Martinex1: Recently, I have been pondering the way some comic characters evolve and the way others seem fully formed from the first time they appear. Take a look at some of these pictures and I think you will see what I mean. The art or style may fit the times, but in some cases the characters are virtually untouched while others have significant modifications to design, motives, physical traits and even personality.
BLACK WIDOW:
SUPERMAN:
WASP:
GREEN LANTERN:
IRON MAN:
AUNT MAY:
CAPTAIN AMERICA:
What makes some characters work right from the start? Are icons born fully fledged? Do the different companies respect the genesis of their characters more than others? Are female characters treated differently than their male counterparts, or have they evolved to reflect the decades of change in our own culture? What about age - does that come into play? Do some characters need a boost in complexity? What would cause a total revamp of costume and design? Who do you think has stayed most true to their original core character over the decades? And what character do you think evolved the most?
Don't limit the conversation to the heroes depicted. Who do you think is worth discussing in this context... the Flash, Cyclops, Reed Richards, Batman, Alfred, or Plastic Man? Why do some characters work no matter what the era? Why do others need to change? What characters dropped from the popular heights because adjustments were not made?
So much to consider and discuss today at BitBA, so consider the options and open the conversation! Cheers!
12 comments:
Deep thoughts, Marti.
It’s really just a question of time in the sense that change is impossible without time and how the narratives in the Bronze Age treat time is going to affect what, how and why a character changes. I think that the two companies diverge in their strategies due to their histories, most notably in that DC employs the “legacy” hero more than Marvel does. Green Lantern is an example of this. There is also “twinning.” Two heroes, different people, same name (Captain Marvel) or two heroes, same person, different name (Hank Pym). Recently there is the “rebirth” phenomenon as well.
I think that some great examples of characters who have stayed true to their origins while going through various twists and turns until their moment came are Iron Man and Wonder Woman. I’m not sure if Spider-Man is currently connecting so well as Ms. Marvel (Kamala Khan) is right now with a younger audience, but the large conceits are the same and time will tell. One set of characters I believe have suffered from too much change are the X-Men, and Magneto in particular. Is there a position on the mutant “issue” that he has not held? And so, what does he really stand for anyway and can any more good stories come out of that continuity or even the lack of it?
Great topic, and cheers!
I once read an article in a DC publication where someone said that it was DC's policy that Superman and Batman remain eternally 29 years old (not literally in their time, but just for our sakes). It makes sense, because if you aged comic characters in real time… well you know.
That seems funny now considering the fact that these days Batman is portrayed as being in his mid to late 30's or even early 40's in the comics. And in the recent Batman v Superman and Justice League movies I surmised the age of Bruce Wayne / Batman to be around 47 years old (give or take a year). In BM v SM it showed on his mother's grave and that she died in 1981, and Bruce was around 9 or 10 at that time. So, in 2017 that would put him in his late 40's.
However, I think that Batman is one of those characters that has remained pretty true to form over the years, in both look and actions. Aside from a few detours here and there along the way. But that's to be expected in a character that's been around for more than 75 years.
The comics industry has changed massively in the past 15 or so years. Back in the day it seemed important for a character to maintain a strict status quo in look, personality and motivation. This created a stable and very recognizable brand identity that the consumer could rely on. And artists were required to follow detailed style sheets in order to maintain a given character's official look. This was so important that DC still insisted on using Curt Swan's Superman artwork on merchandise even after John Byrne took over the reigns of the character. According to Byrne that was one of the main reasons he quit doing the books. They also had Swan redraw Jack Kirby's Superman faces when he was with DC (blasphemy)!!
These days, however both Marvel and DC's characters seem to change costumes and motivations every other monday. So, it's kind of hard to keep up with what's what and who's who nowadays. I personally preferred the days when you could just count on Spider-Man being Spider-Man, and Captain America being Captain American, and so on.
Very interesting topic, Marti!
William makes a solid point about the comics industry's sea change over the last 165 years or so.'Once upon a time', I was quite concerned with what was considered 'canon', and in keeping track of the back story of my favorite characters. That has changed: as titles/characters/histories shift so frequently now, I look at everything is 'What If' tales. No longer is continuity necessary, or following each monthly issue of a title religiously. I just look for a good, interesting story and leave it at that.
Now, if the industry changed, and extended continuities returned to monthly comics, and the whole Bronze Age sensibility was restored: I'd love it. But that's not very likely, and that's ok. There is still much to enjoy about the medium, and it's many facets, genres and characters. One thing I've accepted as I've grown older (yes, I gotta face it) is that things change. And truth be told, things were changing even in our Bronze age- some Golden and Silver age enthusiasts lamented the decline of pop culture even then...
For me, it's not so much the look of a character (although Aunt May's de-aging took some getting used to) but their personalities. I hate it when a new writer comes in and completely changes the way the character thinks and acts. I get that writers want to put their own stamp on characters, but doing it at the expense of everything that came before bothers me.
