Silver Age Continuity

[MatterEaterLad]

But why is it wrong to think that "Chinatown" or "Godfather" levels of violence may serve well in those vehicles but not thinking they belong in comics?

To me, it seems fine to think that some people might think so, but it seems equally fine to me that others think not so much.

What *I* think is that the context of the 50s and 60s needs to be taken into account as well, and the comics of that time seemed to meet readers' expectations in spades.

I can't see any more effective way to compare Binder to Johns than I can see comparing Goethe to Mark Twain.

[TELLE]

I can't believe you're seriously arguing that hearsay on the internet is just as legitimate a way of acquiring an opinion than actually reading the works themselves.

Julian, it's funny that in an argument about reading that you didn't actually read what I wrote.  I did write that I occasionally read modern superhero comics, in paper form and on the internet.

 

Brad Meltzer is a certainly a writer "of a certain level". Unfortunately,  it is a very low level. 

QUESTION: How do you know that?

I do read books without pictures, also.  Occasionally trying to read pulpy crap like Meltzer's

In many ways, hatred of Bat-Mite by superhero comics fans is ironically a form of self-hatred:

Yeah, that would be pretty ironic...if fans despised Bat-Mite for being a fanboy, instead of because he's annoying and doesn't belong in Batman comics.

Bat-Mite is the uber-fan, at once a funny comment on fandom, hero-worship, and childhood.

No. No he isn't.

Cue the Monty Python argument sketch.

To be fair, many Lois Lane characters were open-ended and/or bland enough to have tons of potential for a smart modern writer to sink his or her teeth into. Plus they were better designed (usually by Schaffenberger) than any modern garbage.

Yeah? Name me ONE.

Dino del Monaco.

I love Kurt Schaffenberger and he is obviously very talented, but his cartoony art style is not appropriate for superheroes and adventure comics.

We're talking about the guy who drew hundreds of million-selling Capt. Marvel and Superman comics, right?

In fact, I think Juan Bobillo and Chris Sprouse are a little too cartoony for adventure books, which is based on the tradition of guys like Foster, Kubert, Adams, and Buscema.

And Joe Shuster, Wayne Boring, Dick Sprang, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, Ramona Fradon, etc etc.

I think you're confusing two different things: fandom's information network, and media attention to comics.

Fandom's information network is now the media.

[Superman Forever]

I think violence in comics is not bed, per si, and actually serves well in a book like Sin City, by Frank Miller, or Preacher, by Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon. Even in some superhero comics - you can´t have The Punisher without violence. But I don´t think it would be the case in a book starring Superman or crossong with him in the DC Universe, like Infinite Crisis and 52. Superman is not only for kids, but it should be a for all ages character. And Geoff Johns, while being good on characters drama and superhero action, is doing his gore scenes more because it´s cool today than to serve the stories. It´s something very derivative of Mark Millar´s The Authority, and totally not apropriate to such books as Green Lantern and Action Comics. Johns, bad writer? No. But his violence scenes are out of context.   

[Superman Forever]

Hey, just because I haven't had a pull list since 1988 doesn't mean you can discount the power of current-comics-continuity-knowledge-through-osmosis.

Well, have they?  This was talked about on another thread: where are all the classic characters created since 1986?

II'll tell you now what I said then: I reject the entire premise of this conversation, which has innovation in worldbuilding be a constant, neverending process. It isn't and it shouldn't be.

Eventually, there comes a point where the Marvel or DC earth is so well-established and developed that it not only isn't POSSIBLE to do some kinds of additions (e.g. giving Thor another brother, which would be unbelievable at this point, or creating a new underground kingdom: the Marvel Underground Earth is pretty mapped out now, to the point where any addition would involve answering "why doesn't the Mole Man, Project: Pegasus, or Tyrannus know of this?"), it isn't necessarily desirable, either.

Aren´t you guys reading Marvel series Runaways? Maybe it´s not a CLASSIC, yet, but it sure is the closest thing we have right now in terms of new succeeding characters. Brian K. Vaughan created a reaaly good team of new teenage characters, well stablished in the Marvel continuity, that is reader friendly, with lots of action and smart personalities. With a run by nerd icon and multimedia star Joss Whedon, and a new season by indie comics phenomenon Terry Moore, I think you get the idea. They are not flavor of the week.

