CelticJedi's forum posts

  • 25 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by CelticJedi (24 posts) - - Show Bio

@name_already_chosen:

I certainly agree with several of your arguments and points. I myself am a big fan of the "customer loyalty" ideal. I'm as loyal a customer as any company can ever hope to have in that I become so fully immersed that it becomes something I am passionate about and would argue for, this translates to comics, sports, or even mundane products. So from that perspective I completely agree that DC, as well as Marvel (not to pick on one of the big two), have become less intent on pleasing their loyal fans and more intent on bringing new customers and markets into the fold to improve their bottom line. This, unfortunately, is the inevitability of big business. Marvel's recent move of changing Thor into a woman and DC's changes to Alan Scott and Wally West are prime examples of trying to create "shock" amongst the general population in hopes of drawing in a more diverse range of fans to buy their product. Unfortunately straight, white, and male doesn't sell like it used to. That's not to say that I'm a racist and believe all heroes need to be straight, white, and male because I'm very much a fan of female and minority characters as well (Justice League was a fantastic foundation for me to grow attached to Wonder Woman, Hawkgirl, and Jon Stewart as my Green Lantern when I was a kid). In the end this alienates those that have bought their comics for years and are long term supporters of their work and creations. There is almost a certain sense among the top that they can spare a few die hard fans since most will buy the product regardless, and they want to pull in new subscribers to bolster sales overall.

The obvious difference in material between New 52 and Pre New 52 is certainly there. The characters are different, the direction is different, and the feel is different. From your own posts it seems that a lot of it is less than positive for you (I certainly am not intending to put words in your mouth), and I can understand that. Pre New 52 had a lot less of a "needs to be darker" feel to it (at least that's my personal opinion) and the characters were a lot "simpler". The characters weren't just super-powered, but stood for something and represented a core of ideals. Superman could be counted on the be the boy-scout. Batman was always the anti-hero; the hero that Gotham deserved, but didn't necessarily need or want. Wonder Woman was a heroic and strong image for women and so on. The stories were built on decades of genius writing and legacy from the Golden Age, Silver Age, and Bronze Age as well as their trials through the modern age of comics. But despite all of this I do think there has been some positive direction from the New 52 era. I believe that the characters have a new opportunity to grow and really become the heroes we loved in Pre New 52, but we are now taking part in that journey. Aquaman has regained a sense of legitimacy as well as popularity, which is far better than his seemingly endless reign as either the King of Atlantis that talked to fish or brooded with a hook for an arm and in dire need of a haircut. I personally like how Wonder Woman's origin is being done and the explanation for her powers, and I think it's a fantastic step in the way of feminism (I prefer the term equality) that Diana is a demigod amongst the likes Hercules and Perseus.

In the end, however, I think the New 52's greatest strength is still the accessibility for anyone. Collecting comics can certainly be a daunting task even for an avid fan. Jumping into a constant time stream that has been ongoing (more or less) for 50, 60, 70+ years is downright intimidating. The reboot does appeal to new fans, or even old fans who want to start on a new character and be able to start with an origin or easily established start point. Do the stories necessarily make the same impression as some of the greats of the past? No. I've yet to read a storyline that does rival some of the most inspiring like you listed. With that being said, however, I'm willing to give the creative minds at work time to get into their groove. We may be 30+ issues in with most titles but we're in a current fad as well. The 80's and 90's were a wreck more or less for comics, yet some of the greatest story arcs ever did come out of the bloodbath of violence and grit that comics were back then. I think we're also in a bit of a hump for creative direction, we seem to be recycling a lot of veteran writers across titles and expecting them to perform at their best every time. Like any free agent in sports, writers and artists need to be in the right situation to flourish. Putting a great player on a bad team or in a disagreeable game plan rarely works out. Furthermore we, as fans, are attaching a stigma against DC and Marvel as much as DC and Marvel are attaching to themselves. We are angry at the big two for having a dozen Bat titles and a half-dozen Supes titles and forty Wolverine/X-Men titles, but they're still making bank out of beating that horse which is far from dead. We want "edginess" despite you and I looking for inspiration instead. Creativity and fresh ideas are looking towards the more indie companies for that very reason. Who wants to be attached to The Avengers, Batman, Superman, Wolverine, etc. when you're at the mercy of Marvel or DC and their structured plan? The answer is less and less people. Superheroes will always be popular in comics, but the Walking Dead and similar stories are gaining ground because they allow for greater freedom of ideas and art that aren't set within a rigid precast model.

