Reasons for killing off older characters
Astromann
Can anyone guess why chacters like GL, GA and Flash (F?) were killed off
for younger characters, and while characters like Aquaman were left? Is
it basically the writer has to turn the character around or else? Is
this what happened? No matter what, Hal, Ollie and Barry just couldn't
be written for today's audience no matter what?
PAD is a better writer than I thought.
Astromann - Intergalactic Mann of Adventure!
---------
Brain: One day there will be a place where mice rule,
where humans are made to provide humiliating diversions.
Pinky: Do you mean Orlando?
Sean Walsh aka slw67
Astromann wrote:
> Can anyone guess why chacters like GL, GA and Flash (F?) were killed off
> for younger characters, and while characters like Aquaman were left? Is
> it basically the writer has to turn the character around or else? Is
> this what happened? No matter what, Hal, Ollie and Barry just couldn't
> be written for today's audience no matter what?
>
Concerning Aquaman, I'd say he ain't dead because they totally changed
Aqualad to the point where he couldn't possibly become a new Aquaman because
he was so different (on the visual level, at least; for all I know, he could
be on the same psychological level as ol' Arthur...)
Kid Flash/Wally West didn't go through any tremendous changes, and just took
Barry's old outfit and used it to become the new Flash
Kyle was chosen to be the new Green Lantern, with no real connection with
Hal; Hal just became a bad guy and eventually, when writers (I asume) felt
as if there was nothing else to do with him, killed him off (of course, I
could be wrong...)
Oliver's son took over whe dad blowed himself up in a plane. I'd say this
was done to just spark interest in the book (even though it took me a few
months to learn Oliver had died in the first place)
I'm certain Hal, Barry and Oliver could be written for today's audience had
they lived. Apparently, Bruce and Clark still have something that interests
readers...
Astromann
Sean Walsh aka slw67 wrote:
> I'm certain Hal, Barry and Oliver could be written for today's audience had
> they lived. Apparently, Bruce and Clark still have something that interests
> readers...
Yeah, given a good writer they could still be around today.
Bruce and Clark are around because they are THE Batman and THE Superman.
No one else will ever be able to take their place. The fans would bitch
big-time if this happened.
Victor W. Wong
Astromann (astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com) writes:
> Can anyone guess why chacters like GL, GA and Flash (F?) were killed off
> for younger characters, and while characters like Aquaman were left? Is
> it basically the writer has to turn the character around or else? Is
> this what happened? No matter what, Hal, Ollie and Barry just couldn't
> be written for today's audience no matter what?
Well, you might want to blame those people who like "continuity."
Hal, Ollie and Barry were around for nearly 30-plus years of stories, Ollie
for almost 50. Even allowing for the fact that "DC-time" moves slower
than our time, they'd have to be in their early to mid-forties in order
to accommodate all the good stories about them.
And yes, those characters evolved, but at the same time the audience
changed--altered partly by Stan Lee and Marvel, then by changing demographics.
The comics writers today are exploring more complex ideas than they were
at the beginning of the Silver Age--and it's easier to explore those
ideas with characters that don't have as much "baggage" attached to
them as the Silver Agents.
What I'm wondering is how DC Comics is going to handle Superman in the
year 2038. Presenting a 100-year old character may be a bit of a stretch
for them and they'll have no choice but to re-boot him.
--
VW Wong
Fighter for Truth and Justice
Righter of Wrongs --- Always Triumphant over Evil
**Reasonable Rates**
Astromann
Victor W. Wong wrote:
> Hal, Ollie and Barry were around for nearly 30-plus years of stories, Ollie
> for almost 50. Even allowing for the fact that "DC-time" moves slower
> than our time, they'd have to be in their early to mid-forties in order
> to accommodate all the good stories about them.
>
> And yes, those characters evolved, but at the same time the audience
> changed--altered partly by Stan Lee and Marvel, then by changing demographics.
> The comics writers today are exploring more complex ideas than they were
> at the beginning of the Silver Age--and it's easier to explore those
> ideas with characters that don't have as much "baggage" attached to
> them as the Silver Agents.
> What I'm wondering is how DC Comics is going to handle Superman in the
> year 2038. Presenting a 100-year old character may be a bit of a stretch
> for them and they'll have no choice but to re-boot him.
He'll still be around. A little older, maybe with a paunch and a
receding hair-line.
Still, it's comic books. Give Grant Morrison or Alan Moore Hal, Ollie or
Barry and they coulda whupped them into something more presentable to
current tastes. And stil keep current continuity.
Sean Walsh aka slw67
Astromann wrote:
>
> Sean Walsh aka slw67 wrote:
>
> > I'm certain Hal, Barry and Oliver could be written for today's audience had
> > they lived. Apparently, Bruce and Clark still have something that interests
> > readers...
>
> Yeah, given a good writer they could still be around today.
>
> Bruce and Clark are around because they are THE Batman and THE Superman.
> No one else will ever be able to take their place. The fans would bitch
> big-time if this happened.
Yes, and we have KnightFall/Quest/Crap and the Reign of the Supermen to
prove that... :)
> Astromann - Intergalactic Mann of Adventure!
> ---------
> Brain: One day there will be a place where mice rule,
> where humans are made to provide humiliating diversions.
> Pinky: Do you mean Orlando?
How true that is... :)
--
"She blinds everybody with her super-high beams
She's a squirrel-squashing, deer-smacking drivin' machine
Canyonero!"
- Hank Williams Jr., "The Canyonero Song", _The Simpsons_
Astromann
Sean Walsh aka slw67 wrote:
> Yes, and we have KnightFall/Quest/Crap and the Reign of the Supermen to
> prove that... :)
KnightQuest was fairly pointless, however Reign of the Supermen did give
Clark a new hair-do. Most people go to the barber for a new look. Clark
gets himself killed. What would he do if he had a toothache?
Pariah
Astromann <astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com> wrote in article
<3517FA23.1CC1@-remove_this-hotmail.com>...
> Sean Walsh aka slw67 wrote:
>
> > Yes, and we have KnightFall/Quest/Crap and the Reign of the Supermen to
> > prove that... :)
>
> KnightQuest was fairly pointless, however Reign of the Supermen did give
> Clark a new hair-do. Most people go to the barber for a new look. Clark
> gets himself killed. What would he do if he had a toothache?
KQ gave us Azrael... whom some of us like.
Pariah
Astromann
Azrael was around before KnightQuest.
Pariah
Astromann <astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com> wrote in article
<3518155A.370@-remove_this-hotmail.com>...
> Pariah wrote:
> >
> > Astromann <astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com> wrote in article
> > <3517FA23.1CC1@-remove_this-hotmail.com>...
> > > Sean Walsh aka slw67 wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, and we have KnightFall/Quest/Crap and the Reign of the
Supermen to
> > > > prove that... :)
> > >
> > > KnightQuest was fairly pointless, however Reign of the Supermen did
give
> > > Clark a new hair-do. Most people go to the barber for a new look.
Clark
> > > gets himself killed. What would he do if he had a toothache?
> >
> > KQ gave us Azrael... whom some of us like.
> >
> > Pariah
>
> Azrael was around before KnightQuest.
Well... he was introduced for the purpose of Knightquest.. and without it,
he wouldn't be here.
Pariah
Jim Smith
Pariah wrote:
>
> Astromann <astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com> wrote in article
> <3518155A.370@-remove_this-hotmail.com>...
> > Pariah wrote:
> > >
> > > Astromann <astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com> wrote in article
> > > > KnightQuest was fairly pointless,
> > > KQ gave us Azrael... whom some of us like.
Not to be confused with his title...
> > Azrael was around before KnightQuest.
> Well... he was introduced for the purpose of Knightquest.. and without it,
> he wouldn't be here.
Pariah's right. Various sources (among them the introduction to the
Sword of Azrael trade paperback) make it perfectly clear that Azrael was
only created and introduced into the Bat-mythos so he would be available
as the "new" Batman in KnightQuest. In fact, Denny O'Niel's attitude
about that whole storyline seems to imply that he's surprised Az was
popular enough to warrant anything *but* KnightQuest.
Jim Smith
--
Name Jim's Cat! Details at <http://www.wworld.com/users/5smith/jim/>
Marvel Comics Hostess Fruit Pies Homepage <http://www.sigma.net/tastee/>
The Steel Homepage <http://sac.uky.edu/~mpsmit0/steel/>
Ms. Victory
> Astromann wrote:
>
> > Can anyone guess why chacters like GL, GA and Flash (F?) were killed off
> > for younger characters, and while characters like Aquaman were left? Is
> > it basically the writer has to turn the character around or else? Is
> > this what happened? No matter what, Hal, Ollie and Barry just couldn't
> > be written for today's audience no matter what?
