BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Comic Books >

Silly fatbeard, (superhero) comics are for____!

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Matthew Fluxington
20:18 / 29.12.01
quote:Originally posted by biomagnetic k9:
except I think that the few iconic characters Marvel and DC have should continue to have updated stories for the new generations because kids aren't interested in stories set 20 or 30 years ago!


That is just so not true! That's like saying kids can't possibly get into any and all classic literature or movies etc because no one in any of that is saying the word 'phat' or whatever... Kids are not all that shallow and dumb. All of the things that would appeal to a kid about Ultimate Spider-Man is in the original Lee/Ditko/Romita comics, everything since has been a rehash of the same material 'updated' but with diminishing returns. All of those Ultimate comics will be dated soon anyway, so what's the point? Even in terms of money, it makes more sense to repackage the original comics rather than the characters...they only have to pay back royalties (sometimes not even that...) to reprint the old comics, there's more overhead involved in making new comics and in paying 'star' talent like Millar, Bendis, the Kuberts, and Bryan Hitch.

[ 29-12-2001: Message edited by: FLX = RD ]
 
 
bio k9
20:44 / 29.12.01
Well, sure, kids can still enjoy the Brothers Grimm and stuff but I still think that most kids would prefer their superheros to look and act like modern people. The origional Spiderman comics take place in a society so different from ours I think it may distract kids from enjoying the main thrust of the stories. Picture a 9 year old reading Mary Jane, in bellbottoms, saying "Groovy, tiger!" What the hell is that? Its so far removed from their cultural experiance theyre just going to laugh at it.

I was also thinking (but admittedly not typing) about Superman. Hes an icon. And hes rusty. I think he should be polished up and used to entertain and teach children values. And lets face it, everything teaches some sort of values. If Superman always tries to do the right thing and manages to be cool at the same time... And not just to white kids. Remember Icon? The black Superman ripoff from DCs milestone line was a great idea and was written and drawn better than Supes at the time. Look kids, Supermans not a stuffy old white guy, hes an alien. And on the surface he looks just like you.
 
 
bio k9
20:58 / 29.12.01
If I'm rambling a bit its because Ive been on the Baileys and chocolate milk for most of the morning.

Anyway, I don't care if the whole comic industry goes up in flames. No more New X Men comics? So what. I've other ways to entertain myself. And kids will find some other way to entertain themselves (oh wait, they already have). I also know that if the mainstream goes under, someone, somewhere, will be publishing their own comics because they love the artform and the possibilities it allows them. And they will blow us away.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
09:06 / 30.12.01
Bailey's + Chocolate Milk: I've actually never heard of that, obvious as it may be, but it sounds fucking brilliant. I want one!
 
 
bio k9
09:09 / 30.12.01
Then I'll pour another. But if you don't get here soon I'll have to drink it. Cheers.
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:12 / 30.12.01
Please do not yell at me for this, but could somebody - maybe Cameron or Flux - explain why superhero comics' main audience should automatically be kids? I mean, movies like Batman and X-Men were marketed to adults, and watched by tons of adults (who may or may not have been suffering developmental retardation). So why are comics for adults intrinsically wrong?

I'm sorry, I've never read many superhero comics and I am genuinely trying to understand your argument.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
09:34 / 30.12.01
My position is that ideally, superhero comics should be written as an all-ages sort of thing, but I should hasten to add that my idea of what 'all ages' entails is far more liberal than most people would consider... I think that swearing and sexuality in tasteful moderation is fine for an audience that includes children, for example - but only when the story logically calls for such things. I'm not of a mind to believe that children be unneccesarily sheltered from the realities of the world. But that's another topic.

More or less, it seems that Cameron's bugbear (and to a lesser degree, my own) is the appropriation of what were originally children's characters for a strictly adult market. We both share the opinion that it is not good for a) the fans of such material, as they are better off seeking out material that suits their 'adult' tastes without the crutch of being attached to children's mythology, b) the creators who may be better off telling these stories without having the 'superhero' stuff get in the way of what the seem to really want to write about, c) the industry, which is killing off its youth market by neglecting to make comics of interest to that demographic, and would also be better off having its talent focus on something other than reinvigorating dying superhero franchises for a shrinking adult audience and instead work on creating something which may have broader appeal outside of the marketplace.

