Comicscape - October 19, 2005

By: Kurt Amacker
Date: Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Last week's column on the industry's reliance on old characters and the need for new blood garnered a lot of mail. Some weeks COMICSCAPE really resonates with people and my inbox groans under the weight of responses, criticism, praise, and the occasional piece of hate mail (mostly when I discuss religion). Thanks to everyone that wrote. I apologize if your letter doesn't appear below, but I have to stop sometime. Otherwise, the column would be about twice as long and painfully repetitive.

Bloodsong writes, "The problem that I have seen is that nothing changes in comics...The big two are so scared to make anything happen, anything that has an impact after the mini-series or story-arc ends. Its not so much that our characters need to die, though i do believe death would be a great thing to the individual universes, its that their lives really need to change...What if Spider-Man really and truly got his ass handed to him by someone, was then crucified in downtown New York, and he died? I am not talking about how it would affect his books alone, but the Marvel Universe as a whole. Things would change if that happened... New York wakes up to find ol' Spidey hanging there in Times Square. It's not so much that the heroes need to die but their world needs to change perhaps. Mortality needs to be explored. The fact that they can die is something that readers do not believe."

Anybody with a name like "Bloodsong" has to be into black metal, right? I bet that guy likes Darkthrone. Anyway, yes, I agree that comic publishers need to explore mortality. Unfortunately, character longevity means more sales. While a writer might have a great idea for a story where Spider-Man dies, Marvel would never incorporate it into regular continuity. Marvel would only kill a character if he or she didn't generate sales or if said character's death (and return) would increase those (or both). Obviously, there have been exceptions, but I challenge any writer to approach Marvel with a great "death of Spider-Man" story and, in turn, for Marvel to accept the story for its quality and use it in regular continuity. Comic publishing is a business like any other, and they won't discontinue their most successful products. I don't fault them for that, but to think otherwise is naïve.

Nicholas LaBassiere writes, "I feel like I'm on the fence on this one. I absolutely, love all the characters I grew up reading and it would be tough to just have them killed off, to be replaced with new characters. And as you stated, the general principal of the hero and to an extent the villain hasn't really changed much. I do prefer the tougher, darker Batman than the "let him talk about his feelings" type. Hero and villains just change with societies views of them...You are right about the industry needing a shot of adrenaline, but killing off like the X-men or Spidey, would prove pretty devastating. Look what happened when they killed off Supes. Comic heads were severely up in arms, so they brought him back."

I think Superman's resurrection had more to do with increasing sales than fan outrage.

"I think that maybe it's not the characters that need to be killed off, but maybe there needs to be better stories. Get rid of all the extra titles and concentrate on the main ones. Keep the Ultimate line...If they want new characters, then create some good ones that will last. Maybe add them to a team, like they do on TV shows like Stargate. They introduce a character, and gradually they are put into the forefront."

Many readers reiterated that they don't want to see their old favorites killed, but they want better stories and feel the extra titles clutter the market and confuse continuity. The problem lies with readers as much as with the companies. Those who already read two Spider-Man titles will likely pick up a third. Hell, I'd pick up a second or third Punisher title. Unfortunately, many then crumble under the weight of titles and just drop all of them.

"I just don't think killing the old characters off will do any good. How about maybe killing off a character or having them just give up their superhero ways for awhile, as long as you can give them a way back in. Like maybe Spidey and MJ want to have kids, so Peter gives up being Spidey for awhile."

I really like this suggestion, although it goes back to the profitability of ongoing series. No one's going to buy an issue of AMAZING SPIDER-MAN where Peter and MJ have to find a good kindergarten for little May. People want action.

"Just a note about the aging thing: I think that you can age a character, but it just has to be done really slowly. I mean can Spidey really stay 30 forever? The question is how slowly? Ten years equals one? I don't know, but they had the new mutants grow up, and eventually become X-Force."

Comic characters (at least at the big two) age selectively, and only when it suits the story. This leads to a universe where Frank Castle and Wolverine (healing factor, I know) can age in real time, while Peter Parker remains in his 30s. Obviously, none of the companies have a rule about aging, particularly when maturity might affect sales (see my earlier comment about a Spider-Man retirement).

