Comic book companies won't let go of their old characters

MoeDantes

Hey, if I may shameless plug here:

Juan, Malk, whaddya'll think of this? (Juan might've commented on it before, but I'm pretty sure Malk never has).

Schitzo

Didn't Dragon Ball do that shit too?

MillerCross

What shit? Being never ending? Yeah, but after that and Toriyama's bitching, it has become the norm for tManga writers to leave on their own terms.

CommandoDude

"Naruto"

Sucks.

"or Bleach"

Sucks.

"or One Piece"

Sucks.

"Really though, I like anime but this topic reeks of weaboo."

Not really.

MoeDantes

Didn't Dragon Ball do that shit too?

Kinda, but it had a built-in, in-universe reason people could come back to life--and one just about everybody was smart enough to actually think of. So it was a lot less annoying.

And it ended at 42 volumes after merely 14 years.

"Really though, I like anime but this topic reeks of weaboo."

Not really.

Agreed. Sometimes Japan actually does do things better and we'd be better as a culture if we would actually admit that instead of being quick to name-call anyone whose willing to say so. Such a reaction is indicative of a mindset that, rather than fixing problems, would rather pretend they don't exist.

mathias

While I would not presume to tell comic companies how to run their companies or people what to enjoy in their comics I can safely say that one of the reasons my interest in superhero comics is minimal is exactly because of this. The lack of a definitive beginning and ending certainly makes the idea of reading these books a daunting and ultimately unfulfilling task in my mind. This has nothing to do with the actual quality of the comics; I've read some story arcs that I quite liked and read about others that sound interesting, but I simply dont think superhero comics can keep up any kind of tension or thematic coherence because of their ridiculously long runs, which by the way also means that these heroes continually gets into the same kind of stories, learn the same kind of stuff and the only real development of them as characters is a back-and-forth oscillation around some agreed-upon basic character traits for each hero. Of course sometimes this is changed up considerably, but often through shoddy development and lo and behold 5 years later these changes are reversed and status quo is still pretty much god. I simply can't get into that kind of story, I want characters with potential development, a beginning, a middle and an end at which I can say, now I've finished this person's story.

Which is why I prefer books, movies, some television-series (my favourites once again having clearly defined beginning and endings, such as Babylon 5) non-superhero American comics, French/Belgian and Japanese comics (honestly mostly anime in this case, don't read a lot of actual manga either). It has nothing to do with weabooism and the fact that anyone who would suggest that the superhero comic way of telling stories might not be the best, is accused of being a weaaboo (just because they compared it unfavourably with manga) is frankly a ridiculous strawman which seems to be a way of avoiding an actual argument about the points raised.

MillerCross

I have more of a problem with the fact that "Lack of proper ending to whole franchise = ZOMG, no storytelling whatsoever"

mathias

I dunno, did I ever say that? I even stated that I've enjoyed some stories in superhero comics. What it does mean however is that it limits the scope of the kind of storytelling that can be done and it also means that once you've done the same kind of story with the same character 3 times, the fourth time is simply not as fun regardless of how well written it is.

MillerCross

Not you, don't worry, you did remind that I saw that problem long enough to posit the question.

Although I should say that I really disagree with the idea that using old characters means that a story is less exciting.

CommandoDude

The more you write/etc about old characters, the more you box yourself into a creative corner with what you can do with your story. You have to shape a story around a character, instead of using the character to shape the story, since you can't write that character against his established persona.

And frankly, the longer you even write about that character, the more convoluted and contradictory canon becomes.

MillerCross

The more you write/etc about old characters, the more you box yourself into a creative corner with what you can do with your story. You have to shape a story around a character, instead of using the character to shape the story, since you can't write that character against his established persona.

Bzzzzt. WRONG

You can write any superhero however the hell you want, as long as you got the guts and the skills to pull it off like a goddammingly good writer.

It's been done and it's done all the times. Sure, some fans bitch about it, but who cares about those fags?

And frankly, the longer you even write about that character, the more convoluted and contradictory canon becomes.

...who even cares? Seriously, canon should be the least of worries of anyone who actually likes a good story. 

TheConductor

The argument that comics don't have a clear beginning, middle and end is also total bullshit. 

Look at the most recent volume of Justice League of America, it started with a new League being formed and it's final issue had the team disband due to personal issues.

Look at any one run on any comic, each writer gives the character a beginning, middle and end before the next writer does a new chapter. Yeah popular comics keep doing it, but the stories do have beginnings, middles and ends...they just keep bringing in more sequels. 

MoeDantes

You can write any superhero however the hell you want, as long as you got the guts and the skills to pull it off like a goddammingly good writer.

CommandoDude has kind of a point though--if your story is obstensibly supposed to be in the same canon and follow on from the stories that came before it, then there is a sort of stigma that you have to agree (at least, in all the key respects) with that canon. It's not always enforced by fan expectations either--the writers themselves usually come on board with this baggage. About the only time you really have the "do whatever you want" leeway you suggest is if you're writing an AU.

Chagen

I'm pretty sure that you're supposed to stick to canon so you don't run into stuff like Depending on The Writer, Armed With Canon, Continuity Snarl, etc.

MoeDantes

Also, while I agree you can still make good dramatic stories involving familiar characters, it does become hard to care when you start seeing a lot of repetitive themes and motions. The first time Peter Parker has to take a vacation from superheroing because Aunt May is in the hospital is moving and dramatic. The second time, it might be dramatic... by the 67th time, you wish she'd just die already.

MillerCross

CommandoDude has kind of a point though--if your story is obstensibly supposed to be in the same canon and follow on from the stories that came before it, then there is a sort of stigma that you have to agree (at least, in all the key respects) with that canon. It's not always enforced by fan expectations either--the writers themselves usually come on board with this baggage. About the only time you really have the "do whatever you want" leeway you suggest is if you're writing an AU.

Oh, not gonna lie, there are certain things that can't be done without an AU (Batman going on a murderous rampage, Superman trying to actively destroy the earth, etc etc)

But the thing is, (And this is where the line becomes truly divisive), that almost all these things still  can be done in the main universe and you can just retcon them. Whether this is good or bad, that becomes a problem per reader. Personally, I kinda like it. --shrug-- It means that comics can and will go anywhere with a premise without having to really worry about consequences. 

Of course, it has often been abused by now, and stuff like, say, character deaths are beyond pointless by now, but I blame that on the abuse of the concept, rather than on the concept itself.

I'm pretty sure that you're supposed to stick to canon so you don't run into stuff like Depending on The Writer, Armed With Canon, Continuity Snarl, etc.

Eh, most comic book writers/readers are happy with depending on the writer. It means that you can have a lot of characters, tones, etc etc within one character. 

The other two are problematic, though.

I kinda wish that comics took the Doctor Who approach to writing: "Whatever the author remembers to be canon, is canon" and be done with it, but people wouldn't be exactly lax with it, so whatever.

Chagen

Really? I view retconning as a cop-out and bad writing. Everything should fit together. If you want to seriously go awry of canon, make an AU.

MoeDantes

There was a pointless observation here.  It's gone now.

Chagen

There, I fixed it

MillerCross

First we have "recon" then we have "retoconning." Can nobody in this thread spell "Retcon" right?

Sorry, still have a problem with that one. >.>

Really? I view retconning as a cop-out and bad writing. Everything should fit together. If you want to seriously go awry of canon, make an AU.

I can live with them because of the longevity of the genre/work as well as the circumstances. But I can see why someone can be bothered by those.

MoeDantes

Yeah and I need to learn to not make completely pointless posts.

Granted, if I did I'd probably never post here, but still.