> >
Actually, I don't have a real problem with most of these deaths. Barry
went out a hero, and is now a saint. Ollie isn't really dead, and never
was (I mean, they said three pages after the 'death' scene that they
couldn't find any part of a body...duh..). And Hal's death was an attempt
to redeem the character post-Parallax, I think, by giving him a noble
end. The reason that Barry and Hal were the targets is that there has
already been more than one Flash, and more than one Green Lantern. In 60
years of DC, there's only (really) ever been one Superman, one Batman, one
Aquaman, one Wonder Woman, etc. The fact that there have already been
multiple GL's and multiple Flashes makes them seem more disposable and
interchangeable.
The deaths I have problems with are the casual, off-handed ones where
characters are killed off for no reason whatsoever, and to no real
effect. Barry's death is one of the most important events in the DC
Universe. Dr. Midnight, Peacemaker, Wildcat II, and the others killed by
Eclipso, for example, were just casually snuffed for no reason
whatsoever. Their deaths have had no real long-lasting effect. The story
wasn't particularly affecting. Another example of this was offing Amazing
Man, Blue Devil, Crimson Fox and the rest in Starman. There was no point
to it. Robinson could have introduced five brand new characters and had
the Mist kill them, and it would have had exactly as much effectiveness as
a story. Instead he wastes a group of characters that he apparently
decided were worthless.
--
-Joan Wayne
aka, Ms. Victory
John McIntyre
Victor W. Wong wrote:
>
> Astromann (astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com) writes:
> > Can anyone guess why chacters like GL, GA and Flash (F?) were killed off
> > for younger characters, and while characters like Aquaman were left? Is
> > it basically the writer has to turn the character around or else? Is
> > this what happened? No matter what, Hal, Ollie and Barry just couldn't
> > be written for today's audience no matter what?
>
>
> for almost 50. Even allowing for the fact that "DC-time" moves slower
> than our time, they'd have to be in their early to mid-forties in order
> to accommodate all the good stories about them.
Yeah, Ollie and Hal had aged, but so what? I liked reading about a
middle age super hero. What's wrong with that? There are a lot of
unexplored stories that they could have been written, but now we no
longer have that chance. With good writers, though, they could be more
interesting than another generic gen-xer.
If Batman and Superman could stay constantly mid-30's, why couldn't Hal
or Ollie, anyway? According to ZH, they were only heroes for 10 years,
That means that Hal became GL in his mid to late 20's (which works with
earlier stories) and Ollie was a little older than that when he became
GA.
>
> And yes, those characters evolved, but at the same time the audience
> changed--altered partly by Stan Lee and Marvel, then by changing demographics.
> The comics writers today are exploring more complex ideas than they were
> at the beginning of the Silver Age--and it's easier to explore those
> ideas with characters that don't have as much "baggage" attached to
> them as the Silver Agents.
Grr, how many times do I have to say this? BACKSTORY IS NOT BAGGAGE!!!!!
I love a detailed and interesting backstory. That was always part of the
fun of picking up a title for the first time. Learning as much as you
could about a character. What's wrong with that?
Chris
Christopher Shea
In article <3517E039.56FB@-remove_this-hotmail.com>,
astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com wrote:
> Sean Walsh aka slw67 wrote:
>
> > I'm certain Hal, Barry and Oliver could be written for today's audience had
> > they lived. Apparently, Bruce and Clark still have something that interests
> > readers...
>
> Yeah, given a good writer they could still be around today.
>
> Bruce and Clark are around because they are THE Batman and THE Superman.
> No one else will ever be able to take their place. The fans would bitch
> big-time if this happened.
Dunno about Superman, but I think Batfans would be willing to accept Dick
Grayson stepping into the role of Batman, as long as Bruce's retirement
from the role is handled with dignity. That's what was most unbelievable
about Knightwhatever -- that Bruce would hand "the mantle" to a complete
unknown without even bothering to ask Dick ...
But of course, DC lives in terror of changing the Big Three, lest they
confuse and/or scare off casual readers whose only exposure to the
characters comes from TV or movies ...
--
Christopher Shea
cs...@dcdu.com
That's ChrisTOPHER, not Chris, dammit.
Anthony Dean
In article <3517FA23.1CC1@-remove_this-hotmail.com>,
astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com wrote:
> Sean Walsh aka slw67 wrote:
>
> > Yes, and we have KnightFall/Quest/Crap and the Reign of the Supermen to
> > prove that... :)
>
> KnightQuest was fairly pointless, however Reign of the Supermen did give
> Clark a new hair-do. Most people go to the barber for a new look. Clark
> gets himself killed. What would he do if he had a toothache?
>
I remember seeing an old pre-Crisis cover once that showed Superman howling
in pain from what appears to be a toothache, with (presumably) the dentist
and a nurse standing around him looking confused. I think the cover
referred to it as "Superman's super-toothache!" or some such. It looked
like it dated from the '70's. Does anyone know what was going on in this
story?
Anthony
---
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Remove "NOSPAM" from my e-mail address to reply. |
| My homepage: http://members.iquest.net/~adean |
| Maggie Simpson: http://members.iquest.net/~adean/maggie.html |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Poor devil."--- "Angry Beavers" |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Cannon
Ms. Victory didst say unto the masses...
> The deaths I have problems with are the casual, off-handed ones where
> characters are killed off for no reason whatsoever, and to no real
> effect. Barry's death is one of the most important events in the DC
> Universe. Dr. Midnight, Peacemaker, Wildcat II, and the others killed by
> Eclipso, for example, were just casually snuffed for no reason
> whatsoever. Their deaths have had no real long-lasting effect. The story
> wasn't particularly affecting. Another example of this was offing Amazing
> Man, Blue Devil, Crimson Fox and the rest in Starman. There was no point
> to it. Robinson could have introduced five brand new characters and had
> the Mist kill them, and it would have had exactly as much effectiveness as
> a story. Instead he wastes a group of characters that he apparently
> decided were worthless.
I don't mind the "meaningless" deaths all that much myself. People die for no
reason every day, and I don't think the superhero set should be immune just
because they wear spandex and have flashy codenames.
What makes the death of a character ultimately without meaning is the comic
book convention of continual resurrection. No matter how conclusive a
character's apparent death is, some writer five years down the line will
have them return -- with the exceptions of Barry, Mar-vell and Bucky.
Everyone else always comes back sooner or later, so, as a result, the
death of a character has no narrative power or resonance. Robinson's
elimination of the JLE was probably cheap (I didn't read it) but I'd respect
it anyway if I actually believed Blue Devil, Crimson Fox, Amazing Man, or
Firestorm were "really" dead.
Look at the Death of Superman. When that first came out, a lot of people --
the media included -- thought it was going to be permanent. Some people
thought DC was stupid for offing their premier character, others thought DC
finally had some balls. But then Clark came back from the dead -- and I'm
sure you remember how the backissue price for SUPERMAN #75 dropped quite a
bit when he did. I saw #75 going for seventy bucks at one point... whats it
down to now? Cover price?
People respect death, even when its a gimmick, if it has some permanence,
some power. But in comics, its just a transition period. Like getting a new
costume. Ho hum.
Jim Cannon
x8...@music.stlawu.edu
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Pariah
Christopher Shea <cs...@dcdu.com> wrote in article
<cshea-24039...@dial13.dcdu.com>...
> In article <3517E039.56FB@-remove_this-hotmail.com>,
> astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Sean Walsh aka slw67 wrote:
> >
> > > I'm certain Hal, Barry and Oliver could be written for today's
audience had
> > > they lived. Apparently, Bruce and Clark still have something that
interests
> > > readers...
> >
> > Yeah, given a good writer they could still be around today.
> >
> > Bruce and Clark are around because they are THE Batman and THE
Superman.
> > No one else will ever be able to take their place. The fans would bitch
> > big-time if this happened.
>
> Dunno about Superman, but I think Batfans would be willing to accept Dick
> Grayson stepping into the role of Batman, as long as Bruce's retirement
> from the role is handled with dignity. That's what was most unbelievable
> about Knightwhatever -- that Bruce would hand "the mantle" to a complete
> unknown without even bothering to ask Dick ...
Existing fans would. Potential fans could have a problem with it, though.
> But of course, DC lives in terror of changing the Big Three, lest they
> confuse and/or scare off casual readers whose only exposure to the
> characters comes from TV or movies ...
Bingo
Pariah
John McIntyre <mac...@mail.idt.net> wrote in article
> Grr, how many times do I have to say this? BACKSTORY IS NOT BAGGAGE!!!!!
It depends on the backstory.
Pariah
Dan McEwen
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:32:57 -0500, Astromann
<astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sean Walsh aka slw67 wrote:
>
>> I'm certain Hal, Barry and Oliver could be written for today's audience had
>> they lived. Apparently, Bruce and Clark still have something that interests
>> readers...
>
>Yeah, given a good writer they could still be around today.
>
>Bruce and Clark are around because they are THE Batman and THE Superman.
>No one else will ever be able to take their place. The fans would bitch
>big-time if this happened.
I can see Superman being difficult to replace, though I had always
thought Steel would have made an excellent successor. At least when
he appeared right after Superman's death, he seemed to be honorable,
and to have the best intentions of all of Superman's "replacements".
