Off My Mind: Should Real Locations Be Used In Comics?

My view is whynot?- Louis L'Amour once noted that when he mentioned a spring in his Western novels, not only did it exist in reality but its water was good to drink. If we can have real live people( esp Presidents- FDR, JFK, LBJ , nixon, Carter, both Bushes, Clinton and more recently Obama) then why not real live cities such as Chicago, San Francisco, LA, London, Moscow?
 
Terry

I think it adds authenticity. It also makes it a little more interesting to us as readers seeing these places that we are so familiar with used in cool new ways. It also makes us more invested in the story, IMO.   
 
@RedRobin92 said:

" When a place like Gotham or Metropolis is torn asunder it seems like no big deal because it is always happening there, but when an actual location is blown apart and people are hurt, then you can understand the gravity of the situation more.  "

i love how i forget to post and leave a half finished post on this box when the computer decides to restart itself.  I guess this is a reply to both this topic and the one after.
  
 I ran into this forum that tried to figure what the true location of Metropolis was. (it might actually have been Wiki, not a forum) New York was an obvious candidate, as was Chicago cos apparently it was suggested in a Lois&Clark episode (the one with the alien assassin) but they leaned more toward KANSAS,.. home of Schuster and Seigel, where there was an actual city with distinct landmarks similar to those in the comic! One theory was that Metropolis and Gotham were the same city, one at night and one in the day, (putting Superman and the Bat in 2 realities? i actually like this idea better). I would later be in Gotham, Singapore, (an actual place) like a week later, where this guy joked that THEY were Batman's real home. Batman was asian? hmmm, why not? What i like about Gotham though, and i guess most of these fictional cities, is that they actually have MAPS. WHERE are they? not really defined, but it's REAL.

i had a tendency to put all my favourite characters in one place, when i was little. Of course the Turtles were in NY, no doubt, (they would sometimes go to central park battling monsters), and the X Men were in Salem Center NEW YORK, spidey went to ESU, NEW YORK (although ESU is fake as far as i know), then there was Superman, who worked at the Planet, a big building, and flew around more big buildings,..(i was too young and totally missed the "METROPOLIS" there, so i just thought of the city as city, nameless) that was New York right? it had to be NY. And since i also like Tarzan, the Thundercats and other characters, the location i had put them in my head was.....a lot of things. How do Tarzan and Superman work together? One guy has to go to the other guy's place? but how long could he stay? Solution: there was a jungle right next to the city. There was also the golden gate bridge (or something LIKE that i guess) washington monument, AND the statue of liberty there. The leaning Italian tower might have been there too, since the Highlander fought up there once. But it didn't matter if it was real or not, my characters had to hang out, that's what was important. It got EVEN stranger when i realized i was living on a 342km by 400 km island where the only real "city" had buildings like... 500ft, and the tallest i had actually seen was like 60 feet? 
  
I think the whole point in comics or FANTASY is to get away from reality. It's the same thing i said about that "What race is a superhero?" thing. Ok so when your city is in the comics, that's cool! but the million other people who DONT fall into the comics,... it's not fair then. It's like how Zod goes straight over to the white house,.....and he's conquered the WORLD. There's more TO the world. Marvel definitely has more PRECISE description about whereabouts and people. But the DC locations excite you more, cos you're being TAKEN to a new place, like Hyrule. That's what i think

I think it would be nice to think "hey, I know that place!", I live in Brazil, so I can't say it that much while reading a comic ^^'
I was writing a big explanation of why you shouldn't mind events like that happening in real life-based places, but let's keep it simple: just think of comics like an alternative reality (alas, try not to think of them as reality at all), an 2D reality, so if you get upset when your city is destroyed in a comic, try to remember "it was just a 2D version, no one got really hurt or lose anything" and just try to enjoy reading =)

" It doesn't matter that much to me. But then again, if my hometown was destroyed in comics, I guess I would feel a bit awkward. I contradict myself, I know. "

" Yes.... Absolutely. Just one more reason I prefer Marvel. "

Well, my opion is that we should use real locations in comics. The writers don't have to focus creating locations, there by giving them more time to actully write a plot making it Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious (I think thats more than 8 characters).
 