P. Kent writes, "I'm not sure why the industry isn't willing to age their main characters. It seems like a natural progression that would add additional dimensions to the complexity of the characters, and also force the creation of new variants and heroes itself. Shouldn't the stuff that happens to everyone else eventually happens to our heroes? I don't want Batman to become a cantankerous old man complaining about how cold it is in the Bat Cave (...or do I?), but having him adjust his style and approach to the increasing problems associated with aging would be both fair and intriguing. Shouldn't Alfred, Gordon, the Joker, etc. die and Bruce have to deal with those losses? Shouldn't Bats gets increasingly hurt when he takes on the bad guys, be forced to plan more and become smarter, and also be required to train a replacement? I'd argue yes. I personally loved the aged Bats in the Dark Knight Returns."

P., I really like that idea, but again, it comes down to sales. I enjoyed reading about the older Bruce Wayne in THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS and KINGDOM COME, but DC will never touch that idea in main continuity unless they're prepared to pass the cape and cowl to Dick Grayson.

"Will there always be a Batman? I hope so. But, as the recent television adaptations demonstrated, Batman doesn't always have to be Bruce Wayne. Perhaps, to partially quote General Douglas MacArthur, old heroes never die, they just fade away."

Other readers agreed about new characters assuming old heroes' identities like the different Flashes, Green Lanterns, et al. While certainly a good way to renew and retain old characters, I'd only want to read it if the new men behind the masks were distinct from their predecessors. There's no reason to make Dick Grayson Batman if he'll only imitate Bruce Wayne.

Terry Stull writes, "But here is a bigger disappointment: where are today's superheroes? I think it's funny how the Ultimate line updated superheroes for the 20th century yet this particular line (and possibly DC's All-Star line) is the only one I can think of that features modern superheroes. I love the way the Ultimate line updated Marvel's icons without changing a character's essence. Yet it's quite a shame that one of the most entertainingly subversive modern superhero books happens to be THE ULTIMATES. Someone needs to take a risk and do what Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, and Steve Ditko did 44 years ago...All in all, comic book publishers are getting lazy and focusing on their quarterly earnings more than anything. A strong possible solution would be for someone in the industry to take charge and create new updated superheroes (while we still have our WALKING DEAD). The good news (intertwined with bad news of course) is that in the post 9-11 and excessive natural disaster world, we do need heroes, so how hard can it be to update them?"

Terry, writers enter dangerous territory when they update superheroes (and perhaps they should) because inevitably, someone's going to get pissed and cry about "politics in comics." I like the balanced approach that Mark Millar offers in ULTIMATES 2, including the more conservative, security-minded perspective presented via Nick Fury. Erik Larson challenged the industry to create new heroes and I agree with him. And, if the big two can't or won't create new heroes, they should take their current ones to unexplored territory. Perhaps they're trying with the current crossovers, but it remains to be seen.

RECKLESS LIFE author Tim Demeter of writes, "On the topic of killing off or retiring major characters, I don't think it's the answer. I'd like to consider myself something of a comics maverick, but at the end of the day, I still love Spider-Man. How about not just cutting back the number of X or Bat titles, but throwing-out the whole idea of monthly comics all together? The rise of the direct market made the comic as a periodical kind of irrelevant, because they stopped being sold along with other magazines in grocery and drug stores, and now as the direct market begins to devour itself with lack of variety the market IS going to implode at some point...My point, maybe Spider-man only comes out two or three times a year, but as a complete story done by one creative team that had a story to tell, not a deadline to meet. This would release the super-hero glut some and open up room for other titles to work in. This is of course dreaming, Marvel and DC will never do it, but it's an idea."

Tim, I've considered this before and nearly written about it a couple of times. While I don't know the particulars, I've been told this would destroy the modern comic shop as we know it. Most of the small stores rely on their weekly income from subscribers, while graphic novels and back issues remain secondary. However, a trade-only market would nail the coffin shut on the collector's market as most books would likely remain in print longer than monthly issues do. But, while I'm certainly not an economist, I suspect that individual comics' comparably small print runs likely turn a greater profit than the sale of trades and original graphic novels. If a trade-only market were more profitable, the publisher's would've already adopted that model. The consumer would benefit in a lot of respects, but I'm not sure about the long-term consequences.