[TELLE]

I've heard good things about that series.  Time will tell, I guess, what is a classic character.  This being the modern age, Vaughan may take the characters with him beyond Marvel, no?

[JulianPerez]

Julian, it's funny that in an argument about reading that you didn't actually read what I wrote.  I did write that I occasionally read modern superhero comics, in paper form and on the internet.

Alright, but correct me if I am misrepresenting what you're saying here...isn't the thrust of your point that you can acquire comics lore through osmosis?

I do read books without pictures, also.  Occasionally trying to read pulpy crap like Meltzer's

I went into BOOK OF FATE thinking it was going to be a beach read. Which was what it was, so I wasn't disappointed. I suppose its subjective. I am willing to forgive a great many flaws in a thriller if it is paced well. And Meltzer does pace well.

On the other hand...

JACK AND BOBBY had a very irksome "self-hating Jewishness" about it that really, really turned me off. That was by far the least of its crimes, however.

It was the TV equivalent of one of those schmaltzy, totally unwatchable movies like PATCH ADAMS or PAY IT FORWARD that are self-congratulatory about their quality, emotionally pornographic, and try to be feel-good and inspirational, but are so fake they make you wish all mankind would spontaneously combust and die.

Dino del Monaco.

Amusingly enough, the example of Dino actually strengthens my point: the reason that story was interesting was because it was a very atypical LOIS LANE story. It didn't fall into the gimmickry that plagued the book (e.g. fake marriages, Lois v. Lana, Lois getting powers, transformations) With the Italian scenery, and the sensitive artist/female fantasy Italian lover, it was more like an issue of a romance comic aimed at women.

If they did a Lois Lane comic TODAY, stories like a guy trying to marry her for a green card would be the sort of tale that would fill it up.

Though I dunno if the character of Dino del Monaco has potential. For one thing, the guy was a pretty one-dimensional scumbag giggolo. He wasn't that complicated. If he really DID love Lois or had second thoughts...maybe I'd agree with you.

We're talking about the guy who drew hundreds of million-selling Capt. Marvel and Superman comics, right?

Many artists do superheroes spend most of their career doing superheroes, who have a style that is not really suited for them. Kurt S. is one, I'd say, and I'd lump Dick Dillin, Gene Colan and Don Heck into that category too (though Heck is one of my five favorite artists of all time).

And heck...Gil Kane, as great as he is...my favorite Kane stuff were things like his Westerns, and the issues he did with Roy Thomas as guest-artist on CONAN THE BARBARIAN.

And Joe Shuster,

Who said he was a good artist?

Wayne Boring, Dick Sprang,

Neither of these guys are all that cartoony. Underneath their simple lines they had a real sense of solidity. They were very grounded. Batman had no neck, but he looked like he could throw a punch and take 'em.

Jack Kirby,

At the point when Kirby was the most influential, he was the least "cartoony," and had a realistic polish and glamour. Nobody ever imitated Kirby's more abstracted, less realistic, craggy and squiggly later art except in deliberate parody (e.g. McCloud).

But I don´t think it would be the case in a book starring Superman or crossong with him in the DC Universe, like Infinite Crisis and 52. Superman is not only for kids, but it should be a for all ages character.

I'm not disagreeing with you...maybe you're right.

But think back to when YOU were a kid. Trust your own experiences instead of listening to the "Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy" types.

Did YOU like violence? I sure did! I was a filthy little savage. I loved reading Tarzan books because he was a wild, crazy phony that pulled a guy's throat out with his bare hands. My parents forbade me from seeing JURASSIC PARK, but I snuck and went to see it anyway, because I heard it had dinosaurs eating people.

I loved the giant JANE'S WEAPONS SYSTEMS books. To this day, I can remember all the major Russian tanks and Norwegian anti-submarine missiles.

And MAD Magazine. God, I loved that. It was absolutely vulgar and filthy, and while I didn't get half the jokes, it was wonderful because it didn't talk down to me.

I refuse to believe any of you were all that different. Okay, maybe you weren't borderline pyromaniacs like I was, but...as a kid, who didn't use swear words, or read those National Geographics with the naked women, or furtively sneak a drink from Dad's liquor cabinet?

The point I'm trying to make is, there's something misplaced about the urge to "protect" children from sex and violence. Maybe if I had my own children I'd feel differently about it, but what kids want to see are dinosaurs eating people and zombies. Is it so wrong for creators to give these things to them?

