. You pick your battles.

17:20 / 11.12.02

Should I accuse you and Duncan of being the same person, Sebastian? Is it shocking that half a dozen people on this site think that the Marvel Universe should be for kids?

Comic writer and film maker Alejandro Jodorowsky (El Topo, Sante Sangre, The Incal) once said:

"This is why I like so much the plastic man of the 'Fantastic Four' in Marvel Comics. What's his name? He is married to the Invisible Girl. Plastic man and Invisible Woman can be great pornography. Plastic man fucking the girl and then he make his penis very, very, very thin and put inside her vein, and the penis can go, and go, and go from her vein to her heart. He can ejaculate in the center of his woman's heart. Fantastic! Fantastic!"

and yeah, its fantastic. I love his work and respect his vision as an arist. But if he wants to create that scene in a comic book he should create his own stretchy and invisible characters to do it.

17:23 / 11.12.02

Apologies to Duncan if you thought I was being short with you - not my intention.

17:28 / 11.12.02

There have been a few scenes that I have refused to draw and asked to be changed, because I felt that they were inappropriate in a book that doesn't even bear the "mature readers" stamp.

Interesting. Thanks for addressing this, Cameron.

If you had your druthers, what kind of comic book would Catwoman be? What age do you think it should target for readership?

18:07 / 11.12.02

>>>If you had your druthers, what kind of comic book would Catwoman be? What age do you think it should target for readership?<<<

I think that these type of comics should be accessible to ALL ages - and have content that is appropriate for children and adults alike. I see no reason why we can't make exciting, well-crafted action-adventure tales that hold appeal for people of all ages. The Batman animated series is, for the most part, the model of good superhero storytelling - interesting and sophisticated enough to hold the attention of the older viewer, and not seem like juvenile idiocy, but also entirely appropriate for younger viewers, with very little, if any, gratuitous or excessive sex and violence.

Sexiness is of course a fundamental part of the Catwoman character but there's a way to handle it that isn't sleazy or prurient. The sexuality, in my view, should be implied, not explicit, like the Cyclops/Emma example above. In THIS KIND OF COMIC - i.e. a mainstream superhero book without a Mature Readers label - I'd far rather we see two characters draw the blinds as we pull out of the window, than an explicit depiction of them gettin' it on.

18:22 / 11.12.02

But... Sebastian's Argentinian, he's even pm'd me...

Never mind - seriously weird. Not as weird as when HeroRealm accused me of being Grant Morrison, though. I was quite pleased about that.

Jodorowsky is, I think, renowned as having a strange attitude toward women, isn't he?

Cameron - no harm, no foul. I don't mind, did seem everyone was getting a bit het up is all. In THIS KIND OF COMIC - i.e. a mainstream superhero book without a Mature Readers label - I'd far rather we see two characters draw the blinds as we pull out of the window, than an explicit depiction of them gettin' it on. You're aware, now, that Alias is neither, then, I take it? And, otherwise, I agree.

18:25 / 11.12.02

Incidentally, Cameron, where are you from? You've a very Scottish name.

Just curious.

18:38 / 11.12.02

Is Barbelith dying?

18:40 / 11.12.02

Piss off.

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:58 / 11.12.02

In THIS KIND OF COMIC - i.e. a mainstream superhero book without a Mature Readers label - I'd far rather we see two characters draw the blinds as we pull out of the window, than an explicit depiction of them gettin' it on.

So how about a book with superheroes in *with* a Mature Readers label? Like Alias? Is the use of superheroes basically a red flag to the "mature content", and if so is it because of the imperative to remain true to a character's origins in non-mature readers comics (in which case, whither DKR?) or just because sex and superheroes are a fundamentally bad combination?

[Threadrot]I like Flyboy's idea.

MAN WITH ANTS meets MAN IN PANTS!

Don't miss the senses-shattering climax![/Threadrot]

19:05 / 11.12.02

DKR is a bad example because Batman killed criminals in his early appearances. I thought everyone knew this.

19:11 / 11.12.02

But that was pre-crises so I guess it doesn't count.

19:20 / 11.12.02

Oh, Cam, so you are not even going to draw for us Emma being, well, what you said?

Flux, great quote, it hit a an old string in my memory!! I had read that interview many years ago and I remember being impressed by that paragraph, reading and re-reading and re-reading and re-reading it. In Argentina it was published in a different magazine. For those interested the full interview to the chilenean writer-director-magus can be read at JODOROWSKY THE PENTHOUSE INTERVIEW.

And no, I am not shocked by people thinking that the Marvel universe should be for kids, I just think I would be left out of it becuase I have completely lost my interest about a universe invented solely for the type of kids Marvel was addressing -and engineering, whether consciously or not- in the 60s and 70s, and I even barely hang to the universe created for Ultimate Spider-Man.

But thankfully I still have a chance to get to see Hank Pym poisoning his wife in The Ultimates, Hulk being mesmerised by the Wasp's boobs in the same book, and eventually Ant-Man shagging Jessica whenever I decide to start reading Alias.

And this thing of mistrusted identities makes me think of a Mozart opera.

So, who here considers himself to be a spawn of the Marvel Kiddie Universe? Would that be necessary confliciting with reading Alias #17??

19:37 / 11.12.02

Um...I'm not Flux.

Page: 1(2)3 4