Red Machine's Bryan Mero writes, "[We] have to look at this from a business standpoint. Comic book companies need to make money. New characters and series are risky. Well known characters already have established sales potential. Killing a superhero (thus killing the series) could be seen as a reduction in revenue. As an aspiring writer for a small press comic book company, I would applaud the acceptance of new characters...of course that would serve towards my own benefit. I'd rather write new stories and characters then re-hash or re-imagine established characters. But to be super-hypocritical, if Marvel wants me to write a new storyline for Spider-Man, I wouldn't hesitate to do it."

Hell, I wouldn't either. I'd probably work in the mail room at Marvel just to get my foot in the door. I'm man enough to admit it.

Keith Rideout writes, "And in the Marvel 'verse X-Men died for me several years back in the mid-nineties when they did the multi-title shattering of the universe tailing the Legacy series; which led to that terrible run of alternate universe characters that had Scott Summers with Sinister and Logan with only one hand as he fought alongside Jean Grey. It felt so terribly forced and rushed to try something 'different' that it killed it for me."

Just a side note: in professional wrestling, they call this "hotshotting" when the promoters introduce a major storyline out of leftfield to generate buzz. For instance: "Oh my God! Stone Cold Steve Austin and the Rock have just announced their engagement! They're going to be married at Summerslam!" or something similarly ridiculous. Yes, I used to be one of those "smart" fans.

"I understand that the headwigs will never let the characters go because the masses will always love said characters and continue to buy them each month regardless of whatever corny, contrived situation they're all put in for the 50th time during their run. But I think along the side, each generation of writers and artists could come up with their own creation a hero for that generation that ages alongside them and, eventually, moves on or dies with his or her boots on so to speak. There's plenty of room on shelves and enough like minded individuals to keep such a hero existing right alongside us."

Well, nobody's stopping you, me, or anyone else. Again, though, most comic readers buy with a limited budget, which is why they pass up new titles in favor of old standbys.

Richard R. Ruggieri, III writes, "I think it's pretty obvious that the lack of aging of primary characters, and the lack of any new characters is directly related. Concerning DC, I think it might be beneficial for them to integrate some sort of strict timeline into their universe. It wouldn't have to be real-time, in fact it would probably be better if it wasn't...that way they could minimize the aging of their older characters, but still allow growth of the younger and newer characters. Unfortunately, any kind of chronology would need huge amounts of overhead and coordination between the teams assigned to different titles all across the universe. Also it would limit the type of story that any given writer could tell since he or she would be in one way or another constrained by the timeframe allowed."

This goes back to the continuity tangle with which Marvel and DC grapple (or completely ignore). It'd be nice if all of the creative teams somehow coordinated, but with multiple titles for major characters, it would become difficult to justify how Batman has time to travel Apokalips in one issue and fight Black Mask in another, ostensibly within the same time period. Several years ago, DC tried crossing over all of the Superman titles every month to keep continuity straight, but that, of course, compels readers to buy extra titles. I suggest that major characters get one in-continuity title. Any other series are afforded the same status as DC's All Star line, Elseworlds, or WHAT IF?.

Keldan323 writes, "Now as for the Larson rant, I am not one to argue someone's point of view. Although, his speech sounded more like a pitch for people to join Image rather than work for the opposition. It seemed forced (although, this may be his usual style of editorials, don't know never read his stuff, don't like it). Yes, there are many creators out there that may have some great ideas sitting in a drawer somewhere, but if someone gets the opportunity to work for Marvel or DC, let them. Don't call them pussies because they're 'playing it safe.'"

I wouldn't go so far as to call any working creator a pussy. As we read here in the self-publishing and breaking in columns, the comics industry quickly washes out all but the most dedicated writers and artists. Everybody has to eat and pay bills, so I don't fault any creator for "playing it safe." If everyone started their own restaurant, there would be no waiters. While I agree the industry needs new blood, I won't criticize anyone for taking a paying job.

"Also, it seems that Mr. Larson has forgotten that even Image has some say in whether you get published through them or not. If they don't agree with, or like your proposal (because they believe it will not sell) they can refuse you. I looked this up a while ago when I was looking to submit."

Well, obviously. But, Image isn't the only game in town.