Plus, it makes the character's history much more convoluted, so you end up with stories where Superman or Captain America killed someone, then later those stories are wiped out for no reason. Or Flash Thompson matures from a high school bully into a real person, then gets turned back into a Neanderthal bully again ... then a few years later, becomes a war hero and symbiote host. I'm not saying characters should stagnate, but swings between polar opposite traits can get a bit overwhelming.
If I were to try and answer the questions it would take me a month to write an answer, lol. I am of the opinion that Marvel and D.C. should have stayed true to the characters in the sense that the target audience was 10-12 year olds. The characters stay the same, the readers age and find something else to read as desired.
Instead they let the writers chase their own desires, or change the characters for an older readership which I think was an error. The characters should have stayed the same in their original books with the continuous numbering.
Reconceiving the characters or the universe should have been under different titles, maybe a subsidiary company of sorts.,, maybe something like D.C. 2000, and 10 years later DC2010, and in 2 years start DC 2020 where they alter the characters and their universe.? But all the while I could pick up Batman and Robin in Detective created in 1939.
Just quickly mentioning the first character I thought of for this post: Kingpin! Stan Lee wrote him in a more traditional superhero vein with trick weapons like the cane that zaps people. Frank Miller kept the appearance the same, but the stature of this villain seemed to grow even as the more fantastical elements were toned down (not all of them, he was still strong). Still, Kingpin as a Daredevil villain is much more omnipresent and fearsome than when he was just another Spider-Man villain.
-david p.
I definitely agree with Charlie Horse 47's assessment. It is very much in line with my own thinking on the subject. I believe that Stan Lee once stated that he was writing stories for people around 10 to 16 years old (or thereabouts). And I think that is the way comics should have stayed. Superhero comics were never really targeted to "adults". But many adults still enjoyed reading them (like myself). When you break it down, superheroes are kind of silly, what with the crazy powers and outlandish costumes and such. So, when you try to take that concept and make it all 100% realistic and serious it just doesn't work. In fact, the more real world and "adult" they try to make superheroes, the more silly they actually seem.
If you are someone who only wants to read adult material, with lots of dark violence, sex, and death, etc., then you probably shouldn't be reading superhero comics. You should go read crime novels or something else.
Hopefully someday superhero comics will return to just telling fun, good vs. evil adventure stories and quit with all the forced melodrama and soap opera shorelines.
Dang, I missed this post yesterday. I'm always late to the party (at least Edo hasn't replied yet, so maybe he'll talk to me ;)
Anyway, I am going to dissent with the conversation above and say I wish Marvel characters did age and change and get replaced. Maybe not at the exact speed of "real time" but close enough that Peter Parker should be a grandfather by now, Dr. Strange should have white hair and only be among the living b/c he is on his way to be the new "Ancient One," Tony Stark should have succumbed to a heart attack a long time ago, etc. . . I think this kind of continuity (like the Phantom, Gasoline Alley, or Love and Rockets) would also allow for the updating of more diverse characters without the undermining sense that the originals will always come back and thus that the "real" versions of these characters can only ever be mostly white and mostly guys. I think it'd also allow the audience to get used to that kind of eventual change since characters could be introduced way before they take the mantle of a hero.
As for the age of the audience, I think it is totally possible to do this and keep most of the series "all-ages," which is distinct from "for kids." This aging/growing/changing perspective will also allow for a growing and changing audience as each new generation sees the characters around their age grow up with them.
Anyway, at the risk of contradicting what I wrote above, I have written about the change in serial comic characters through a focus on Susan Richards nee Storm (aka the Invisible Girl/Woman): Girl, You’ll Be an Invisible Woman Soon: Defining Serial Characters
The hard part of evolution with serial medium characters who have been around a long time is when the character is presented to the reader with both the core element of their character, and their longevity and overall significance in history. For instance, it's hard to read Spider-Man as both a wise cracking sophomore AND the lynchpin of the Marvel Universe (at least until Wolverine came along). In the Avengers books of 10 years ago, he was written as an annoying kid brother type, but at the same time, he's the guy who has been embracing his great responsibilities for decades. Another example would be Spenser (the detective), who cracks wise and bucks the establishment, even as he has basically become a senior member of the establishment over the course of the books.
One early characterization I never understood (even though I like him) is Steve Rogers. When you read Captain America in the bronze age, he's always calling people "son", etc., like he's everyone's uncle. But it's not as if he has all the life experience from his time on ice, right? In Avengers 4 when he is thawed out, he should be basically 25 years old, which is not old enough to be calling Spider-Man "son." I feel like a lot of that was dropped in the most recent series of his that I read.
Aunt May was characterized way too old at the start. If Peter was fifteen when bitten by the spider, why would Aunt May be portrayed as a 70something year old? The current characterization makes more sense - even if it jars our sense of tradition.
Maybe, but if Ben Parker was Richard Parker's older brother by 10 years (totally possible) and the Parkers had Peter in their 30s (again totally possible, esp. given their later revealed spy life - as much as I try to ignore that part of the story, I think that kind of ruins Spidey's everyman feel) then both Ben and May could easily have been in the 60s by the time Peter was 15. And 60-something in the early 1960s was older than 60-something now.
Post a Comment