Plus, when you go places you can say, "Hey, thats where Spiderman defeated Green goblin" or "thats where Powergirl lives".
 
Though I sort of wish there were some comics set where I live, but hey as long as it doesn't get distroyed I'm fine.

I wonder if any comics have used grand rapids, michigan as a location.

I think its fine as long as they rebuild anything they destroy within a year or two. It's no more weird than say, Lex Luthor being president. Whats more awkward is if real locations are destroyed and they can't create a plausible explanation for why some superhero didn't just fly in and save the day.
 
Semi-off topic: It's really annoying to me when a fake location is inconsistant about where on the map it is. Throws off my sense of geographical awareness big time. Like when Metropolis is located on the east coast but somehow still driving distance from Smallville, KS.

We've seen national monuments destroyed only to show up later in another story once fan's have forgotten they were destroyed.
That's when it becomes a problem.

Well, think of it this way, if a Superhero lives in a real-life area then we might understand the pain or horrificness of losing that area to the villians or villans who blew it up. Then we understand the heros motives a little better.

They should use them in comic books because we see them in movies and it doesnt bother nobody.

I'd love if my city was destroyed in the comics. I'm evil, I know.

it would be awesome to see my home city in a comicbook even if it was destoryed

For me, it takes me out of the story more times than it puts me in it only because sites like the Flat Iron Building or Times Square are just way too overused and I used to live in Manhattan.  It's kind of like when they shoot a TV show or film in Toronto or Vancouver and try to tell you its New York or Chicago... the overuse or wrong use of landmarks gives me pause.  Similarly there's a disconnect when you look out your office window and don't see Avengers Tower, the Baxter Building, or any of the comic-related impact. 
 
On the other hand, a world that is completely devoid of major metropolitan cities which are ingrained into our American psyche would be just as disappointing.  Many cities (locations or what not) are literally shorthand for lifestyles, attitudes, or larger concepts like Hollywood or Detroit or Boston.  And it's a little weird if a fictional city starts to co-opt too much of the identity of a real world fixture... maybe like Gotham and Metropolis used to both borrow from New York / Newark (though I think both have evolved since then) or Keystone's unrepentant similarity to Detroit thematically. 
 
So I guess I want a balance where you have fictional cities for your action to take place in, real cities so that pop-culture and geography is still relevant and referenced, and no permanent or dramatic effects being tolled on those real life cities.

Is this even a question? I thought we answered it ages ago, when instead of creating fictional city names, we did indeed start using real names. It would seem that you're attempting to walk a fine line, and have your Kate and Edith too. 
 
Clearly, when you drove by Soldier Field and it was still standing, that infers that you were not in the Universe wherein it got destroyed. Haven't you been watching Fringe? Is it your contention that you should stomp down creative expression, simply because an artist or writer thought something would look cool for their fans?  Anyone remember: 
 

Not a Dream, Not a Hoax, Not an Imaginary Story?

For me it depends on the context. If it's more realistic then I prefer an actual city. For the most part I like fictional locations because I think it's easier to build a character around that location I mean Batman has gloomy Gotham and Superman has relatively sunny Metropolis. Nearly every Marvel character seems to be from NYC...not that there's anything wrong with it because I do love Spiderman and the X-Men but I guess I just feel like having them all in one major location that I know a bit too well now gets old. I like new locations because I don't know them. Yeah that's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Well New York has been the locale of most of the original MArvel Denizens for quite sometime. Why? probably because thats what the artists and writer's had the most of to work with as far as reference goes... Kind of hard to get reference on a place that doesn't exist without creating it from scratch. So while I think it is an awesome exercise in imagination to just creat places from scratch i also think that some people just don't have it in them to do so.  I also feel that if Spider-Man was from my hometown My hometown would be much more well known... So in that vein I have used many current real life locations in my comics.. some times people use them anyway and just change the name I mean the original Metropolis seemed very much like new york to me. So whose to say what is best?  But do i think a superhero or supervillain is going to wreak havok in my neighborhood anytime soon?  Probably not.

I agree. Kind of. They should only have fictional cities or only have real ones.. What is the damn point of mixing it?