"So the question on this rant is, is this an open challenge to give comics a boost, or a plea from the number three company to get some new stuff out there? One leads to the other. If companies want to improve the industry, stop trying to peddle off another crap book like a GAMBIT or NIGHTCRAWLER series and give us a more cohesive story. All those stories that have yet to be told will be told in time. And they can be through the bigger titles if the companies allow them to be...Overkill, is what is hurting the industry. Those good books out there get overshadowed, and it's a shame."

Matt S. writes, "Every time I go to the comic book store I look at their row of trades. I look at the rows and rows of X-Mens, Batman's all the other popular ones, and think that I sure got a lot of stuff to read. It's not like I'm going to run out of X-Men books. Seeing all that has already been done with these characters, I don't really think it would bother me if Marvel and DC just quit making comics out of their best heroes (like that will ever happen). I mean, look at all the material that has been done already? What can be done new that hasn't been done before? In the course of writing this, it seems my opinion has changed even more towards get rid of all the major characters, cause for a new reader like me, there is plenty of old material that I haven't read yet."

If all of the classic characters died tomorrow, there'd still be more material than anyone could read in one lifetime. The best stories will remain. People just can't let a story stand alone. Some things don't need to continue indefinitely.

Keith Gatchel writes, "In regards to your column on characters being recycled, I think it's a balancing act. Of course the industry needs a good boost by something new and improved every now and then (we call him Alan Moore, the Image Seven, Frank Miller, etc.). But those guys were the best of the best. They had story concepts of new and established characters that just had to be told."

I must admit, if DC decided that Batman had run his course in the early 1980s, we wouldn't have THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS or YEAR ONE. Maybe there's a fantastic, industry-changing story with an established character still waiting to happen.

"In a perfect world, everyone would have that drive and talent. But most of them don't. Most of them would just recycle old tidbits of stuff they saw. Most of them say in interviews, 'Wow, I get to play with the characters I got to read as a kid.' Sometimes that's good, and sometimes it's bad. If they were to create their own characters, we'd just have multitudes of the exact same concepts, because frankly, most of them aren't as creative as those mentioned in the parenthesis. And, frankly, when done well, long established heroes make for the best stories and moments you'll ever read, moments you can't get with something new. Garth Ennis has created some of the best splash pages ever in the issues of Punisher, simply because you know he's the Punisher, and he's about to do something badass, and everyone else is royally screwed; because he's the Punisher, and that's what the Punisher does. Superman flies onto the porch while Lois Lane is getting kidnapped, and you know everything's going to be all right (because bullets bounce off his chest and we know that). Creating new characters means reestablishing that convention and reputation with each character each time. And again, most writers, I doubt, are talented enough to do that without even getting even more repetitive."

That's a good point. It's harder to establish that mythic quality with newer properties.

"Also, comic books are episodic, like TV shows. I doubt any of us started watching THE WEST WING, CHEERS, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, FIREFLY wondering how they're going to end. We watch them to see what's going to happen next. Sure, they'll end sometime, but we assume it won't be anytime soon (unless you're Firefly, *ahem*). And think of the children. What's easier to say to a kid: 'Here's a book that fuses pictures and words in a sequential story' or 'Here's a comic book with Spider-Man. You like Spider-Man.'

Yes, but if we think of it that way, the industry should rely on only the most established, recognizable of characters. The kids have to start somewhere, and it can be with something new.

"Again, yes, we need new works that blow our mind and challenge our conceptions (now, maybe, more than ever). But anyone who thinks that getting rid of the tried and true is going to help the industry as a whole needs to reconnect with the real world before their actual vision turns black and white."

Last week, I conceded that killing off established properties en masse would probably cripple the industry. Nostalgia plays a significant role in marketing comics, and a sudden transition would probably make many readers go cold turkey. In fact, I don't know that some sort of hero apocalypse would do any good right now, other than to give the publishers an excuse to relaunch their flagship titles to great fanfare you know, "because you demanded it"? Ultimately, I hope these columns stimulate debate, and the give the industry an idea of how its fans feel. By no means do I claim to know everything, but I like asking questions.