Hell, I might even be buying Superman if Steel were Superman. But
that's just me, I guess.
Batman, though, is so easy to replace. Dick's origin is so close to
Bruce's that it's not even funny how easily they could just make him
all angsty and take the position. Heck, if Bruce were to die, it
would be like Dick lost his parents *twice*. He'd certainly have the
motivation to take Bruce's place.
The only problem is that, while these changes might be accepted =in
the long run=, profits would definitely drop while fans adjusted.
And, naturally, I could be wrong and both ideas could be miserable
mistakes.
Dan McEwen
>Yes, and we have KnightFall/Quest/Crap and the Reign of the Supermen to
>prove that... :)
The funny part is that I can't even imagine =why= anyone complained.
It's not as though it was likely that these replacements were
permanent. I certainly figured the death/injury stuff was a gimmick.
Dan McEwen
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:16:32 -0500, Sean Walsh aka slw67
<sl...@ici.net> wrote:
>Astromann wrote:
>
>> Can anyone guess why chacters like GL, GA and Flash (F?) were killed off
>> for younger characters, and while characters like Aquaman were left? Is
>> it basically the writer has to turn the character around or else? Is
>> this what happened? No matter what, Hal, Ollie and Barry just couldn't
>> be written for today's audience no matter what?
>>
>
>Concerning Aquaman, I'd say he ain't dead because they totally changed
>Aqualad to the point where he couldn't possibly become a new Aquaman because
>he was so different (on the visual level, at least; for all I know, he could
>be on the same psychological level as ol' Arthur...)
Oh, I don't know. Garth =could= become the new Aquaman, but I doubt
that's something he cares about anymore. When he was a teenager, he
probably did want to grow up to be Aquaman. But now he's grown into
his own identity, and his own purpose.
>Kid Flash/Wally West didn't go through any tremendous changes, and just took
>Barry's old outfit and used it to become the new Flash
I think Wally underwent a lot of changes when he became Flash. He was
constantly talking about living up to the legacy of Barry Allen. He
was trying to fill the boots of someone he admired and respected. He
didn't just want to be Flash because Barry died, but because he
=earned= the right. Despite people calling him immature because he
slept around (which, to be honest, isn't exactly rare for people his
age), Wally seemed, to me, to really grow up when he became the Flash.
>Kyle was chosen to be the new Green Lantern, with no real connection with
>Hal; Hal just became a bad guy and eventually, when writers (I asume) felt
>as if there was nothing else to do with him, killed him off (of course, I
>could be wrong...)
I think that the fact that Kyle had no link to Hal's past was what
annoyed Hal fans. I think if it had turned out that Kyle had at least
been chosen as a Hal-successor/alternate when Hal was starting to lose
it, it might have been more acceptable. At least then people would no
he had the requisite traits to be a Green Lantern. He also might have
been trying to live up to the legacy of Hal and/or the Corps. So
while Kyle sells better over all, I wonder if it couldn't have sold
better by not losing Hal fans.
>Oliver's son took over whe dad blowed himself up in a plane. I'd say this
>was done to just spark interest in the book (even though it took me a few
>months to learn Oliver had died in the first place)
I'm not sure how people reacted to Ollie's death. I'm sure the fact
that Ollie's son took over the role softened the blow, even though
many would probably have preferred Roy in that role. Then again, Roy
(like Garth and Dick), found his own role, separate of being "just"
GA's sidekick.
>I'm certain Hal, Barry and Oliver could be written for today's audience had
>they lived. Apparently, Bruce and Clark still have something that interests
>readers...
>
Maybe if Hal, Barry, and Ollie had been retconned out of the JLA,
they'd still be alive?
PERRYDER
ad...@NOSPAMiquest.net asked,
I remember seeing an old pre-Crisis cover once that showed Superman howling in
pain from what appears to be a toothache, with (presumably) the dentist and a
nurse standing around him looking confused. I think the cover referred to it as
"Superman's super-toothache!" or some such. It looked like it dated from the
'70's. Does anyone know what was going on in this story?
and I reply, it was action comics (pick a number between 421-437), and I
believe the angle was magic! the one thing besides red sun radiation that would
put the mojo on him. I do recall vividly ( and this brings this thread back
full circle) that the backup story had Green Arrow and special guest star
Zatanna!!!!!!! I was in the 2nd grade and remember saying "hubba-hubba" at the
sight of not one, but two pairs of fishnet stockings, courtesy of annataz dna
yranac kcalb!!!! Bring Back Ollie and make him earn his way back to Dinah!!
Perry Der-Bigtime Green Lantern/Green Arrow reader, since my folks got me a
Coronet paperback of some 70's O'neil/Adams GL/GA reprints (at a Montgomery
Wards in 1972)
dig this from the forward, circa 1971:
(conference between julie schwartz, o'neil/adams, and gl/ga)
"look, you guys show the ring-slinger and me charging around, getting into
trouble, once in a while stomping a crud who NEEDS stomping. Oh, we blow it
now and again, and the crud hands us OUR head. Then we screw it back on and go
back and eventually we WIN. Cozy up to the fact ----we WIN. We beat the
problems, they don't beat us. I want to tell the kids, the readers 'If we can
do it, you can too.' Don't LET the scummies inherit the Earth. Don't let
pollution, corruption, crime, drugs, the whole ugly bag smother you. Fight 'em
and keep fighting till you've got 'em hacked. Any politico who calls America a
'pitiful, helpless giant' can take his campaign posters and shove..."
"Easy, ARROW," Green Lantern says. You really DO get carried away. Your're
only saying we 20th Century myths are trying to counteract defeatism. We are,
yes. It's a big part of our job."
"The biggest," replies the Arrow. "Otherwise, you'd be a suburban daddy and I'd
be coaching a girl's archery team".
If you want to read a copy of this in its entirety, let me know if it's legal
to post.
Pariah
Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote in article
> I think Wally underwent a lot of changes when he became Flash. He was
> constantly talking about living up to the legacy of Barry Allen. He
> was trying to fill the boots of someone he admired and respected. He
> didn't just want to be Flash because Barry died, but because he
> =earned= the right. Despite people calling him immature because he
> slept around (which, to be honest, isn't exactly rare for people his
> age), Wally seemed, to me, to really grow up when he became the Flash.
I didn't really see that much growth until Baron left. It's not that he
slept around, it's who he slept with (married woman), his treatment of
Chunk, and his seeming self-absorption.
> >Oliver's son took over whe dad blowed himself up in a plane. I'd say
this
> >was done to just spark interest in the book (even though it took me a
few
> >months to learn Oliver had died in the first place)
>
> I'm not sure how people reacted to Ollie's death. I'm sure the fact
> that Ollie's son took over the role softened the blow, even though
> many would probably have preferred Roy in that role. Then again, Roy
> (like Garth and Dick), found his own role, separate of being "just"
> GA's sidekick.
Well.. not anymore> now he's Mr. Red Arrow. The reaction to Ollie's
replacement, as I recall, was somewhat turbulant... at first anyhow.
> >I'm certain Hal, Barry and Oliver could be written for today's audience
had
> >they lived. Apparently, Bruce and Clark still have something that
interests
> >readers...
> >
> Maybe if Hal, Barry, and Ollie had been retconned out of the JLA,
> they'd still be alive?
Oh boy... THE JLA.. starring Black Canary, Martian Manhunter, and
Aquaman!... no.. that doesn't work.
Pariah
Pariah
Cannon <x8...@music.stlawu.edu> wrote in article
<6f9rrp$7gl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Firestorm didn't even presumably die, but I get what you're sayng and agree
absolutely, completely, 100%
Pariah
Pariah
Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote in article
> The only problem is that, while these changes might be accepted =in
> the long run=, profits would definitely drop while fans adjusted.
> And, naturally, I could be wrong and both ideas could be miserable
> mistakes.
I think that fan acception would be okay at first... but I think over time
it might be viewed as something of a mistake. Batman is Bruce Wayne.. when
it comes to every other medium. It could backfire that Dick Grayson would
be Batman in comics.
Pariah
Sayne13
I'm assuming you're talking about Starman, although other characters have
evidently enter the discussion. And I have to argue that killing off a MAJOR
character has much more impact, not just how they died.
Barry Allen died during Crisis saving 5 worlds. Supergirl did, as well (I still
miss her).
Wildcat II (who first appeared in Crisis, coincidently) wasn't a major player.
Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Flash. Those are the major
characters. Those are the ones who will have impact on titles.
Amazing Man, Blue Devil, Crimson Fox, etc. They're not major characters. They
don't have one city to protect, like the above-mentioned heavy hitters do.
I look at it this way. A not-as-important character dies, say Crimson Fox. Most
readers (and the people in the books) are going to say "Oh no, the Crimson Fox
died. That sucks, but there's always Batman." Now, a major character dies, say
Batman. The readers (and comic characters) are *NOT* going to say "Oh no,
Batman died. That sucks, but there's always Crimson Fox." They're going to say
"Batman! Who can replace BATMAN?"