I think it`s cool that they often use real locations but sometimes it`s interesting to read a comic in a location that doesn`t exist .

I'm neither for or against using real locations in comics.  I'm another who thinks of the characters, stories and places I read about as an alternate universe.    
 
I think that might also be why I so easliy embrace the most absurd characters ((Groot)) and storieslines.  What I read is absolute fantasy to me even when they use something real. 

Only problem I have is that it just becomes implausible that so much happens in one place, most notably NYC in the Marvel U. The city gets torn up every few months or so it seems, but it's always rebuilt almost instantly. It's a little crazy. Who'd even live there, when there's such a ridiculous number of heroes and villains there?

I've always hated real cities in comics.  I'd prefer it stay fiction.  I guess it bothers me, but I don't mind enough.  I just wish everything wasn't always set in NYC, lovely as it may be...

No I prefer fake cities it brings more fantasy, noir, and fun to the story. As well as you can make new lands and not have to follow the architecture of our sh@tty cities

Stamford is not in the comics. The comics spell it Stanford with an N. 
 
And I think they said soldiers field. with an S but I might be wrong about that one. 

FYI - the picture of "sub diego" is a picture at least in part of chicago.  The building on the right is the "stone container" building.   
 
I like both to an extent.  I mean with metropolis and gotham existing in DCU, it doesn't make that much sense to also have a NY, to me.  Since New York just can't be new york if its the small fry inbetween the big two.  At least I remember seeing hearing somewhere that Metropolis, Gotham, and NY are all on the same "bay", and I thought Morrison put NY in between the two.  

I want Sub-Diego, it's cheaper DIVING down there than driving or flying. lol

I like it, unless the hero's powerrs are really outragous, like in Prototype.

   
  Real life locations are used in comics to help give it that feeling of reality. Making you feel like heroes are actually among us. And hopefully, making the stories feel closer to home. That's why why real 'spots' are used. And yeah, it woul be frickin' awesome to see the next issue of Spider-man take place in my hometown. But, on the other hand, I doubt they're actually going to portray the way it actually is. I doubt they're actually going to pay homage to the street's I drive down everyday.
 
 As a creator, I like the idea of building a city. Building a home for heroes and even civilians. Crafting a place where the history, is one of my own choice. An interesting and unique place, where whatever I create -- is simply my own creation.  
 
 So using actual places, like New York, or San Diego, or even Texas -- is just fine. But I like it more when 'new' cities are crafted and where the possiblities seem endless in comparison to using that of real locations.

I don't know why not, unless the government is hiding something there?

I say use real locations, and use world wide locations, not just USA. 
 
And I would love to see my heroes in my hometown!

Yes!  It's relate-able weeeee!

Yesssss

Sub Diego went back up to the surface by Aquaman in World War III.

i love it when they use real locations...but i also think that they can show creativity and make places up

I think using real locations is a problem.  Once you destroy something real, you're creating your own history from that point on.  If you wipe Hawaii off the map with a volcanic eruption and the tsunami to end all tsunamis, in 1995, then what do you do when Obama becomes president in 2008, and he's from Hawaii?  You can't reference Obama in your comic now. 
 
In comics, Pittsburg, Detroit, Stamford, and Moscow have been wiped off the face of the Earth (in New Universe, Image, Marvel and Blackball Comics, respectively).  It's just hard to come back from that, unless you pull a time travel save, or something like that.  I think the destruction should be limited to fictional cities or at least fictional buildings in real cities, so it doesn't futz with real things we might want to play off of later.

Since I barely know American geography, it really doesn't affect me.

You're just over thinking it, Tony. I wouldn't mind if my hometown was used, even if it was blown up.

My thoughts are its ok as long as they don't use place where tragedies or terrorist attacks & natural disasters like don't disrespect those residents in a rude & taste light by saying "oh Doomsday went on a rampage & tore down the World Trade Center" or "Sinestro went crazy & demolished the Statue of Liberty" that's kinda of f***ed up IMO. I think it's ok to have heroes protect real places & locations but let them stick to their fantasy locations like Utopia or Metropolis plus comics are fictitious & should be contained in their respective universes 

I would love to see comics use Chicago more ;]