This doesn't mean that all superhero comics intended for adults are bad... it just means that the continuous recycling of old characters for an aging audience which demands its childhood interests to constantly grow and mature with them is self-defeating and stifling the market. Now, as Haus pointed out in another thread, I'm as guilty of feeling this way as anyone else...as noted in this thread, I've been following the X-Men comics on and off since I was 7 years old...I'm 22 now. Am I glad that one of my favorite writers is writing the comic in a way that I can enjoy now without feeling silly about it? Yeah. But I know that if Grant had never started writing it (and to a lesser degree, Mark Millar), I probably would just move on and keep my eye on the comics out of curiosity, as I have in the past when the comic was just too crap to justify purchasing. I will always have a big sentimental spot in my heart for the X-Men, so I know how it feels to be on the other side of this. Still, Grant's New X-Men isn't an example of writing a children's comic for an adult audience, because I feel that he is writing the comic as an all-ages action-adventure-scifi thing...

A superhero comic that is geared towards adults like The Authority or Watchmen is a bit different, and is an exception to the rule, because they are original characters invented for the series, and though are based on existing archetypes, do not exist to reinvent old corporate properties or satisfy a nostalgic audience.

[ 30-12-2001: Message edited by: FLX = RD ]
 
 
CameronStewart
09:34 / 30.12.01
What he said.

>>>I mean, movies like Batman and X-Men were marketed to adults<<<

Not really - there's very little in them that I recall that would be inappropriate for children. Neither of them were R-rated films. It's back to the all-ages thing.

I honestly have trouble understanding why you have trouble understanding why superheroes are kids' characters.

Superheroes should be made for kids to enjoy because the brightly-coloured circus costumes and tales of fantasy and high adventure are more likely to appeal to them than say, Safe Area Gorazde or From Hell. Creating comics that kids can enjoy is a good thing - an IMPORTANT thing - because, as Whitney Houston says, they are our future.

The idea is that when they grow up, they move on to more sophisticated work, as you would in any other medium.

It's worth pointing out (again, for those that can't seem to grasp it) that:

a) I do not think ALL comics should be for kids. I support and encourage the growth of sophisticated adult-oriented work in comics - JUST NOT IN FUCKING SPIDER-MAN.

b) I do not think that "for children" necessarily equals "limp, simplistic, and puritanically dull." I do not think that entertainment for children has less worth or merit or craft than that made for adults.

Interesting you bring up Watchmen, Flux, because even though it's the rare exception to the rule, Alan Moore has openly stated that he thinks the concept of "adult-oriented" superheroes is ludicrous and Watchmen was an attempt to kill off the superheroe genre, that backfired horribly...

[ 30-12-2001: Message edited by: CameronStewart ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
09:34 / 30.12.01
quote: I honestly have trouble understanding why you have trouble understanding why superheroes are kids' characters.

It's not so much that I have trouble understanding that, but I am a bit iffy on the set of axioms that seem to go with it. For example:

Superhero comics are primarily for kids; kids should be allowed access to a broad range of material, including sex and adult themes, because they're not as dumb as adults think; we shouldn't make 'adult' comics because they alienate the kids who should be reading.

The X-Men movie wasn't marketed to adults because there was nothing in it kids shouldn't see; the Hulk should be in every issue of his comic or it's not for kids.

Superheroes are intrinsically childish in a way that, say, wrestling, scifi and fantasy or the average action movie aren't, largely because they wear funny costumes.

The Hulk and Spiderman are intrinsically childish; X-Men isn't; this has nothing to do with who's writing the titles, even if one's favourite writer happens coincidentally to be writing X-Men.

Any adult who enjoys superhero comics is emotionally/intellectually stunted; well-written superhero comics should, could and do appeal to adults as well as their target audience (i.e., kids).

Comic companies should give up the idea they need to maintain 'icon' characters from thirty years ago nobody cares about; it's very important that they stick to the original target audience for 'icon' characters from thirty years ago nobody cares about.

Actually, I can understand and even accept all of these premises. What I can't understand is why you get so riled up about it. Actually, I can even understand that. What I really can't understand is how I can be so bored as to type all that. What is wrong with me?

I dunno, I just think a few of you are being a bit obsessively rigid, in a way that isn't particularly well thought out.
 