Eh. Maybe I just missed the entire point. Maybe I hit it on the head. I don't
know. *Grin* It's past 1 am, and I'm babbling. Ignore me.
Aaron Mojo
>Dunno about Superman, but I think Batfans would be willing to accept Dick
>Grayson stepping into the role of Batman, as long as Bruce's retirement
>from the role is handled with dignity.
Shee... Not THIS Batfan. Dick is Robin... And, well, Nightwing... But
NOT the Batman. I think some characters should always be constant, and
especially the major, archetypal superheroes -- the newspaper reporter, the
billionaire and... Whatever it is Wonder Woman is these days. Change the
lesser characters, but leave the big ones alone. (Unless DC decides to carry
all characters out into their old age and THEN reboot, in which case I'd still
rather read about an older Bruce Wayne Batman.)
-Aaron!
Lyle Masaki
In article <diana-24039...@206.101.2.176>,
di...@discover.net (Ms. Victory) wrote:
>
> Actually, I don't have a real problem with most of these deaths. Barry
> went out a hero, and is now a saint. Ollie isn't really dead, and never
> was (I mean, they said three pages after the 'death' scene that they
> couldn't find any part of a body...duh..). And Hal's death was an attempt
> to redeem the character post-Parallax, I think, by giving him a noble
> end. The reason that Barry and Hal were the targets is that there has
> already been more than one Flash, and more than one Green Lantern. In 60
> years of DC, there's only (really) ever been one Superman, one Batman, one
> Aquaman, one Wonder Woman, etc. The fact that there have already been
> multiple GL's and multiple Flashes makes them seem more disposable and
> interchangeable.
I agree with what your opinions about Hal, Barry and Ollie's deaths. I don't
really mind how any of those deaths were handled. I think those deaths were
written by people who appreciated those characters.
As for disposable... I hate using that word, even if it might be an apt
choice. I prefer to think that DC feels safer creating next-generation
versions of Flash and GL, having already done so in the past. A second
generation Superman or Batman has never been done (aside from the Helena
Wayne) and would be considered a big risk.
I think part of that is because the mainstream public knows that Clark Kent
is Superman and Bruce Wayne is Batman, but don't know Alan Scott from Hal
Jordan or Kyle Rayner. (Of course, until the '80s Dick Greyson was the *only*
Robin.)
Personally, I'd love to see some generational stories going on with Superman
and Batman. I loved it when the Key sent the JLA dreaming, where Bruce was
retired and married to
Selina, with Tim as Batman and Bruce Jr as Robin. The main reason I miss the
multiverse is because I loved the earth-2 Batman family.
> The deaths I have problems with are the casual, off-handed ones where
> characters are killed off for no reason whatsoever, and to no real
> effect. Barry's death is one of the most important events in the DC
> Universe. Dr. Midnight, Peacemaker, Wildcat II, and the others killed by
> Eclipso, for example, were just casually snuffed for no reason
> whatsoever. Their deaths have had no real long-lasting effect. The story
> wasn't particularly affecting. Another example of this was offing Amazing
> Man, Blue Devil, Crimson Fox and the rest in Starman. There was no point
> to it. Robinson could have introduced five brand new characters and had
> the Mist kill them, and it would have had exactly as much effectiveness as
> a story. Instead he wastes a group of characters that he apparently
> decided were worthless.
>
Once again, I agree. (I hope this doesn't count as a 'me too' post.) Nothing
annoys me more than when I see a character killed off by a writer who clearly
doesn't understand that character's popularity (no matter how small). For
every character, there are a handfull of readers who adore him and it does
those readers no service for *their* character to make his first appearance
after years in limbo in a four-panel death scene.
Of course I take this issue rather personally, since I really enjoyed the
likes of Dr Midnight, Wildcat II and the Force of July.
Anon,
Lyle
Edward Mathews
Cannon (x8...@music.stlawu.edu) wrote:
:
: Look at the Death of Superman. When that first came out, a lot of people --
: the media included -- thought it was going to be permanent. Some people
: thought DC was stupid for offing their premier character, others thought DC
: finally had some balls. But then Clark came back from the dead -- and I'm
: sure you remember how the backissue price for SUPERMAN #75 dropped quite a
: bit when he did. I saw #75 going for seventy bucks at one point... whats it
: down to now? Cover price?
Jim, no one thought that Superman's death was going to be permanent.
Everyone was asking from the get go: "So how do they plan on bringing him
back?" At worst, it was a signal for a reboot of the whole DCU.
Ed (and the above example is what is killing the market) Mathews
*****
**-----
* ---
-
Dan McEwen
Um, sort of like Dick Grayson is Robin in every other medium, but not
in the comics?
Dan McEwen
On 25 Mar 1998 05:05:53 GMT, "Pariah" <rhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote in article
>
>> I think Wally underwent a lot of changes when he became Flash. He was
>> constantly talking about living up to the legacy of Barry Allen. He
>> was trying to fill the boots of someone he admired and respected. He
>> didn't just want to be Flash because Barry died, but because he
>> =earned= the right. Despite people calling him immature because he
>> slept around (which, to be honest, isn't exactly rare for people his
>> age), Wally seemed, to me, to really grow up when he became the Flash.
>
>I didn't really see that much growth until Baron left. It's not that he
>slept around, it's who he slept with (married woman), his treatment of
>Chunk, and his seeming self-absorption.
>
Well, I don't know. Tina was split up from her husband at the time.
It's not like she was still living with Jerry and Wally was this
intruder into their marriage. In fact, I posit that had Wally =not=
entered Tina's life in such a big way, he never would have been able
to help Jerry regain his sanity *and* his life with Tina. So you can
look at is from the short view (adultery) or the long view (saved
Jerry's life and Tina and Jerry's marriage).
>> >Oliver's son took over whe dad blowed himself up in a plane. I'd say
>this
>> >was done to just spark interest in the book (even though it took me a
>few
>> >months to learn Oliver had died in the first place)
>>
>> I'm not sure how people reacted to Ollie's death. I'm sure the fact
>> that Ollie's son took over the role softened the blow, even though
>> many would probably have preferred Roy in that role. Then again, Roy
>> (like Garth and Dick), found his own role, separate of being "just"
>> GA's sidekick.
>
>Well.. not anymore> now he's Mr. Red Arrow. The reaction to Ollie's
>replacement, as I recall, was somewhat turbulant... at first anyhow.
I thought that was something of a joke, or at least limited to the
pagse of TEEN TITANS. I really hope he doesn't keep that name. It's
rather...dumb.
>> >I'm certain Hal, Barry and Oliver could be written for today's audience
>had
>> >they lived. Apparently, Bruce and Clark still have something that
>interests
>> >readers...
>> >
>> Maybe if Hal, Barry, and Ollie had been retconned out of the JLA,
>> they'd still be alive?
>
>Oh boy... THE JLA.. starring Black Canary, Martian Manhunter, and
>Aquaman!... no.. that doesn't work.
>
Hell, they'd just say Red Tornado, Firestorm, and Zatanna were
founding members! :)
Astromann
Pariah wrote:
>
> Well... he was introduced for the purpose of Knightquest.. and without it,
> he wouldn't be here.
>
> Pariah
Didn't he have a mini-series before hand?
--
Pariah
Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote in article
<6fbe68$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> On 25 Mar 1998 05:09:18 GMT, "Pariah" <rhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote in article
> >
> >> The only problem is that, while these changes might be accepted =in
> >> the long run=, profits would definitely drop while fans adjusted.
> >> And, naturally, I could be wrong and both ideas could be miserable
> >> mistakes.
> >
> >I think that fan acception would be okay at first... but I think over
time
> >it might be viewed as something of a mistake. Batman is Bruce Wayne..
when
> >it comes to every other medium. It could backfire that Dick Grayson
would
> >be Batman in comics.
>
> Um, sort of like Dick Grayson is Robin in every other medium, but not
> in the comics?
Wisely, that's changing. See the Animated Series and Movies. Besides,
Robin's identity is less significant than Batman's.
Pariah
Pariah
Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote in article
<6fbed2$3...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> On 25 Mar 1998 05:05:53 GMT, "Pariah" <rhi...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote:
> >I didn't really see that much growth until Baron left. It's not that he
> >slept around, it's who he slept with (married woman), his treatment of
> >Chunk, and his seeming self-absorption.
> >
> Well, I don't know. Tina was split up from her husband at the time.
> It's not like she was still living with Jerry and Wally was this
> intruder into their marriage. In fact, I posit that had Wally =not=
> entered Tina's life in such a big way, he never would have been able
> to help Jerry regain his sanity *and* his life with Tina. So you can
> look at is from the short view (adultery) or the long view (saved
> Jerry's life and Tina and Jerry's marriage).
If he had gone into it with more noble intentions, I would be more inclined
to admonish Wally. His actions during the affair were admirable, but to
some people, adultury is adultury.
> >Well.. not anymore> now he's Mr. Red Arrow. The reaction to Ollie's
> >replacement, as I recall, was somewhat turbulant... at first anyhow.