New This Week
By Al Brown and Kurt Amacker

DARK HORSE

Blade Of The Immortal #106 (MR) (note Price) $3.99

DC COMICS

Astro City The Dark Age #4 (of 16) $2.99

Authority Revolution #12 (of 12) (MR) $2.99
Final issue! This has been an awesome run on an awesome book. Hopefully we'll see yet another 12-issue arc soon.

Batgirl #69 $2.50

Batman Gotham Knights #70 $2.50

Batman Journey Into Knight #3 (of 12) $2.50

Books Of Magick Life During Wartime #15 (MR) $2.75
Final issue! I didn't read this at all, actually - I automatically pass on anything that spells "magic" with a K - but it does feature an owl named Yo-Yo.

Captain Atom Armageddon #1 (of 9) $2.99

Chiaroscuro TP (MR) $24.99
A comic book about Leonardo Da Vinci? Next they'll be telling us there was some sort of code embedded in his paintings!

Hellblazer #213 (MR) $2.75

Intimates #12 $2.99

Justice #2 (of 12) $3.50
Didn't the first issue come out, like, last year or something?

Lucifer #67 (MR) $2.75

Manhunter #15 $2.50

Outsiders Vol 3 Wanted TP $14.99
Dead or alive! And by the way: on a steel horse I ride!

Powerpuff Girls #67 $2.25
Isn't it funny how the POWERPUFF GIRLS and LUCIFER are at the same issue number? I think I'm on to something like maybe a big pile of crack.

Robin #143 $2.50

Robotech The Shadow Chronicles #2 (of 5) $3.50

Seven Soldiers Klarion The Witch Boy #4 (of 4) $2.99
Al: The conclusion! Man, loads of final issues this week.
Kurt: How can an epic series of miniseries be utterly confusing, yet still enjoyable? Grant Morrison knows how! Tune in next week!

Superman #222 $2.50
Now, with 1/3 of the evil!

Superman In The Forties TP $19.99
Given this week's column, I have to ask if Superman will ever even reach his 40s.

Tomorrow Stories Book Two TP $17.99

Top Ten Beyond The Farthest Precinct #3 (of 5) $2.99

IMAGE

Amazing Joy Buzzards Vol 2 #1 $2.99

Battle Hymn #4 (of 5) $2.95

Deadworld #2 $3.50
Dude, when did the first issue of this come out? 1996? If you're gonna put yet another zombie book on the racks, you gotta get it out more than triannually.

Ferro City #3 $2.99
It took me this long to realize that if you put "Ferro" and "City" together you get "ferocity". Al needs brain cells, badly! Al is about to drool.

Invincible Vol 1 Ultimate Coll HC $34.95

Mage The Hero Defined Vol 1 TP $9.95

Sea Of Red #5 (MR) $2.99
I think I've already made this joke, but it bears repeating "Sea of red? That's something most of Al's girlfriends never live to experience!" Hiyo!

MARVEL

Cable Deadpool Vol 3 Human Race TP $14.99
Big guy, big gun, little head. Thanks, Rob.

Daredevil Vol 12 Decalogue TP $14.99
This arc was decent, though the conclusion came out of left field. Still, this remains one of Marvel's best books.

Daredevil Vs Punisher #5 (of 6) $2.99
So, the last issue of this the one with the guy that had the gun on his arm was kind of lame, but this series has been pretty rockin' overall.

Essential Tomb Of Dracula Vol 1 TP $14.99
This has been out for a while, but it's still worth a read. Admittedly, it doesn't hold up as well as I remember, but Marvel definitely started to come around during the 1970s with more adult titles like this.

House Of M Second Ptg Variant #4 (of 8) $2.99
Whahuh? My head hurts.

Marvel 1602 New World #4 (of 5) $3.50
Al: So this has been a disappointment. I know, nobody but me thought it'd be cool in the first place. I had faith in Greg Pak. I don't think anyone could've saved this thing, though.
Kurt: So, I thought that pilgrim guy was the rifle on the cover of #2 was supposed to be the 1602 Punisher and I got all excited. Then, when I found out he was just some guy, I got kind of upset. All right, I cried a little.

