Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33
  1. #16
    Incredible Member LordMikel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mathew101281 View Post
    I know it sounds like a crazy idea but hear me out. The first few generations of creators in a genre tend to take inspiration from sources outside the genre they are creating. Early Cyberpunk took influences fro Film noir, early superhero creators took influences from the pulps, and myth etc. This makes sense. The genre isn’t big enough or self sustaining enough to be incestous yet. But that third generation, the generation that grew up with the genre changes things. It’s usually at that time that stuff begins to change. The genre almost always becomes more internalized as primary influences shift from external influences (other genres, classic literature etc.) to internal ones ( other works within the genre, namely the works the author grew up on). It works out pretty well at first. These authors usually bring new insights to old ideas. But what inevitably what starts happening in this period, is that people start canonizing, what the genre is and isn’t. Tropes start to become cliches, and the whole thing starts to become really incestous and unoriginal. The only time innovation happens after this point is if someone who didn’t grow up in the fandom, decides to write in the genre. And usually in that case the readers usually hate it. They’ve been trained to look for tropes rather then story.
    I think where this might be most true. A fan reads a Superman comic. Years later he becomes a Superman writers, remembers that story and decides, 1) I liked that story, I want to redo it or 2) I didn't like that story and I want to redo it but make it how it should have been.
    ďA common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.Ē
    ― Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless


    "That's the problem with our opposition Ė they keep thinking nobody could possibly be as stupid as we are. Fools 'em every time."
    ―Lando Calrissian[src]

  2. #17
    Astonishing Member Trey Strain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,967

    Default

    Of course you have to be talented to achieve the success the Beatles did. But if they hadn't been such fans of the music they played, they wouldn't have been nearly as good.

  3. #18
    Astonishing Member mojotastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    2,289

    Default

    Just look at the x-men, a lot of readers become writers and instead of using the characters that were suppose to be the new generation they ended up using the character they liked while growing up.

  4. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JBatmanFan05 View Post
    I wouldn't sweep with too broad a brush on this. Fans becoming creators...has worked in many instances and probably not worked in many instances.
    Correct. In fact, Gil Kane once said that most of the Golden Age creators weren't hardcore fans of sf and superheroes, except for one who at least made a little bit of difference-- Jerry Siegel.

    (Now, whether Kane ever even met Siegel, or was just repeating something others had said, is anyone's guess.)

  5. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trey Strain View Post
    I think more often what causes the decline in an art is that a new wave of people come in who have no real love for what they're creating. They're lured by the money.

    A good example is the Beatles. They were huge fans of the kind of music they played. When they appeared on the Ed Sullivan show, John Lennon told one of the producers, "I can't believe I'm playing on the same stage Buddy Holly played on."

    Try finding a music star today who would say something like that. Now what people in the music business produce tends to be a cynical calculation. If people like crap, they'll gladly produce crap.
    That would apply to the Golden Age as well. There were some real innovations back then, but tons and tons of crap by people who were just trying to find something that clicked with readers and made them money (which is not necessarily a bad motivation, just an incomplete one).

  6. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mathew101281 View Post
    70ís most definately. In the late 50ís and 60ís there was still a lot of creators who were hold overs from golden age working in comics. Plus you had that whole period between the gold and silver ages where Superheroes werenít as popular so creators had to be versed in other genres. To me the 70ís marks the point were fans took over really. Itís no accident that the 70ís marks the point where the number of new Superheroes being introduced took a nose dive. Fans tend not to prefer nolstalgia over new.
    Even in the early 40s, during the first superhero boom, professional writers had to wear a lot of genre-hats. A professional couldn't depend on having a superhero assignment fall in his lap; he had to be able to write or draw a western if an editor was willing to pay for one. Certain artists and writers had specialties even then: Bill Everett was certainly better served by fantasy/SF concepts than by westerns or private eyes.

    As for the 1970s, superheroes were becoming more dominant, and a lot of fans came into the business as superhero fans. But a lot of "name" professionals of the time still wrote war comics, horror stories, et al. I don't think it's until the 1980s that superheroes really start to marginalize everything else, partly because by that time the newsstand distribution is either gone or on its last legs for comics, which made the DM the only market in town.

  7. #22
    DC Comics Forum Mod The Darknight Detective's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperiorIronman View Post
    Everything is derivative of something. The idea to make something "original" is to approach the topic from a different point of view or find a way of expressing it in an interesting way.
    Yes.