With all that being said, what would you suggest to improve the New 52, or what would you have done instead had you been in DC or Marvel's situation? I'm not being argumentative, I'm simply curious. I myself can't think of too many other ideas. As much as I'd like creativity and fresh outlooks to be brought in, the characters must still remain the same. Superman, for example, can only ever be the golden standard for goodness, morality, and courage. This severely limits how much can change regardless of new origins or new villains. The stories can only go in one direction which scares people away from writing or drawing these characters. It's a fine line, and reboots/retcons are the popular choice because it's an easy reset button. Some fans get angry, some leave, most are either ambivalent or neutral, and some love it. But that's how it always goes and in ten years when they feel things have stagnated too much and they need to bring in some new talent it'll happen again, and we'll bemoan the changes again.

But what would you do? Because as much as I'd not like to see reboots it's hard for me to come up with a way to visualize a plan that simultaneously appeases your loyal fans, brings in new fans, and helps your bottom line. Maybe you have some ideas I haven't thought of myself?

Edit:

When I said we're in a current fad and moved on to mention the 80s and 90s I was generally referring to the idea that we are again (and maybe even still) in the popular trend that had begun with the darker anti-hero movement that brought the likes of Blade and Spawn into the world. The Death and Return of Superman was itself an argument against this "grittiness" and need for comics to be darker and bloodier, and argument for the good old days of morality, respect, bravery, and being a "class act" and that was over 20 years ago now.

#2 Posted by CelticJedi (24 posts) - - Show Bio

I really enjoy the show, but I think that's mostly the comic fan in me. In reality it has a lot of the same failings as many other shows on the same channel. It's like a late teen/young adult soap opera with unusual plot occurrences, bad acting, and a lot of repetitive "I love you, but I don't know if we can be together", "I'm sorry about what I said, I really didn't mean it and I was in a rough patch" and "I think we should talk about what's going on between us" lines, as well as, "I don't know if I should keep doing this anymore, this is putting those around me at risk" storylines. In addition everyone surrounding Oliver has to be an idiot for not connecting the dots. However, with all that being said, I like the show and I enjoy watching the Green Arrow unravel and kick butt on TV. I just wish somebody wouldn't cry or pout for an episode or two so I didn't feel like such a hypocrite for watching it and hating every other show remotely about teenaged angst and the troubles of being a rich young adult.

#3 Posted by CelticJedi (24 posts) - - Show Bio

I myself am a big fan of comics and am constantly broadening my horizons. I started with Star Wars, well over a decade ago now, to bridge into comics from something I already loved. From there the addiction started. I never thought I'd be a Superman fan, or even a DC fan outside of my childhood love of Batman (I was a 90's kid afterall). But whaddya know...Superman is my favorite superhero. The New 52, I felt, was a good move for a lot of people to get into comics. From a business perspective I think it was perfect. My entire life has been spent loving sci-fi and superheroes, but only over the last 6 or 7 years has it been "popular" to like comics. Comics have, for the majority of my life, been something that the weirder kids at school were into (luckily my love of sports and other things kept me from the same persecution). Long story short "Batman Begins" and "Iron Man" changed the game. Now Under Armour promotes being a superhero, you can't go into a lot of stores without finding comic character related merchandise, and your average person "geeks out" with the rest of us that have been doing it before it became "mainstream".