 
CameronStewart
12:42 / 30.12.01
Although Flux and I are generally in sync, we do have some differing opinions, and there's a few instances in your above post where you've attributed bothof our differing viewpoints to me, thus making it appear that my argument is contradictory or ill thought out. Dirty pool.

>>>kids should be allowed access to a broad range of material, including sex and adult themes, because they're not as dumb as adults think; we shouldn't make 'adult' comics because they alienate the kids who should be reading.<<<

I don't think "sex and adult themes" should be present in kids' comics. That's my whole point.

And again, stop confusing "superheroes" with "comics." The genre is not the medium. I think we SHOULD have adult comics. But there should be kids comics too. At the moment there aren't many, and the ones that I think should be are being written for adults.

>>>Superheroes are intrinsically childish in a way that, say, wrestling, scifi and fantasy or the average action movie aren't, largely because they wear funny costumes.<<<

My point is that if you read any interviews with the CREATORS of all the major superhero characters, quite often it's mentioned that they were making these stories for children to enjoy. They were designed and conceived to appeal to children.

>>>The Hulk and Spiderman are intrinsically childish; X-Men isn't;<<<

I never said this, nor do I believe it. The X-Men were as much kids' characters as any other superheroes.

>>>Any adult who enjoys superhero comics is emotionally/intellectually stunted; well-written superhero comics should, could and do appeal to adults as well as their target audience (i.e., kids)<<<

No, again, twisting my words somewhat. An adult who continues to demand icons of their childhood to be twisted into lurid, violent sensationalism to match their newfound "maturity," WITHOUT interest in trying to find other age-appropriate material that satisfies that need, is in my opinion emotionally or intellectually stunted. Have a walk into any comic convention and there's your living proof - an undulating sea of imbecilic gawpmouthed man-children in stained Batman T-shirts. The Simpsons' "Comic Book Guy" stereotype exists for a reason.

I can and do enjoy a good superhero comic, just as I can and do enjoy a good childrens' book or film - but they're not my sole source of entertainment and so I do not expect them to cater to ALL my interests. I find other material that does.

>>>Comic companies should give up the idea they need to maintain 'icon' characters from thirty years ago nobody cares about; it's very important that they stick to the original target audience for 'icon' characters from thirty years ago nobody cares about.<<<

I think at this point many of these characters have been utterly exhausted of their story potential, which is why you get bored writers playing around with stupid ideas like doing a Hulk comic in which the title character is entirely absent. I do think that many of these characters are brilliant, though, and should still be around for kids to enjoy, either in reprints or, perhaps, retreads of existing stories.

Archie Digests remain some of the best-selling comics in North America (not least because they're available in supermakets and newsstands instead of confined to grimy specialty shops), and they're ENTIRELY composed of reprints of old stories (again deflating the argument that kids don't want to read "dated" or "anachronstic" material).

The only ones who are apt to complain about "reruns" are those who have been reading Spider-Man every month for the last 40 years, which, as I'm trying to illustrate, are NOT the ones that should be considered.

>>>What I can't understand is why you get so riled up about it.<<<

Well, because comics are my profession and my passion, and I think this is a serious problem that's poisoning the well. I get massively, massively depressed when I attend a convention and see hordes of dysfunctional adults wandering around, with almost no kids. No kids = no future, as Persephone (I think it was) pointed out with the post about moribund languages. I also wonder if I really want this to be my audience. How satisfying is it to know that my work is only being read by a cluster of obsessives who I'd likely avoid sitting next to on a bus?

>>>What I really can't understand is how I can be so bored as to type all that. What is wrong with me?<<<

Same thing that's wrong with me. I need to devote less attention to this and get back to work.

[ 30-12-2001: Message edited by: CameronStewart ]
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:29 / 30.12.01
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CameronStewart:
>>>The Hulk and Spiderman are intrinsically childish; X-Men isn't;<<<

That wasn't what I was trying to say at all...I was simply saying that as a little kid, I found the X-Men to be more appealing because it was obviously not written for an audience that wasn't just little kids. However, that comic never WASN'T for kids, even when there was implied sexuality, semi-obscured nudity, and implied swearing. Also, that was a purely anecdotal thing...I don't think that 80's Chris Claremont X-Men (much less Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol, which was a 'suggested for mature readers' comic) should be the paradigm for all comics sold to children. My argument was that complexity need not be at the expense of alienating children.