>
> I thought that was something of a joke, or at least limited to the
> pagse of TEEN TITANS. I really hope he doesn't keep that name. It's
> rather...dumb.
He won't be keeping that name. but his realization that he idolized Ollie
enough to desire the costume change still stands.
>Oh boy... THE JLA.. starring Black Canary, Martian Manhunter, and
> >Aquaman!... no.. that doesn't work.
> >
> Hell, they'd just say Red Tornado, Firestorm, and Zatanna were
> founding members! :)
No no no.. bad enough allready :)
Pariah
Pariah
Astromann <astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com> wrote in article
<35193CA2.478A@-remove_this-hotmail.com>...
> Pariah wrote:
> >
> > Well... he was introduced for the purpose of Knightquest.. and without
it,
> > he wouldn't be here.
> >
> > Pariah
>
> Didn't he have a mini-series before hand?
A few months, yeah, but it was only an introduction to the character... and
he was introduced so that he would later become Batman.
Pariah
Cannon
Edward Mathews didst say unto the masses...
>
> Cannon (x8...@music.stlawu.edu) wrote:
> :
> : Look at the Death of Superman. When that first came out, a lot of people
--
> : the media included -- thought it was going to be permanent. Some people
> : thought DC was stupid for offing their premier character, others thought
DC
> : finally had some balls. But then Clark came back from the dead -- and I'm
> : sure you remember how the backissue price for SUPERMAN #75 dropped quite a
> : bit when he did. I saw #75 going for seventy bucks at one point... whats
it
> : down to now? Cover price?
>
> Jim, no one thought that Superman's death was going to be permanent.
> Everyone was asking from the get go: "So how do they plan on bringing him
> back?" At worst, it was a signal for a reboot of the whole DCU.
I beg to differ.
No doubt most everyone on this newsgroup was clever enough to discern the
gimmick, but most people were not. Remember when Superman dying was on the
news? Like CNN, not just local news? I don't know about elsewhere, but at
the shop I frequented at the time, SUPERMAN #75 sold out in about ten
minutes. People who had never bought a comic book before bought #75 because
they thought Supes was gone for good. I also remember reading in WIZARD
afterward Carlin or Jurgens or someone being actually surprised that so many
people thought they were really killing off Superman... and guys like Dave
Sim and Todd McFarlane -- who are pretty industry savvy -- even believed
Superman was gone for good.
As the storyline evolved, it became more and more obvious that Clark would
return, but I think a substantial amount of people bought the lie.
Either that, or I'm the only idiot who believed it.
Jim Cannon
x8...@music.stlawu.edu
Astromann
Christopher Shea wrote:
> Dunno about Superman, but I think Batfans would be willing to accept Dick
> Grayson stepping into the role of Batman, as long as Bruce's retirement
> about Knightwhatever -- that Bruce would hand "the mantle" to a complete
> unknown without even bothering to ask Dick ...
If Batman was to go out, he would have to take the Joker with him. That
would be a helluva story.
> But of course, DC lives in terror of changing the Big Three, lest they
> confuse and/or scare off casual readers whose only exposure to the
> characters comes from TV or movies ...
Wait, big three? Wonder Woman? I thought whe was dead.
But your points are valid.
Astromann
John McIntyre wrote:
> Yeah, Ollie and Hal had aged, but so what? I liked reading about a
> middle age super hero. What's wrong with that? There are a lot of
> unexplored stories that they could have been written, but now we no
> longer have that chance. With good writers, though, they could be more
> interesting than another generic gen-xer.
Nothing wrong with it. I like it too. It seems more realistic to have a
mixed age group rather than all early-twenties. Although I don't think
young kids today want to read about anyone over thirty or fourty.
What is DC's target market here?
> If Batman and Superman could stay constantly mid-30's, why couldn't Hal
> or Ollie, anyway? According to ZH, they were only heroes for 10 years,
> That means that Hal became GL in his mid to late 20's (which works with
> earlier stories) and Ollie was a little older than that when he became
> GA.
Good question. I think Batman and Superman will ALWAYS be mid 30's.
Astromann
Ken Small blathered...
> Flash had been through so much character-changing stuff and a long run
> of bad stories that he was ripe for a total change of direction, or
> death. Crisis happened at just the right time for the latter.
Actually, did anyone remeber their reaction reading this? At the time,
it was unheard of. Now it's almost a daily event.
Pariah
Astromann <astromann@-remove_this-hotmail.com> wrote in article
> Good question. I think Batman and Superman will ALWAYS be mid 30's.
Once upon a time I believe they said that they would always be 29.
Pariah
Ken Small
Astromann yammered...
>for younger characters, and while characters like Aquaman were left? Is
>it basically the writer has to turn the character around or else? Is
>this what happened? No matter what, Hal, Ollie and Barry just couldn't
I think they all were killed off for different reasons.
Flash had been through so much character-changing stuff and a long run
of bad stories that he was ripe for a total change of direction, or
death. Crisis happened at just the right time for the latter.
Hal was killed becuase the editorialship needed a big event. The
character wasn't beyond being written well, but like Flash he'd been
written into a lot of character-damaging stuff, but unlike FLash he'd
had a semi-decent (if sales lacking) run right before.
I really don't kow about Ollie, as I haven't read Green Arrow
since Longbow Hunters.
--
-Ken
Magic 8-Ball sez: You may rely on it
Ken Small
Victor W. Wong yammered...
>Well, you might want to blame those people who like "continuity."
>
>Hal, Ollie and Barry were around for nearly 30-plus years of stories, Ollie
>for almost 50. Even allowing for the fact that "DC-time" moves slower
>than our time, they'd have to be in their early to mid-forties in order
>to accommodate all the good stories about them.
The problem with Barry and Hal wasn't their stories of 20 years ago, it
was the preceeding 5 years of mediocre stories. Old stories are
ignored all the time-- recent bad ones are harder to escape.
Edward Mathews
Cannon (x8...@music.stlawu.edu) wrote:
: Edward Mathews didst say unto the masses...
: >
: > Jim, no one thought that Superman's death was going to be permanent.
: > Everyone was asking from the get go: "So how do they plan on bringing him
: > back?" At worst, it was a signal for a reboot of the whole DCU.
: I beg to differ.
: No doubt most everyone on this newsgroup was clever enough to discern the
: gimmick, but most people were not. Remember when Superman dying was on the
: news? Like CNN, not just local news? I don't know about elsewhere, but at
: the shop I frequented at the time, SUPERMAN #75 sold out in about ten
: minutes. People who had never bought a comic book before bought #75 because
: they thought Supes was gone for good. I also remember reading in WIZARD
: afterward Carlin or Jurgens or someone being actually surprised that so many
: people thought they were really killing off Superman... and guys like Dave
: Sim and Todd McFarlane -- who are pretty industry savvy -- even believed
: Superman was gone for good.
Then I, and everyone I know who buys comics, is a cynic. "How do they
plan on bringing him back?" was the question that was made 'round these
parts.
: As the storyline evolved, it became more and more obvious that Clark would
: return, but I think a substantial amount of people bought the lie.
Maybe it's just my New York state of mind... Please introduce me to these
people. I have some great real estate deals...
: Either that, or I'm the only idiot who believed it.
Um, no... say, are you looking for some prime real estate? Bridges are
all the rage around here. Everybody is getting one. :) :)
Ed (who found the Funeral for a Friend issues to be excellent) Mathews
BHMarks
And, interestingly enough, in the latest issue of FLASH,
time-and-space-travelling Wally has a stop on pre-explosion Krypton, and says
it was 30 years ago.
As ever,
Bennet
David J. Snyder
In article <199803260659...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
BHMarks <bhm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>And, interestingly enough, in the latest issue of FLASH,
>time-and-space-travelling Wally has a stop on pre-explosion Krypton, and says
>it was 30 years ago.
>
The art also shows what appears to be Jor-El and Lara holding
baby Kal-El, which they shouldn't have in current continuity.
He was in the birthing chamber, and wasn't actually "born"
until he got to Earth.
-Dave
--
"I am pacing myself. I wanna see Maggie eating dirt and get
home in time for Buffy."
-Woody, QUANTUM AND WOODY #14
Bill Roper
In article <6fc8ko$s4c$1...@client3.news.psi.net>,
Ken Small <k...@trdlnk.nukethispart.com> wrote:
>Astromann yammered...
>>Can anyone guess why chacters like GL, GA and Flash (F?) were killed off
>>for younger characters, and while characters like Aquaman were left? Is
>>it basically the writer has to turn the character around or else? Is
>>this what happened? No matter what, Hal, Ollie and Barry just couldn't
>>be written for today's audience no matter what?
>
>I think they all were killed off for different reasons.
>
>since Longbow Hunters.
Now, I don't have the issues in front of me, so I can't be sure that
this individual deserves *all* of the blame, but...
To my mind, GA's downfall started when he started thinking with certain
parts of the body that you can't touch on television, split up with
Black Canary, and got involved in a series of progressively more out-of-
character adventures.