Now I'm not stating I'm like an angry comic hipster that abhors the mainstream, but my argument is that because of the successes Marvel and DC have reaped from their films there is a massive new interest in their products. Additionally to get as much of [insert superhero] you need to read the comics. DC saw the opportunity to make starting comics convenient for a lot of people. And personally, I like it. That's not to say I love the old histories of characters or what they were before the revamp, but I'm not put out by their decision. I'm happy to read new character origins, and I like that things have been "modernized" in a sense. It's hard for characters to stay in timelines for an extended period without becoming stagnant or confusing. Superman originated in the 30's, for example, and was used for WWII propaganda with Captain America and Wonder Woman. But that same guy also fought the Communists, terrorists, and every super villain for the last 70+ years. That's not a bad thing, but in that same stretch of time Jimmy never grew up and Lois Lane's hair remains as black as ever (excluding Amy Adams' version of course lol). Sometimes a reboot is needed, and doing every character (or just about every character) at the same time prevents too many issues with incontinuity or questions about whether something occurred in one person's timeline but not another's.

My biggest issue in comics is the need for massive crossovers and the consequences of these every year now. At one time the coming together of the entire super community was a big deal, now it happens regularly and everyone dies and is brought back soon after. It's like a requirement that it happens once a year now. New 52, however, is not a crossover but a restart of the system and the ability to bring in any traits or plots that the readers and the writers like, both old and new. It's like any movie remake, I might have loved the original, but if the new one is done well with great special effects and doesn't ruin the story I'm happy to enjoy them both.

#4 Posted by CelticJedi (24 posts) - - Show Bio

@king_saturn: I believe the question you are asking was addressed in the original post when the OP states "Both men in case some don't known own an NBA team". The OP isn't singling out an arbitrary individual because he dislikes rap as a music or an industry. The OP's contrast and comparison of Jay-Z and Donald Sterling would, in this case, be relevant because they are both franchise owners within the same sports league. What he then goes on to ask, as it seems you didn't notice, is why Sterling is being villified by the media (rightfully so for his racist remarks, but unjustly because they were recorded without his knowing within his own private confines) while Jay-Z has also displayed racist tendencies (albeit in a less obvious and hurtful manner) and has yet to be even mentioned as a racist by the media giants such as ESPN.

#5 Edited by CelticJedi (24 posts) - - Show Bio

Natalie Portman. She's not only an ultra babe, she's also well known for her intellectual prowess. Two great traits to pass on to my children. Not only that but she played in Thor and Star Wars! And I wouldn't mind if this was part of our roleplay wardrobe.

#6 Posted by CelticJedi (24 posts) - - Show Bio

If you make a well known character gay that isn't it's a spit in the face of fans, gay or straight, and the LGBT community. I'm straight, i'm a comic fan, and I don't care if there are bisexual or gay characters, but don't rewrite characters just for media recognition with the intent of generating comic sales off of controversy and being progressive with well known characters that don't need changing. People that are gay don't want to "steal" straight characters, they just want to have gay characters, if they even care at all. Superman's sexuality isn't a major plot point, and his romances with Lois Lane and WW aren't necessarily integral in who he is. He can still be Superman if he protects Lois as his best friend rather than possible lover. But why? Why does he need to be gay and his sexuality be thrust into the limelight if he's gone 75 years without having his sexuality be a major plot point. It just makes a lot of people angry, straight and gay, comic fan or not if you try to readjust a character to be politically edgy. This fits with every character, just make a new character that is gay but make it classy, he/she doesn't need to have regular scenes with sexual content with the same sex. Write it like you would any character.

Fit being gay into the character, don't fit the character into being gay.

#7 Edited by CelticJedi (24 posts) - - Show Bio

Superman- Leader, Brawn, Morals, Brains. Would obviously be tank in combat situations.

Mr. Fantastic- Brains, Gadgets, Second in Command

Storm- Range, Support, Buffs (Superman will always have sunlight)

Doctor Fate- Magic, Range, Buffs, Support

DC's Captain Marvel (Shazam)- Range, More Magic, Second Tank, Magic Tank

Natasha Irons: Brains, Gadgets, Brawn

Wolverine: Clandestine/Covert Ops, Hardy Enough To Play With Big Boys, Powerful Street Level

This would be a dynamic, powerful, and cohesive group with a lot of possible story lines. They can take on just about any villain or group you can think of and they don't have any inherent weaknesses. Each has distinct personalities that would occasionally yield clashes or disagreements but there are also a lot of qualities that bring them together.