I think at this point many of these characters have been utterly exhausted of their story potential, which is why you get bored writers playing around with stupid ideas like doing a Hulk comic in which the title character is entirely absent. I do think that many of these characters are brilliant, though, and should still be around for kids to enjoy, either in reprints or, perhaps, retreads of existing stories.

We clearly share the same point of view here... I don't see why some characters need to be constantly modified to justify publication in the modern market when the original series still hold up well enough as reprints ... it's insulting to think that anybody is going to just throw the reprints aside simply for being old. It's not as though people don't read books, watch movies, or listen to music that aren't from this year... Just because Luke Skywalker hasn't been a character in a movie since 1983 doesn't mean he is to forever be forgotten by the public. Captain America comics are still published now more out of formality and some adult's desire to produce them for nostalgic reasons than because anyone younger than 20 wants to read them.

I think that if reprints were packaged nicely and sold with some dignity, people would buy them, and that would be fine. Those big black and white "Essential" Marvel books are great that way...I've bought a few myself, it's nice to get about 24 issues of Jack Kirby Fantastic Four for $12. A much better bargain that $3 for a modern retread of those ideas...


>>>What I really can't understand is how I can be so bored as to type all that. What is wrong with me?<<<

Same thing that's wrong with me. I need to devote less attention to this and get back to work.

I actually was just looking at that Drawing Board forum you linked to a while back, and I noticed that you actually post on at least three other forums in addition to Barbelith.... wow. Do you not sleep, man?
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
14:37 / 30.12.01
comics are for kids.

but the tv adaptation is for any old crunt?

re: Smallville.

etc.

sumthin to do with the medium's perception, surely.
 
 
Captain Zoom
14:44 / 30.12.01
ahh, the little thread that could.

My two cents. (if i keep putting my two cents in, i'm going to go broke!)

while I agree that super-heroes started out as kids fare, I don't think it's fair to say that the medium in general is for kids. There are divisions of all other genres separating kids lit from adult lit. I don't see why the super-hero genre should be exempt. It should just be done in a way like the Fantastic Four/Fantastic Four 1234 divide. Don't fuck with the regular series, but if you want to do something a little more "mature" (and can I just say that this word is not conveying what I mean. I wish I could think of a better one), then put it in a mini-series and be done with it.

I'm gonna take Marvel Knights out of my detraction of mature readers imprints. I think marvel knights is alright in that it serves as a more sophisticated but not necessarily adult-oriented take on the hero. Imagine a kid who reads Ultimate Spider-Man and hits 15 years old and says "Hey, I want something that's a little darker, 'cause that's how I feel right now, Oh, look, it's DAredevil."

Now, point well taken about Fury. What's up with that? But what about Alias? Bear with me here. If I can take my point that it's okay to have a division within this genre and run with it, is it okay for a creator to come up with a new character in a super-hero environment that is adult-oriented? (Did Bendis come up with that character, or is she just an obscure one that no one cared about?)

Anyway, I think that's where we've got to agree to disagree Cameron. I don't feel that the division of this genre into juvenille and mature titles is a bad thing. I do agree that taking a tried and true character (Captain America? What were they thinking?) and making it grim and gritty is wrong. In the regular series. If someone wants to write a gritty Cap series, do it a la FF1234 and leave the regular series alone. Oh, and I'd probably give the kid who asked the Gruenwald ones 'cause I loved them so much. Haven't read much Kirby Cap, but I'll take your word for it.

quote:

It's far harder to create a compelling, emotionally-affecting story that DOESN'T rely on violence, sex, and shock tactics, and should be the true test of a creator's ability.

A-Freakin'-Men. And this, my friend, is true of every single medium out there.

Mmmmmm. If we could get J.K Rowling to write one, just one, comic, it would be the largest selling title of all time. This is what Warren Ellis and so many others have talked about for so long. Get Stephen King to write a horror comic. Tom Clancy to script an espionage comic. Hell, get fucking Danielle Steel to do a romance comic. Anything, but get them there and watch the comics fly off the shelves. SAdly I'm sure that these people command too much money for the sinking comic companies to afford their services.

Shit, Cameron, a JK Rowling comic book. I can't even conceive of how many of those the kids would suck up. And she's perfect too, 'cause so many adults like her stuff too. I think what a lot of parents need is for something like this to happen so they can look at the comic and say "Hey, this person who's work got my kids reading seems to think comics are okay. Maybe they are." That's an exciting thought. JK Rowling. I'm gonna e-mail that woman.