Participating as writer in this sequence (I don't recall if he started
it or not) was one -- Kevin Dooley.
(I guess the old version of GA was boring or something...)
--
Bill Roper, ro...@mcs.net
JohannaLD
From: di...@discover.net (Ms. Victory)
>The deaths I have problems with are the casual, off-handed ones where
>characters are killed off for no reason whatsoever, and to no real
>effect. Barry's death is one of the most important events in the DC
>Universe. Dr. Midnight, Peacemaker, Wildcat II, and the others killed by
>Eclipso, for example, were just casually snuffed for no reason
>whatsoever.
There was a reason, just not one the comic reader could be aware of.
All the characters killed by Eclipso were ones where revamps/new
projects were in the works at the time, although none of those projects
happened to pan out.
>Their deaths have had no real long-lasting effect.
This is true, and in my opinion is due to two factors: the overcrowding
of the DCU (too many characters with similar powers, so you don't notice
some absences) and the innate structure of the superhero genre (so an
elegy doesn't really fit).
>Robinson could have introduced five brand new characters and had
>the Mist kill them, and it would have had exactly as much effectiveness as
>a story.
I disagree. Killing these characters saved him work in having to establish
personalities, powers, and connections to each other. If he'd killed
random new creations, some people would have found the story much less
affecting.
Johanna
Patrick Thompson
David J. Snyder wrote in message <6fdf8o$mrb$1...@nntp-3.io.com>...
>In article <199803260659...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>BHMarks <bhm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>And, interestingly enough, in the latest issue of FLASH,
>>time-and-space-travelling Wally has a stop on pre-explosion Krypton, and
says
>>it was 30 years ago.
>>
>Wally could very well have been rounding.
>
>The art also shows what appears to be Jor-El and Lara holding
>baby Kal-El, which they shouldn't have in current continuity.
>He was in the birthing chamber, and wasn't actually "born"
>until he got to Earth.
I'll have to pick this up and check it out for myself, but I do have one
possible theory--It could be Morrison being really devious about the
multiverse. This might not be the modern Krypton, it might be the
pre-crisis Krypton where Clark was born on Krypton and was 29 perpetually as
an adult hero, so that 30 years ago would be a pretty close approximation.
Given the timeline funkiness Grant seems to like, I wouldn't put it past him
to have Wally run right past Crisis without even knowing.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Cannon (x8...@music.stlawu.edu) wrote:
: I don't mind the "meaningless" deaths all that much myself. People die for no
: reason every day, and I don't think the superhero set should be immune just
: because they wear spandex and have flashy codenames.
Oh, I do. I tend to gnash my teeth at this argument. I don't want my
fictional heroes to die without their deaths having meaning. Isn't that
the whole point of heroic fiction?
- Elayne
--
What I mean by deviant: completely lacking in the social skills and
knowledge possessed by most of the rest of humanity... Most of us are
perfectly normal most of the time. We only become jerks and morons on
Usenet, like other decent people. -- Andrew C. Lannen
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Astromann wrote:
: > Can anyone guess why chacters like GL, GA and Flash (F?) were killed off
: > for younger characters, and while characters like Aquaman were left? Is
: > it basically the writer has to turn the character around or else? Is
: > this what happened? No matter what, Hal, Ollie and Barry just couldn't
: > be written for today's audience no matter what?
I didn't thihnk this needed a guess. It's been stated elsewhere that DC
took various polls of retailers, who came back with the news that DC was
being perceived as an "old fogey" company, and in order to draw in younger
readers it was advisable that they create younger icons, with whom it was
felt these readers would identify more.
Aquaman might have been considered either too iconic, like Batman and
Superman, to shift his responsibilities to a younger man or woman, or
beneath the general radar in terms of relative popularity.
Todd VerBeek, gwm
>Cannon (x8...@music.stlawu.edu) wrote:
>: Look at the Death of Superman. When that first came out, a lot of people --
>: the media included -- thought it was going to be permanent. Some people
>: thought DC was stupid for offing their premier character, others thought DC
>: finally had some balls. But then Clark came back from the dead -- and I'm
>: sure you remember how the backissue price for SUPERMAN #75 dropped quite a
>: bit when he did. I saw #75 going for seventy bucks at one point... whats it
>: down to now? Cover price?
My pal Edward Mathews said:
>Jim, no one thought that Superman's death was going to be permanent.
{ahem}
I wasn't reading any mainstream superhero stuff, and wasn't plugged into
fandom at the time, but when I saw an article in the newspaper about his
death and the impending "replacement" with four all-new Supermen, I bought
it. (Literally: the next time I was in a bookstore, I picked up a copy of
/Adventures of SuperBOY/ out of curiosity.)
And I don't think I was especially naive. The entertainmnent industry had
already replaced James Bond a couple of times, launched an all-new
generation of Star Trek, dumped Wendy and Marvin for the Wonder Twins, and
turned the clean-cut Hardy Boys into a couple of fellas with blow-dried
hair. Sure, it was obviously a stunt to attract attention, but it's not
like they hadn't reinvented Superman for better marketing before (e.g. the
reboot in 1986, the movie in 1978, the TV-reporter/no-kryptonite/power-
reduction thing in 1970, ...even Superman-as-a-boy in 1940-mumble).
Cheers, Todd
--
The Bobolino's project was our last, best hope for pizza. It failed.
In the year of the oregano war, it became something greater:
Our last, best hope... for fettucine.
Astromann
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
> I didn't thihnk this needed a guess. It's been stated elsewhere that DC
> took various polls of retailers, who came back with the news that DC was
> being perceived as an "old fogey" company, and in order to draw in younger
> readers it was advisable that they create younger icons, with whom it was
> felt these readers would identify more.
This musta been after Hal stopped using Grecian Formala and started
showing grey.
Then why don't their books with younger characters sell like hotcakes?
(Mmmmm....hotcakes......) like the Titans?
Not to argue that they didn't get this advice, but that it was bad
advice. The younger characters are working because they have not been
ret-conned to death and they have the benefit of good writer/artists.
> Aquaman might have been considered either too iconic, like Batman and
> Superman, to shift his responsibilities to a younger man or woman, or
> beneath the general radar in terms of relative popularity.
Interesting though. Aquaman is sorta a gruff older guy, therefore he
deserves to be fish-food.
Superman and Batman hang on to their jobs like Pope's (i.e. for life)
cause they are icons or whatever.
But, yeah, DC is streamlining their books to hone in on the hard-earned
bucks of todays youth. The more I think about it, the more I like
HATE, MINIMUM WAGE and BIG MOUTH.
Plug, plug, plug.
Your pal,
Astromann - Outer Space Adventurer from Outer Space!
____________________________________________________
Astromann says - "Action poses everyone!"
T. Troy McNemar, Esq.
Previously, Cannon<x8...@music.stlawu.edu> wrote:
>I don't mind the "meaningless" deaths all that much myself. People die for no
>reason every day, and I don't think the superhero set should be immune just
>because they wear spandex and have flashy codenames.
Why do people look for realism in super-hero comics? Isn't the whole point
of super-hero comics to escape reality by reading about fantastic
characters who are able to continually triumph over evil by beating
significant odds? Asking for realism in super-hero comics seems to miss
the point about as much as asking for a 97 year old widow to model in the
SPORTS ILLUSTRATED SWIMSUIT EDITION.
--
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. Tro...@indirect.com
"I tog sllihc, er'yeht gniylpitlum! Dna m'I ngisol lortnoc . . . ."
--Zatanna Zuko
Favorite comic of the week: JLA #18
Runner-up: AVENGERS #4
LSG! Vegas! June 11-14! See http://www.primenet.com/~sward/saturngirl/lsh/lsg2.htm
David J. Snyder
In article <6fe3d4$nha$1...@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
Patrick Thompson <patrick.h...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>possible theory--It could be Morrison being really devious about the
>multiverse. This might not be the modern Krypton, it might be the
>pre-crisis Krypton where Clark was born on Krypton and was 29 perpetually as
Nah. Once you read it you'll see. The Kryptonians are wearing
Byrnian clothing, and Wally goes on about how sterile the place
is it. It's clearly the modern version of Krypton.
Pariah
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. <tro...@indirect.com> wrote in article
<351fae17....@news.supernews.com>...
> Previously, Cannon<x8...@music.stlawu.edu> wrote:
>
> >I don't mind the "meaningless" deaths all that much myself. People die
for no
> >reason every day, and I don't think the superhero set should be immune
just
> >because they wear spandex and have flashy codenames.
>
> Why do people look for realism in super-hero comics? Isn't the whole
point
> of super-hero comics to escape reality by reading about fantastic
> characters who are able to continually triumph over evil by beating
> significant odds? Asking for realism in super-hero comics seems to miss
> the point about as much as asking for a 97 year old widow to model in the
> SPORTS ILLUSTRATED SWIMSUIT EDITION.
I disagree. I want a realistic world with unrealistic elements. I do not
want one of those unrealistic elements to be invulnerable characters who
will never die. For me, that would take all of the fun or adventure out of
comics.
