Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 121 to 122 of 122
  1. #121
    Fantastic Member KingsLeadHat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014


    Quote Originally Posted by phantom1592 View Post
    Any particular reason that you start so early? I may have gone 1995 as the downfall. That's when all at once, Captain America got the armor, Thor lost his shirt, Avengers had their Crossing, Onslaught, Age of Apocolypes, The clone Saga....

    1992 Marvel seemed at the top of their game. Dan Ketch's Ghost Rider was restarting the whole Marvel/Horror franchise, Everyone was getting multiple books and brand new characters were given their own books out the gate like Darkhawk and Sleepwalker... My pull list had to be about 30 books long with 80% Marvel...

    By 94/95 it was spiraling pretty fast, but the early 90's I still consider pretty traditional/classic/normal. I remember someone stating once that the traditional Marvel Universe died with Age of Apocylpse and when the timeline/world was reset that was the line in the sand for when the 'good' days ended...
    I agree for the most part. I started regularly buying comics in 1987, so the early 90's was the height of my collecting days. I think 1991 was the beginning of the end, more accurately, given that Claremont was the last long tenured holdover from the Shooter era. But you're right to point out that it still felt like "classic" Marvel, probably up until 1993/94. Peter David's Incredible Hulk run was still going strong into 1994, for example.
    Last edited by KingsLeadHat; 05-26-2017 at 12:27 AM.

  2. #122
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Bedford UK


    Quote Originally Posted by PhantomStranger View Post

    So you'd rather have books where the character abitrarily changes from title to title, sometimes issue to issue that have no sense of history or permanence? We have that right now and fans are pissed, which is why sales are down.
    It really isn't why sales are down, that was an economic circumstance that will slowly resolve itself.

    But you are pointing at the thing without seeing what it is. Making a problem out of a strength.

    Comic characters should not be set in stone, they should be allowed to be part of stories. The writer should be free to interpret the characters as they wish because superheroes are mutable symbols not real people. Nobody is suggesting that they become warped out of recognition, but that is what trying to stick to continuity does to characters. It twists them and bends them and makes them unwieldy. Better to see them as simple and unburden them from the decades of story that they carry around like a millstone around their neck.

    The hardcore character fans expect too much of characterisation, they want all the tiny little things they like about the character represented every time they appear. But the problem is no two hardcore fans can agree on what that set of traits, associations, love interests and rivalries should be. The answer is to tell stories assuming the core concept of the character, and then when a writer wants to explore specific parts of the canon then they can do that with a discrete story with a limited scope.

    The great example of this right now is Aaron. He boils down the characters to a simple concept, and then asks various questions of that concept. He often uses canon to do that, but he takes his time, one or two questions at a time, never overburdening the characters with the weight of canonicity. He allows the natural process of storytelling to do the work, and brings in new fans to a wider world.
    Last edited by JKtheMac; 05-26-2017 at 01:42 AM.

Posting Permissions

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