    I don't care whom anybody names (I'm assuming nobody here knows of any cave men personally ), that person took a little bit here and there to make his or her creation.
    A bat! That's it! It's an omen.. I'll shall become a bat!

    Pre-CBR Reboot Join Date: 10-17-2010

    Pre-CBR Reboot Posts: 4,362

  8. #23
    Wait. Worry. Who Cares? Elmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Sesame Street
    Posts
    1,451

    Default

    sorry but this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever read. i honestly can't believe people are taking it seriously
    i'm always online and i'm nice on there

  9. #24
    Mighty Member mathew101281's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elmo View Post
    sorry but this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever read. i honestly can't believe people are taking it seriously
    How so? You just have to look a what qualifies as a "new" character/franchise these days to see my point.

  10. #25
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,961

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elmo View Post
    sorry but this is the most ridiculous thing i've ever read. i honestly can't believe people are taking it seriously
    I disagree with you. There are many reasons that media today seems to be repeating the past (easy to resell past success, creators want to save new ideas for their own profit, etc.), there's been a credible pattern of fan creators returning to/reintroducing the stories of their youth (see DC's been particularly notable with the "Lightening Saga", and the endless cycle of Green Lanterns as examples).

    There may be an argument to support your position, but just dismissing a point you disagree with by simply declaring "that's ridiculous" is as indefensible as it is lazy.

  11. #26

    Default

    I don't think genres die because later generations of creators are fans, or not. Inaccessibility can be a problem if work is made for people who are already fans, as opposed to the wider community, but there are other issues. A genre might be tapped out, or the creators haven't figured out how to adapt it to modern concerns for a new audience, or it might just have a limited shelf life. A new factor is nichification, as you have more work than ever before, but individual projects reach a smaller and more specific audience, which limits its cultural impact.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  12. #27
    Super Spy Carabas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    15,468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mathew101281 View Post
    How so? You just have to look a what qualifies as a "new" character/franchise these days to see my point.
    When you get right down to it, there were very few original elements in the Batman character back in 1939.

    Nothing in fiction is "new".
    "One may be intelligent, and a Nazi. Then one is not decent. One may be decent and a Nazi. Then one is not intelligent. And one may be intelligent and decent. Then one is not a Nazi"
    - Gerhard Bronner

  13. #28
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,043

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mathew101281 View Post
    How so? You just have to look a what qualifies as a "new" character/franchise these days to see my point.
    And even a brief glance outside of the tiny world of dead tree comic books can tell you otherwise.

  14. #29
    Mighty Member mathew101281's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wjowski View Post
    And even a brief glance outside of the tiny world of dead tree comic books can tell you otherwise.
    I’m not talking about just comics though, like I mentioned in the first post,(Cyber punk) you could apply the same observation to a lot of things.

  15. #30
    Astonishing Member Abe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    3,014

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carabas View Post
    When you get right down to it, there were very few original elements in the Batman character back in 1939.

    Nothing in fiction is "new".
    I don't think the OP disagrees. At least Batman wasn't "incestous".

    I put in bold some parts that seem to me quite interesting, because I don't see that much discussions on these boards about those external influences. I probably lurk on the wrong places!

    Quote Originally Posted by mathew101281 View Post
    I know it sounds like a crazy idea but hear me out. The first few generations of creators in a genre tend to take inspiration from sources outside the genre they are creating. Early Cyberpunk took influences fro Film noir, early superhero creators took influences from the pulps, and myth etc. This makes sense. The genre isnít big enough or self sustaining enough to be incestous yet. But that third generation, the generation that grew up with the genre changes things. Itís usually at that time that stuff begins to change. The genre almost always becomes more internalized as primary influences shift from external influences (other genres, classic literature etc.) to internal ones ( other works within the genre, namely the works the author grew up on). It works out pretty well at first. These authors usually bring new insights to old ideas. But what inevitably what starts happening in this period, is that people start canonizing, what the genre is and isnít. Tropes start to become cliches, and the whole thing starts to become really incestous and unoriginal. The only time innovation happens after this point is if someone who didnít grow up in the fandom, decides to write in the genre. And usually in that case the readers usually hate it. Theyíve been trained to look for tropes rather then story.
    ...............
    - To Tammy and the Blue Rose !

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •