JulianPerez
Council of Wisdom
Offline
Posts: 1168
|
|
« on: August 16, 2006, 12:49:26 PM » |
|
Would I have my Classic Comics Fan Badge taken away if I was to say that Mr. Tawny, the Talking Tiger was an annoying and unloveable character, and his introduction to the cast was officially the moment that Captain Marvel jumped the shark?
There's been a lot of talk recently about a Captain Marvel reboot or update. In one column, Erik Larsen excoriated post-Crisis writers for just not getting the point with the character, and he points to the fact that Captain Marvel is no longer the big name that Superman is. However, I think this argument is missing one thing:
Captain Marvel has NOT received continuous publication, like Superman has.
Unlike Superman, our definition of who Captain Marvel is, and what his stories are about, is perpetually trapped in amber in the 1940s-1950s.
If you look at Superman stories in the early to late 1950s, they are very similar to Captain Marvel stories of around the same time: an emphasis on whimsical oddity and hallucinogenic concepts. These were the years that gave us Siegel's addition of Mxytzplk (later Mxyzptlk), for instance, Superbaby, Krypto Mouse, and the giant paint set in the Fortress of Solitude. Superman was...well, he was kind of goofy (not in a bad way, of course, like Terra-Man would later be).
I don't need to tell Superman's history, but the point here is, every five years, his stories became different, and as times changed, Superman changed as well, and rather gracefully for the most part (the very seventies Star Wars grandeur of SUPERMAN VS. MOHAMMED ALI come to mind).
Supergirl started out being a Mary Marvel equivalent in the 1950s, but it's no coincidence everybody says her best stories were in the 1960s. And come the 1970s, Supergirl was living everywhere from Florida to Chicago, being everything from soap star and model. If Supergirl started out as Mary Marvel, eventually she stopped and became something else. If that's the case, what would have happened to the actual Mary Marvel in the same time?
Elements that proliferated in Superman's stories in the 1950s and 1960s, like for instance, Kryptonian monsters like the Flame Dragon or King Krypton, were less apparent come later decades.
Brainiac came in the 1950s as a rather goofy looking alien tyrant, and came into the 1980s as a very spooky liquid metal supercomputer out to find and replace God.
What is the POINT to all this?
The point is that if Superman's history is any indication, Captain Marvel ditching his 1950s-style whimsy and acid-trip abnormality isn't the worst idea in the world, and that these elements can't be pointed as "necessary" to who Captain Marvel is, and how his stories should be told, because I bet if he had kept on being published, we'd have a very different conception of CM. Hey, if Gaiman's SANDMAN had been written in the 1950s, it would have been more like LITTLE NEMO IN SLUMBERLAND.
This comparison works, because the model of how to do a Captain Marvel update should be SANDMAN. There in SANDMAN, there was weird and intriguing idea after idea, and a wonderful sense of humor, but Gaiman didn't throw in a goddamn "Talking Tiger." Its aesthetic was very contemporary.
This is not to say that an untalented person getting their hands on CM will work. What it does mean, however, is that a talented person can do a Marvel story without a talking tiger, and it doesn't mean it becomes an exercise in futility.
So, here's what Superman can teach Captain Marvel:
Updating your enemies is a good idea. Villains work because of the fear they are able to create. The trick is, figuring out what about them works and emphasizing what's needed to make them interesting. Brainiac from the outset didn't understand human behavior, but this was used to make him cold, scary, and alien much later.
Not making use of some supporting cast members isn't necessarily bad. The Super-Pets vanished off the scene post-Weisenger, for instance (with the exception of Krypto). for the same reason Bette and Kathy Kane did in Batman's book: they wanted to tell different kinds of stories that they're participation in would have been inappropriate.
Don't just do a straight up reboot. Keep what you need in play to not tell the same story over again. God, the single most annoying thing about the Byrne reboot was the way they felt they had to bring in new villains "again" and tell the same stories "again." I can just imagine Helfer, Karl Kesel and the rest chomping on cigars, asking "hey, how can we bring back Terra-Man...but cool?" Do we really need another version of the Monster Society of Evil story? I mean, we've already had the big ending blown for us about Mr. Mind.
Think about how Captain Marvel can interact with the DC Universe. I, and many others, have insisted that Captain Marvel ought to have his own earth...but maybe that's because nothing that interesting was done with him on DC-Earth. Superman, come the 1970s, had Krypton's story interwoven with the Guardians of the Universe for interesting effect, and the bringing in of Shazam elements can benefit everyone.
Do put a twist on a very boring idea. Not every idea in the Super-Mythos is a winner, and if you get the opportunity, put a spin on it that makes it interesting. Ambush Bug first showed up as a villain, but then was reinterpreted as a demented mischevious character in comedy adventures.
A friend of mine were talking on one occasion, and he said something like, "you know, if Hillbilly Marvel was a woman, 'Billie' Batson, a sort of Li'l Abner type dame, it would save the entire idea of the Lieutenant Marvels, because suddenly their entire relationship would be recontextualized."
|