Marvel Knights Spider-Man #19 $2.99
Al: "The Other" Part 2. Why Marvel decided to revisit J. Michael Straczynski's bizarre and mostly reviled mystical take on Spider-Man is beyond me. And why they're starting a 12-part crossover now, when all anyone cares about is House of M fallout, is even more beyond me. And as long as we're talking about things I don't understand: Katie Holmes is what? Do any Scientologists read this column? If so, could you please write in and tell me where you get your drugs?
Kurt: If I can't think of a good reason beyond, "He's Spider-Man" to keep reading AMAZING SPIDER-MAN, I may drop the book. I gave in for WAR GAMES, but I don't think I'll respect myself in the morning if I buy this crossover.

Marvel Masterworks Golden Age Human Torch Vol 1 HC Var ED $54.99

Marvel Masterworks Golden Age Human Torch Vol 1 New ED HC #1 $49.99

Marvel Masterworks Mighty Thor Vol 4 HC Variant ED HC $54.99

Marvel Masterworks Mighty Thor Vol 4 New ED HC $49.99

Marvel Monsters Fin Fang Four $3.99
Al: More resurrections for classic Marvel monsters; more tongue-in-cheek deliveries; more irrelevance.
Kurt: Dude, if Marvel's doing monsters again, how about, oh, I don't know, Morbius, Blade, Dracula, Werewolf by Night, and some other characters that are mostly sitting in the dustbin? Why go the hokey route? Still, I'm checking out a few of these.

Marvel Select Flip Magazine #5 $3.99

Marvel Tales Flip Magazine #4 $3.99

Nick Fury Howling Commandos #1 $2.99
I was completely unimpressed by the preview that got crammed down my throat in every book I bought last month...but I like the idea, and I love the name. I'll buy it. But not with high hopes, damn you!

Official Handbook Marvel Universe Horror 2005 $3.99
Al: But you gotta admit, with three monster books coming out this week alone, Marvel appears to have something up their sleeves. (Could it be related to the mysterious "KING" poster we've seen kicking around recently?) I'm tempted to buy this, just to prepare.
Kurt: Yeah, this kind of rocks. I'm getting it.

Runaways #9 $2.99
And this this always rocks. I hate kids, and this book still rocks.

Runaways Team Shot Poster $5.99

She-Hulk 2 #1 $2.99
Yay! Yay for the return of She-Hulk! Yay for Dan Slott! Yay for giant green hotties! Yay for...the re-return of Hawkeye?

Spider-Man Family #1 $4.99
Warning! Only 8 pages of original story! The rest guest-stars Hulk Bunny.

Supreme Power Hyperion #2 (of 5) (MR) $2.99
Al: The first issue: good, not great. It's no NIGHTHAWK.
Kurt: Dude, the last issue of NIGHTHAWK was no NIGHTHAWK either, I'm afraid.

Supreme Power Vol 3 High Command TP (MR) $14.99

Thor Blood Oath #3 (of 6) $2.99

Ultimate Fantastic Four #24 $2.50
Ultimate Namor! Is it true that I'll buy anything Greg Land draws? Yes it is.

Ultimate Spider-Man #84 $2.50

Vision Yesterday And Tomorrow TP $14.99
Note: no Vision Today, which must be really annoying when you're trying to cross the street.

Weapon X Days Of Future Now #4 (of 5) $2.99
This begs to be mocked, but we've already made fun of it several times. It's like kicking someone in the balls after they're already down.

X-Men #176 $2.50
So, which series is this? One of the more recent ones, or the one from the '60s renumbered, or is this an alternate universe thing? You know what? I don't care. I only read ULTIMATE X-MEN.

X-Men And Power Pack #1 (of 4) $2.99
Al: Oh, come on! I realize Kurt's about to make a perv joke, and usually I'd try to leave him a good setup for it, but...what idiot thought this would sell? Why is it time to bring back Power Pack? What is wrong with you people?
Kurt: Al, Joe Q. and I had a few beers the other night, and he told me you wouldn't leave him alone about "the fking Power Pack thing." He said he only agreed to do it if they included the X-Men so that at least the diehard X-fans would buy it. I assured him that you and the rest of your NAMBLA chapter would buy most of the run, including the ultra-rare, 1:75 nude variant. Sick bastard.

X-Men Colossus Bloodline #2 (of 5) $2.99
I'm all out of venom for this week, so I'll leave this X-book alive to tell the others what happened.

Questions? Comments? Let us know what you think at comicscape@cinescape.com.