Ah. The Comic Code thing was a bit tongue in cheek. My come-uppance for not getting your picture.

(Sorry 'bout flying off the handle like that. Don't know where my head was at yesterday.)

Your story of the DC editors is depressing. I see a little ray of hope with the new MArvel staff, though they're probably not much better. At least they're allowing their creators a little more freedom.

And you reveal yourself as an optimist in the end. I too feel it's possible to change the medium, or I would never have opened this store.

biomagnetic - so true. there is no media exposure for these super-heroes. I think it's very much for the same reason that Cameron says the kids comics aren't selling. The vast majority of exposure these heroes get isn't very good. It mystifies me in the same way that it mystifies me when a movie doesn't just lift a successful story directly from the comics. Do a Captain America (coming back to him a lot these days!) cartoon lifted directly from the Scourge storyline of the eighties. So fucking good. Who cares if no one knows who the villains are. Who cares if other heroes pop up and then disappear. It just makes people want to see more of them. Urrr....

I can't think of anything else I can add to this right now.

Zoom.
 
 
yawn - thing's buddy
14:53 / 30.12.01
there is confusion over medium/genre in this thread.

but then thats understandable, when the medium is represented 99% by one genre.

does anyone pause to think that the 40+ 'retards' at comic cons are aspiring/failed writers/artists who analyse genre comics to learn the tricks of the trade?

That'll be my excuse.
 
 
CameronStewart
15:02 / 30.12.01
>>>But what about Alias? Bear with me here. If I can take my point that it's okay to have a division within this genre and run with it, is it okay for a creator to come up with a new character in a super-hero environment that is adult-oriented?<<<

Bear in mind that the main selling point for issue #1 of Alias was the lead character getting fucked in the arse by Power Man. It's still lurid adult-oriented fiction set in the realm of children's characters. Why anyone would need to do this is beyond me - why didn't Bendis just write a detective story WITHOUT the superheroes, or set in a sci-fi environment of his own devise?

(Yeah, yeah, cos Marvel told him to - the point is, why did Marvel dictate this? If the point of MAX is to parallel Vertigo's line of comics for adults, surely the integrity of the line would be stronger by creating new material seperate from the main line of kids characters?)

I also think Alias is a poor example because it simply isn't very good - in any other medium than comics it would be regarded as utterly pedestrian...

I also would like to point out that, like Flux, I am more forgiving of comics like Watchmen or the Authority, because while the characters are based upon archetypes, they ARE original characters, and not distorted perversions of existing ones.

[ 30-12-2001: Message edited by: CameronStewart ]
 
 
Jackie Susann
18:58 / 30.12.01
quote: there's a few instances in your above post where you've attributed bothof our differing viewpoints to me, thus making it appear that my argument is contradictory or ill thought out. Dirty pool.

Just quickly - I didn't mean to say or imply that you thought or had said all those things; they were just supposed to be ideas which had accrued in the course of various debates. Should have made that clearer...
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
10:52 / 31.12.01
quote:Originally posted by CameronStewart:
and your question "why shouldn't they do adult versions of kids' characters?" the answer to which seems so screamingly obvious to me that I can't believe the question even need be asked.


Can we ask for an answer then? I'm desperately trying to catch up here so please ignore me if you've already answered this later in the thread.
 
 
Sax
11:28 / 31.12.01
Presumably because they're kids' characters?
 
 
Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo
18:43 / 31.12.01
Originally posted by CameronStewart:
and your question "why shouldn't they do adult versions of kids' characters?" the answer to which seems so screamingly obvious to me that I can't believe the question even need be asked.


Simple. Someone sees the Spider-Man cartoon and sees a cover of J. Scott Campbell Spider-Man bouncing around...picks it up and he's getting buggered by the Rhino. Say goodbye to comics.

DC moved to adult books in the right way with their Vertigo line, don't make them look like regular comics (darken the tone, since kids go toward brighter books...and I could go into that is frightening detail if anyone wants, but I know ya don't). Move toward making them trade paperbacks and if you have to use super-heroes, don't use obscure ones.

Marvel is doing it the right way as well, by making the books look different than standard Marvel fare, use more sophisticated art and layout, and hire the people who did it at DC.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply