Cycle of Gimmicks

Last week after I read Amazing Spider-Man #544 I wrote a blurb in the comment section about how good it was. Then, after I sobered up (literally) I read it again.

My suggestion is, if you are going to read Spider-Man #544 do it after 3 drinks. The quality will improve dramatically.

Yeah I was wondering what got into you. I should have guessed that it was your favorite crutch: liquor!

this whole "back to basics" thing just has a bothersome ring to it... mainly because it comes from the "house of ideas" that up and "outed" Spidey with the excuse, "... you don't know how the story ends."

well, if it ends with a reboot or a back to basics-ing, then the real question becomes "WHY DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?"

I admit I haven't read the issues in a while. I was excited when J. Michael started the run, but then, when a whole lot of nothing was happening, or, when it got TOO MYSTICAL, and overly melodramatic, I just stopped.

I dipped in to see what was going on, and found: oh, they plucked his eye out... oh, they killed him... oh, (of course) they brought him back (yawn)... now he's Spider-Iron, or Iron-Spider, or Man-Iron-Spider-guy...

Civil War was a debacle and I feel anyone who likes Spidey was unfairly punished. more and more, these crossovers with major characters feel like misshapen deals on a movie pitch that good actors (our favorite superheroes) have to muddle through -- not really themselves, almost phoning in "performances" cause it's just not them. when the voice of the character deviates from the heart of the character and the understanding that the character has been endowed with over the years, then I'd argue that that character ain't the character.

not to say there's no place for "different voices" but if you want Spidey, you don't want to be reading Punisher-as-Spidey, or DoctorStrange-as-Spidey... ugh... why am I even talking about this?

the basics-backing that was inevitable speaks to the fact that really what's a work here is the fact that as great as the characters are, they have limits. they're not meant to change by design. to age them is the beginning of their mess. you either live them in the real world and have them age and change and even risk the characters themselves growing out of the superhero life, or you lock them into certain modes to insure that those same certain storylines will still work for them.

listen, what are we talking about here? cause many want their superheroes "real", but that's a mistake. and many want it all to be in a solid continuity, but that too doesn't hold when Editorial will bend to the whims of the hottest creative teams of the day for sales, and when RETCON-ing yourself out of a fudge is all the rage. I guess what I'm saying is, we know what these characters do, and like using a Cessna to fly on little trips, you don't bulk one up and expect it to fly it to the moon. they're not designed or built to do that, and it's wrong to WANT them to. (this is not me saying that "comics can't be more than superheroes", but I am suggesting that certain superhero lines and characters will be plauged with reboots, retellings, reimaginings and backtobasics-doings unless you recognize that what's at it's core is something simple to start with. Less is More simple.)

for the record, I read all forms of comics, and things like Vaugn's Y THE LAST MAN are some of the best things ever to happen to comics as a medium, and that's not superheroes. of course, on the superhero front, one of the best hero books on the market (and I'd dare to say ever - and stand by it) is Kirkman's INVINCIBLE mainly because HE DEFINES the books parameters and limitations, and sticks to it. he's not bogged down by needs of recon and history, no, but he's also free precisely because while INVINCIBLE may feel like a Superman/Spider-man character, he's uniquely original, and because of that Kirkman is able to take the character and storylines anyplace he wants to.

going back to basics or whatever probably wouldn't feel like a gimmick if it was understood that doing so is just what's part of the whole deal.

as for the issue consolidation, frankly, I think it's a great idea. a gimmick? sure. but I think it's a smart one. business wise it's smart, having multiple teams on the book is great. it's all good.

I think it's smart to pipeline it all, and that goes back to our discussion on lateness and shipping. I'd say that it's smart to limit it all to one title -- keeps it neat, makes you want it. I think having many teams (how many is that list? two, three? four?) spread over a two-to-three book a month schedule is a great idea. but here's the issue: the jumping around of ideas and artwork and teams within a story's run will get annoying. I'd say, keep one team on a run, and run that. when they're done, have the next (already completed and in the hopper) ready to go. this would be the true reason for having teams, as support. then, the editorial can do what it does best: manage and direct the creative flow of the book.

but will this happen? who knows? how seriously do they take this? how seriously do they take themselves? or us? I'd love to see this as a start of solid scheduling and a creatively rewarding stream of comics.

will it be? aahh...

HA! Actually, I pretty much only read comics when drunk. Seriously. It's probably why I still think comics are great. Whenever the girl goes out for the night without me I get myself a nice glass of wine and put on old school rap and read comic books.

I was hammered by the time I got through the Ultimate Spider-Man "Clone Saga" TPB and I was practically crying. That thing was really long. Someday maybe I'll read it sober and see...y'know, what actually happened.

This is what burned me out on comics back in the 90s -- the need to buy 3 different books for one title. Honestly, it's just another reason for me to wait for the TPB. Or not. Another thing I don't like about it is that the quality or art will change with every issue. That will jar me as a reader, even if the issues are collected.

I love Spider-man, Wolverine, the X-Men, Batman, all those guys but in the end I seem to be buying less of their comics and more of comics like Y the Last Man, Ex Machina, etc., partly because they're new and fresh, and partly because there's some kind of endpoint. The only classic superhero comic that's continued to entrance me is Daredevil.

I still love the old superheroes, and I pick up some of their trades every once in a while, but right now I enjoy them way more in the movies than I do reading about them in giant, convoluted, never-ending cross-over events.

What really surprises me about the current state of cross-overs is that there are many I don't enjoy know matter how drunk I am.

If a person can't enjoy a comic after shooting a bottle of Thunderbird or OE then that book just doesn't deserve to be.

I think part of the problem with this is the whole American super-hero comic book scene -

and by that I simply mean this:
The publishers want to keep using the cash cows that everyone knows (Superman, Batman, Captain America, Spider-Man) but doesn't want to alienate new readers with the sheer weight of decades of backstory.
The publishers continuously balancing between letting writers "take stories in new and exciting directions" but then needing to "get the characters back to what readers expect" is why we have such a mess with super-hero comics.
The truth of the matter is they cannot have it both ways - old yet new, new yet old - but they keep on trucking like they can.

Now, there are fictional characters OLDER than super-heroes - ones in public domain, even - that continue to be written about and reimagined. But when Sherlock Holmes or King Arthur or Aladdin are written about no one REALLY expects this version to have much to do with other versions except in passing - i.e. the basics of the character, but not the history.

Super-hero comics need to make a decision, IMO. Either work WITH continuity (my preference) or damn continuity entirely and make all stories not really relate to each other beyond the current arc or whatever the current writer wants to reference. Don't pretend to do both.

Beyond that, I prefer reading comic stories in trades - over the last decade or so single issues get harder to harder to enjoy as less and less happen in each one. I'm waiting a month for a cool scene or one-liner, and that's it. If I wait for the trade, I get in a 6-12 issue compilation about the level of story I used to get from 2-3 issues of comics way back when.

I couldn't care less about gimmicks - let them use them. I care more about the stories and how much enjoyment I get from them.

EDIT - To be clearer, if they were to go with the "damn continuity" route, we'd see an "Ultimates" take on the heroes every few years to a decade.
In other words, redoing the characters and such as if they weren't written before.
In that sense, I do like the Ultimates.

To be fair, Batman is back to his third Robin. The fourth one died.

There was a 4th Robin? What happened to Tim Drake? Wait, no, nevermind. Don't answer that. This is exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about...

Thor Spoiler-y (maybe):

I didn't think I'd like this Thor seeking the other gods storyline. But this is bitchin! Can't wait until next issue... I just hope they are still fun guys and haven't been turned into sour grapes!