[Uncle Mxy]

Many artists do superheroes spend most of their career doing superheroes, who have a style that is not really suited for them.

What's "suited" and "appropriate" to "superheroes" and "adventure" is a matter of taste.  I like the fact that there's a diversity of artists and styles going on.  If someone were to have those misplaced "cartoony" sorts like Bruce Timm, Darwyn Cooke, Chris Sprouse, or Steve Rude find their way to a Superman monthly, I'd have a big smile on my face. 

At the point when Kirby was the most influential, he was the least "cartoony," and had a realistic polish and glamour. Nobody ever imitated Kirby's more abstracted, less realistic, craggy and squiggly later art except in deliberate parody (e.g. McCloud).

Tell that to the folks who grew up entertained by lots of animated Kirby, who try to sing the rest of the words that go after "when Captain America throws his mighty shield..."  The kids of the era were also entertained by less-realistic, abstract, craggly, and squiggly -- Ralph Bakshi Spider-Man, swinging through a psychedelic landscape, fighting someone green.  Much as there's different styles of artists that can entertain in a comic book, there are many different styles of entertaining cartoon animation. 

The point I'm trying to make is, there's something misplaced about the urge to "protect" children from sex and violence. Maybe if I had my own children I'd feel differently about it, but what kids want to see are dinosaurs eating people and zombies. Is it so wrong for creators to give these things to them?

If you grow up repressed, you may hear those famous words "I'm Chris Hansen from Dateline NBC".  If you're overexposed, you turn into a violent raping psycho.  The key is moderation, and reasonable people disagree on what's moderate is, especially for what young age group.  Joe Camel was the tip of the iceberg.  Today's parents deal with forces pushing lifetime brand recognition and acceptance by the age of 1-2 years old when they're most impressionable.  There's this open two-way street called the Internet that doesn't account for age, where kids being very knowledgable in its use is key for future success.  They s feel that their children are under assault from the moment they're born, if not sooner.

Will the world eventually be too cynical for Superman as we recognize him, except as some kind of farce?  Are us older comic book geeks looking for something that resonates with their youth, regardless of what matters to today's young?  What things should Superman tackle that deal with issues that the younger kids have to deal with?  During the '90s, it was gang warfare, right? 

[DBN]

I'm not disagreeing with you...maybe you're right.

But think back to when YOU were a kid. Trust your own experiences instead of listening to the "Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy" types.

Did YOU like violence? I sure did! I was a filthy little savage. I loved reading Tarzan books because he was a wild, crazy phony that pulled a guy's throat out with his bare hands. My parents forbade me from seeing JURASSIC PARK, but I snuck and went to see it anyway, because I heard it had dinosaurs eating people.

I loved the giant JANE'S WEAPONS SYSTEMS books. To this day, I can remember all the major Russian tanks and Norwegian anti-submarine missiles.

And MAD Magazine. God, I loved that. It was absolutely vulgar and filthy, and while I didn't get half the jokes, it was wonderful because it didn't talk down to me.

I refuse to believe any of you were all that different. Okay, maybe you weren't borderline pyromaniacs like I was, but...as a kid, who didn't use swear words, or read those National Geographics with the naked women, or furtively sneak a drink from Dad's liquor cabinet?

The point I'm trying to make is, there's something misplaced about the urge to "protect" children from sex and violence. Maybe if I had my own children I'd feel differently about it, but what kids want to see are dinosaurs eating people and zombies. Is it so wrong for creators to give these things to them?

Did you feel that the Maggin/Bates books were talking down to you? I didn't. Those books included a Lex Luthor who destroyed an entire planet full of people while taking his vengeance upon Superman. Did that book explicitly show individuals being incinerated by the destruction? No. Would I have a problem letting my son read that particular book? No.

Violence has always been a part of superhero comics and always will. What matters is depiction. The superhero comics I grew up with didn't show Black Adam ripping someone in half or show a crocodile man eating someone alive. What's the point in this? Shock value? Why not go off panel? The end result is still the same.

What perplexes me more is DC's VP of Editorial directly saying that the DC Universe line of comics are all-ages books and then having crap like the above in those books. So, he's telling me that stuff like Infinite Crisis, 52, etc. are in the same class as All-Star Superman? Because if he is, then he's mentally deficient and needs to be removed from his position.