Doctor Fate, Reed, Storm, and Supes would obviously talk amongst themselves a lot concerning current events, discoveries, concerns since they are all strong leaders with strong perceptive skills. Wolverine would want little or no part in the politics and would be happy to be his own guy until the going gets tough and he's need. Plus Wolverine would likely clash with Superman, Reed, and Doctor Fate on how things need to get done and Storm would certainly be torn between the two methods. Billy Batson and Natasha Irons would have to face being kids for the majority of decisions and be left out of a great deal of things. This would create tension with the kids likely to go off on their own adventures and prove their worth to the team (even if Billy is an adult once he yells Shazam!). Wolverine would foster this independence and getting away from the stuffy adults. Billy would likely bond with Supes (his hero) and Doctor Fate (magic) and Natasha would obviously bond with Storm (the only other female and someone she can talk to with issues she has as a young woman) and Reed (science). Villains could take any form and could challenge them in a variety of ways but they're built to succeed.

#8 Posted by CelticJedi (24 posts) - - Show Bio

My big issue is that FF is just becoming Chronicle 2. Trank, it seems, has had his mind set on one vision before he even had the job and Fox is just running with anything that isn't the previous two. Trank's casting appears more like a barbeque with friends that turned into job offers. I'm not against any of the actors or their previous work, they've all done well, but just because they've been good in other movies and they're friends with the director doesn't mean they fit the content of the film.

Now he's making the film more "grounded"? Why? Why would the Fantastic Four be grounded in reality when their entire origin and story involves cosmic radiation, unfathomable villains, as well as interstellar and time travel. The Fantastic Four are adventurers in time and space, they're not just superheroes that beat up bad guys. The last films had so much potential, but it was the direction and the casting that ruined it. Now we're going in the wrong direction with the characters and we're not even getting accurate versions of the characters? If things end up going the way things are sounding these films could not even resemble the FF that has existed for over fifty years.

With everything new that is released I more and more dislike Trank's vision. I liked Chronicle, I did. But that doesn't mean every superhero film you do needs to be based on Chronicle.

#9 Edited by CelticJedi (24 posts) - - Show Bio

The Succession of Space Sector 2814!

One of the Green Lanterns violate the sovereignty of an Earth nation by apprehending an intergalactic criminal whom said country tries to protect through diplomatic immunity, raising the issue of where the Green Lantern Corp. derives its jurisdiction over Earth and leading an alliance of nations (America, Atlantis, Markovia, Themiscyra, and possible others) to formally succeed from Space Sector 2814. Fearing the precedent set by rebellion would lead to anarchy throughout the universe, the Guardians send an army of Lanterns to secure the Earth. The Justice League treats such as a hostile alien invasion, and the result becomes...

Justice League vs. the Green Lantern Corps.

#10 Posted by CelticJedi (24 posts) - - Show Bio

I would agree that cross-over fatigue is something of an issue, at least for me. Marvel has been stacking the events up lately and I feel like the quality has diminished from what I remember in the past. Events such as Age of Apocalypse, Onslaught, and whenever Thanos configures the Infinity Gauntlet are supposed to be rare and fun. Like you said the Secret Invasion was fantastic because it was so much fun treating every comic like a mystery. Yet recently I feel like cross-over events are simply holes in the storylines of my trade paperbacks. I start to not care about an issue or two that my favorite characters were part of in an event because there is constantly an event. DC has had some remarkable ones as well, but I'd like to see something new that doesn't necessarily mean reality has to alter like so many seem to end with.

I think well thought out and massive cross-over every other year would be reasonable. It then becomes something like a movie, something you wait for and you get excited to read. And I might want to pick up that event and read it rather than just skip over it like I've done with so many over the past few years.

  • 25 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3