Pariah
Cannon
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput didst say unto the masses...
>
> Cannon (x8...@music.stlawu.edu) wrote:
>
> : I don't mind the "meaningless" deaths all that much myself. People die for
no
> : reason every day, and I don't think the superhero set should be immune
just
> : because they wear spandex and have flashy codenames.
>
> fictional heroes to die without their deaths having meaning. Isn't that
> the whole point of heroic fiction?
Well, sure, in any kind of heroic fiction where death has an ounce of meaning.
But comics don't work that way. Captain Do-gooder may die like a schmuck
fighting Evilman, but two years later John Byrne or somebody will resurrect
Captain Do-gooder in the pages of some totally unrelated book, in which
Captain Do-gooder had never appeared before, just because that's how its done.
If death had any narrative power in comics, then meaningless deaths would
no doubt disappear. But death is just another trick, another way of putting
a character in limbo for a few months, so meaningless deaths are nothing to
get concerned about.
Cannon
Todd VerBeek, gwm didst say unto the masses...
> My pal Edward Mathews said:
> >Jim, no one thought that Superman's death was going to be permanent.
>
> {ahem}
>
> I wasn't reading any mainstream superhero stuff, and wasn't plugged into
> fandom at the time, but when I saw an article in the newspaper about his
> death and the impending "replacement" with four all-new Supermen, I bought
> it. (Literally: the next time I was in a bookstore, I picked up a copy of
> /Adventures of SuperBOY/ out of curiosity.)
Ah, see! I wasn't the only one!
Thanks Todd.
Cannon
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. didst say unto the masses...
>
> Previously, Cannon<x8...@music.stlawu.edu> wrote:
>
> >I don't mind the "meaningless" deaths all that much myself. People die for
no
> >reason every day, and I don't think the superhero set should be immune just
> >because they wear spandex and have flashy codenames.
I knew no one would read the second paragraph.
> Why do people look for realism in super-hero comics? Isn't the whole point
> of super-hero comics to escape reality by reading about fantastic
> characters who are able to continually triumph over evil by beating
> significant odds? Asking for realism in super-hero comics seems to miss
> the point about as much as asking for a 97 year old widow to model in the
> SPORTS ILLUSTRATED SWIMSUIT EDITION.
Everyone likes realism in their superhero comic books; just the degree varies
from fan to fan.
I like as much realism as possible in the books I read; it brings the
characters down closer to a level where I can really begin to believe they're
real, to where my suspension of disbelief doesn't have to be sprained just to
enjoy my 22 page funny-book. I think this is why I enjoy HITMAN more than
most super-books, because the characters act and talk more like real people.
By contrast, JLA is a really fun book with some far-out adventures and
characters, and I like it a lot, but I enjoy my monthly HITMAN fix much more.
I know I'm in the minority about this as far as this newsgroup is concerned,
but that doesn't really bother me.
Ms. Victory
In article <01bd5925$2d2b0ce0$54c50ed1@default>, "Dale Hicks"
<dhi...@surfnet.1.net> wrote:
> Lyle Masaki spi...@aloha.net wrote in article
<6faemn$moa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> [...]
> > Of course I take this issue rather personally, since I really enjoyed the
> > likes of Dr Midnight, Wildcat II and the Force of July.
>
> Taken in this context, it appears the answer is yes. Can anyone summarize
> the event?
>
I didn't think the whole team got killed by Eclipso. As far as I know,
only Major Victory got bumped off. Were the rest in there, too?
--
-Joan Wayne
aka, Ms. Victory
Kevin J. Maroney
fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>Oh, I do. I tend to gnash my teeth at this argument. I don't want my
>fictional heroes to die without their deaths having meaning. Isn't that
>the whole point of heroic fiction?
No, although it might be one of the points.
I would think that much more important is that heroes don't *live*
without meaning, n'est-ce pas?
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
"There is a better world. There has to be."--Kay Challis
Dale Hicks
Dan McEwen <fe...@lsh.org> wrote in article <6fa0kr$9...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 13:13:15 -0500, Sean Walsh aka slw67
> <sl...@ici.net> wrote:
>
> >Yes, and we have KnightFall/Quest/Crap and the Reign of the Supermen to
> >prove that... :)
>
> The funny part is that I can't even imagine =why= anyone complained.
> It's not as though it was likely that these replacements were
> permanent. I certainly figured the death/injury stuff was a gimmick.
Yeah, just like it was clear that the whole "Hal Jordan goes mad
someone blew up a city that had none of his closest friends in
it" was just a gimmick. I mean, no one expected Kid GL to step
up and take over the title.
--
Brainfeld dhi...@surfnet1.net
Dale Hicks
Lyle Masaki spi...@aloha.net wrote in article <6faemn$moa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
[...]
> Of course I take this issue rather personally, since I really enjoyed the
> likes of Dr Midnight, Wildcat II and the Force of July.
Taken in this context, it appears the answer is yes. Can anyone summarize
the event?
I really thought that the Annual that they were introduced in was one
of the best annuals. It came out about the same time as the Iron Man
annual that introed another Goliath, and both were really good reads.
--
Brainfeld dhi...@surfnet1.net
Bala Menon
Dale Hicks <dhi...@surfnet.1.net> wrote in article
<01bd5925$2d2b0ce0$54c50ed1@default>...
> > really enjoyed the likes of Dr Midnight, Wildcat II
> > and the Force of July.
>
> Taken in this context, it appears the answer is yes.
> Can anyone summarize the event?
Most of the Force of July died in the Janus Directive, when
Kobra played the US metahuman espionage organizations
against each other: the Atom Project against Checkmate
against the Suicide Squad against the Force of July, and so on ...
Mayflower was strangled by Ravan; Dr. Light killed Sparkler;
Silent Majority was shot in the final assault on Kobra's Ark;
and Lady Liberty sacrificed her life to destroy Kobra's microwave
cannon. Major Victory, the sole survivor, joined the Suicide Squad,
and, IIRC, was later killed in Parador by Eclipso's forces.
--
Bala Menon (b.m...@worldnet.att.net)
"I am NOT making you a chocolate sandwich !" - CGKA
T. Troy McNemar, Esq.
Previously, Cannon<x8...@music.stlawu.edu> wrote:
>T. Troy McNemar, Esq. didst say unto the masses...
>> Previously, Cannon<x8...@music.stlawu.edu> wrote:
>>>I don't mind the "meaningless" deaths all that much myself. People die for no
>>>reason every day, and I don't think the superhero set should be immune just
>>>because they wear spandex and have flashy codenames.
>
>I knew no one would read the second paragraph.
Nobody ever does. :)
>> Why do people look for realism in super-hero comics?
>
>Everyone likes realism in their superhero comic books; just the degree varies
>from fan to fan.
"Realism" is a nebulous enough concept that we may be talking about
different things. I was using the term very sloppily in responding to your
post. It would be more accurate if I were to say that the realism that
comes with super-hero death is not the type of realism that benefits a
super-hero story.
CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS #8 may have been the last good super-hero death
story. (Am I missing any contenders?) Since COIE #8, the self-sacrificing
hero stories seem more rote than inspired.
>I like as much realism as possible in the books I read; it brings the
>characters down closer to a level where I can really begin to believe they're
>real, to where my suspension of disbelief doesn't have to be sprained just to
>enjoy my 22 page funny-book. I think this is why I enjoy HITMAN more than
>most super-books, because the characters act and talk more like real people.
Okay, suppose all of Tommy's supporting cast from Nat to Six Pack gets
killed by gunmen on vendettas. That's realistic. Is it entertaining?
My take would be that HITMAN would be a poorer book without its supporting
cast. I don't read the book anymore, but the character interaction with
the great supporting cast was definitely my favorite part.
--
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. Tro...@indirect.com
"I tog sllihc, er'yeht gniylpitlum! Dna m'I gnisol lortnoc . . . ."
David J. Snyder
In article <351e253e....@news.supernews.com>,
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. <tro...@indirect.com> wrote:
>
>Okay, suppose all of Tommy's supporting cast from Nat to Six Pack gets
>killed by gunmen on vendettas. That's realistic. Is it entertaining?
I thought it was entertaining when Tommy's best friend Pat was killed
killed.
Cannon
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. didst say unto the masses...
>
> Previously, Cannon<x8...@music.stlawu.edu> wrote:
> >I knew no one would read the second paragraph.
>
> Nobody ever does. :)
Snap judgements, right?
> >> Why do people look for realism in super-hero comics?
> >
> >Everyone likes realism in their superhero comic books; just the degree
varies
> >from fan to fan.
>
> "Realism" is a nebulous enough concept that we may be talking about
> different things. I was using the term very sloppily in responding to your
> post. It would be more accurate if I were to say that the realism that
> comes with super-hero death is not the type of realism that benefits a
> super-hero story.
Depends entirely upon the story you want to tell. For example...
> CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS #8 may have been the last good super-hero death
> story. (Am I missing any contenders?) Since COIE #8, the self-sacrificing
> hero stories seem more rote than inspired.
