Comic Vine News95 Comments
Off My Mind: Should Real Locations Be Used In Comics?
by Tony 'G-Man' Guerrero on
It may be cool but is it distracting when there's destruction in the comics and not in real life?
In Siege #1, we saw Soldier Field in Chicago, IL get destroyed. When I drove by the stadium last April during c2e2, it looked fine. The people of Stamford, CT might think it's cool that their city is in the comics but the fact that Nitro destroyed the city may not make residents comfortable.
When Gotham City had an earthquake during No Man's Land, it seemed a little far fetched but it was okay since Gotham is just a comic book city. When an earthquake caused part of San Diego to sink and become Sub Diego, again, it's safe to say that didn't occur in real life. Does it make a difference if a real life location is altered in a comic book?
== TEASER ==
Perhaps I'm being overly critical? I'm not saying I have a problem separating fact from fiction. I just think if you have a major change in the comics it makes it a little strange in real life? Am I the only one that feels this way?
Coast City was destroyed and rebuilt in the Green Lantern comics. If that would've happened to a real life city, I think it would've felt off. Star City also recently went through some changes. I think if they tried putting a giant star-shaped set of woods in New York City, the comic stories wouldn't be the same.
Maybe I'm just putting too much thought into this. I'm not expecting to run into any X-Men in San Francisco on my way to work but if there's destruction to the Golden Gate Bridge in the comics, it just further sets the comic apart from reality. The question is, do you want to see your hometown in comic books? Does it matter to you if its depiction doesn't match up to reality?