COIE was *all* about self-sacrifice. It was a big, messy, epic story about
the destruction of entire universes. In a story like that, good superhero
deaths are second nature. Like Earth-2 Superman and Superboy... Barry and
Kara... and on and on. Lots of people died well in that story.
But if every book was like COIE, we'd get sick of it right quick. Look at
how stale the yearly crossovers have gotten already... who isn't sick of all
the crap? Having Batman slip in the shower and break his neck or shoving
Kyle into a refridgerator may not be heroic ways to go, but they do add
variety... makes it all more interesting. Not every character has to go out
likes it Ragnorok. Some could quietly retire (like the JSA, by God!), while
others might get hit by a bus.
And of course, to get back to that second paragraph I alluded to earlier, if
death in comics didn't have a revolving door, then "pointless" or
"meaningless" deaths would dissapper.
> Okay, suppose all of Tommy's supporting cast from Nat to Six Pack gets
> killed by gunmen on vendettas. That's realistic. Is it entertaining?
As long as it's written well.
> My take would be that HITMAN would be a poorer book without its supporting
> cast. I don't read the book anymore, but the character interaction with
> the great supporting cast was definitely my favorite part.
It's my favorite part, too. But again, the nature of comic books would enable
Tommy to find a new supporting cast. And dealing with the tradgedy of losing
all his friends might make for a good story.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Kevin J. Maroney (kmar...@crossover.com) wrote:
: fire...@panix.com (Elayne Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
: >Oh, I do. I tend to gnash my teeth at this argument. I don't want my
: >fictional heroes to die without their deaths having meaning. Isn't that
: >the whole point of heroic fiction?
: No, although it might be one of the points.
Conceded.
: I would think that much more important is that heroes don't *live*
: without meaning, n'est-ce pas?
Yes, but their deaths will ultimately be unsatisfying to the readers, I
should think, if their lives are given up in vain (i.e., if there is no
meaning attached to the deaths themselves). At least the Ultimate
Sacrifice, while a bit cliched, has the advantage of giving the reader a
sense of closure. That's why Barry Allen's death was done so well, in my
estimation-- having him become the Speed Force iota which zapped himself,
then Wally, then saved the universe was tremendously satisfying and
offered one of the best senses of closure I've ever read.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
Cannon (x8...@music.stlawu.edu) wrote:
: Elayne Wechsler-Chaput didst say unto the masses...
: >
: > Cannon (x8...@music.stlawu.edu) wrote:
: >
: > : I don't mind the "meaningless" deaths all that much myself. People die for
: no
: > : reason every day, and I don't think the superhero set should be immune
: just
: > : because they wear spandex and have flashy codenames.
: > Oh, I do. I tend to gnash my teeth at this argument. I don't want my
: > fictional heroes to die without their deaths having meaning. Isn't that
: > the whole point of heroic fiction?
: Well, sure, in any kind of heroic fiction where death has an ounce of meaning.
: But comics don't work that way.
Well, they do for me.
Or perhaps they *should* but *don't*.
Cannon
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput didst say unto the masses...
>
> Cannon (x8...@music.stlawu.edu) wrote:
> : Well, sure, in any kind of heroic fiction where death has an ounce of
meaning.
> : But comics don't work that way.
>
> Well, they do for me.
>
> Or perhaps they *should* but *don't*.
I'll agree with the second point.
But I still don't think spandex and a codename guarantees a character a
heroic death.
T. Troy McNemar, Esq.
Previously, Cannon<x8...@music.stlawu.edu> wrote:
>And of course, to get back to that second paragraph I alluded to earlier, if
>death in comics didn't have a revolving door, then "pointless" or
>"meaningless" deaths would dissapper.
Then, from a realism standpoint, aren't we better off if no characters die
rather than having characters die then later be ressurrected?
Trevor McCoy
>I'll have to pick this up and check it out for myself, but I do have one
>multiverse. This might not be the modern Krypton, it might be the
>pre-crisis Krypton where Clark was born on Krypton and was 29 perpetually as
>Given the timeline funkiness Grant seems to like, I wouldn't put it past him
>to have Wally run right past Crisis without even knowing.
Over in Legion Of Superheroes this week, there are glimpses of that pre-Crisis
universe being seen too, or at least pre-Zero Hour.
monty...@hotmail.com
In article <diana-26039...@206.101.2.43>,
di...@discover.net (Ms. Victory) wrote:
> I didn't think the whole team got killed by Eclipso. As far as I know,
> only Major Victory got bumped off. Were the rest in there, too?
>
Major Victory was the only surviving member. the rest were killed off ( and
oddly fleshed out ) in the Janus Directive, a Crossover between Suicide
Squad, Checkmate, Captain Atom and Firestorm.
Monty
<Suicide Squad Historian>
Victor W. Wong
Cannon (x8...@music.stlawu.edu) writes:
> Elayne Wechsler-Chaput didst say unto the masses...
>>
>> Cannon (x8...@music.stlawu.edu) wrote:
>> : Well, sure, in any kind of heroic fiction where death has an ounce of
> meaning.
>> : But comics don't work that way.
>>
>> Well, they do for me.
>>
>> Or perhaps they *should* but *don't*.
>
> I'll agree with the second point.
>
> But I still don't think spandex and a codename guarantees a character a
> heroic death.
True enough. I can think of a few cases:
1. THE PATRIOT -- Died in bed of cancer.
2. CAPTAIN MAR-VELL -- Died in bed of cancer.
3. UNION JACK I -- Died in his wheelchair of heart failure.
4. BLACK CANARY I -- Died in bed of cancer.
Of course these deaths aren't heroic. They're portrayed with dignity, as
an inevitable conclusion to an event-filled life. Which is the sign of
a conscientious writer. (Note that "conscientious" and "good" aren't
necessarily the same thing.)
--
VW Wong
Fighter for Truth and Justice
Righter of Wrongs --- Always Triumphant over Evil
**Reasonable Rates**
Sean Walsh aka slw67
monty...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <diana-26039...@206.101.2.43>,
> di...@discover.net (Ms. Victory) wrote:
>
> > I didn't think the whole team got killed by Eclipso. As far as I know,
> > only Major Victory got bumped off. Were the rest in there, too?
> >
>
> Major Victory was the only surviving member. the rest were killed off ( and
> oddly fleshed out ) in the Janus Directive, a Crossover between Suicide
> Squad, Checkmate, Captain Atom and Firestorm.
And then Major Victory got himself killed by Eclipso alongside Commander
Steel...
>
> Monty
>
> <Suicide Squad Historian>
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
--
"She blinds everybody with her super-high beams
She's a squirrel-squashing, deer-smacking drivin' machine
Canyonero!"
- Hank Williams Jr., "The Canyonero Song", _The Simpsons_
Cannon
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. didst say unto the masses...
> Then, from a realism standpoint, aren't we better off if no characters die
> rather than having characters die then later be ressurrected?
If, in the highly dangerous profession of super-heroing, no one ever died,
that would not be realistic. I expect some casualties. All I was saying was
that, if death actually had some narrative power, some permanence, then any
death of a character would have meaning, even if they just got hit by a bus
or slipped off a rooftop.
Not that I'm saying it should happen a lot -- not at all. If death is to
be used at all, it has to parsed out. Otherwise, it becomes a gimmick again.
Plus, if a character is going to stay dead, never to be used again, editors
and writers might actually give each character's worth some serious thought.
And it would give stuff like the Return of Superman a bit more oomph, too.
Jim Cannon
x8...@music.stlawu.edu
The Great and Powerful Danny Sichel
Patrick Thompson wrote:
> >>And, interestingly enough, in the latest issue of FLASH,
> >>time-and-space-travelling Wally has a stop on pre-explosion Krypton, and
> I'll have to pick this up and check it out for myself, but I do have one
> possible theory--It could be Morrison being really devious about the
> multiverse.
He's so devious, he wrote the issue under the name "Mark Millar".
The Great and Powerful Danny Sichel
Victor W. Wong wrote:
>> But I still don't think spandex and a codename guarantees a character a
>> heroic death.
> True enough. I can think of a few cases:
> 1. THE PATRIOT -- Died in bed of cancer.
> 2. CAPTAIN MAR-VELL -- Died in bed of cancer.
> 3. UNION JACK I -- Died in his wheelchair of heart failure.
> 4. BLACK CANARY I -- Died in bed of cancer.
> Of course these deaths aren't heroic. They're portrayed with dignity, as
> an inevitable conclusion to an event-filled life. Which is the sign of
> a conscientious writer. (Note that "conscientious" and "good" aren't
> necessarily the same thing.)
How about Jim Corrigan? (I'm talking about the more recent one which
ended with his ascension into Heaven, not the 1940s one which ended with
him getting a concrete overcoat.)
quimico
>
>If, in the highly dangerous profession of super-heroing, no one ever died,
>that would not be realistic. I expect some casualties.
If I want realism, I don't go for the comics.
IMO, comics are fun BECAUSE they are
unrealistic.