Astro City #45 - "Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes"

[laughing_tree]

We always need new superheroes. But actual new ones, reflecting the modern day, rather than reflecting yesterday. Unless reflecting yesterday is the point of the story. But the idea that we don’t need new superheroes is like not needing new romances or new detectives. The moment you don’t need new characters in genre stories, the genre is as dead as Latin. It’s not a crime that superheroes don’t age, but it’s a problem that superhero series don’t more often age and die and get replaced. Imagine if Kinsey Millhone and V.I. Warshawski and other modern (well, relatively) PIs couldn’t get an audience because Sam Spade and Race Williams were taking up all the shelf space. If you’re writing X-Men and your metaphors are about Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, that’s not all that much more modern than if your metaphors are about the Red Scare and McCarthyism. Ask yourself new questions, and put the results in your stories. Steve Englehart juiced up Captain America by asking what Captain America meant to the early 1970s. What does he mean now? What does Superman represent to the world? How does that, whatever it is, fit into the world today? Same for Batman, same for Wonder Woman. Tell stories you couldn’t tell ten, twenty, fifty years ago. -- Kurt Busiek

Comments

[icon_uk]

I've loved the idea of the mutable embodiment of music that we've seen through this arc, but I have to say that, even as the jaded old comic fart that I am, I did NOT see that twist coming! :)

[scorntx]

It is one of the smaller joys of Astro City that it has been able to spend forty-five issues building a slow burn on this story arc.
(Smaller, because it's Astro City. There's a lot to enjoy, y'know?)
Plus, the Living Music folk are pretty interesting themselves.


-"I didn't so much change... as shatter"-
"Change, my dear, and it seems not a moment too soon... I refuse to change. I don't want to go. It's strange, it feels different this time... but the moment has been prepared for. Our future is in safe hands. I do hope the ears are a bit less conspicuous this time. Where's there's life there's KIDNEYS!"

(sorry. Couldn't resist.*
*isn't sorry in the slightest.)

[leoboiko]

> The moment you don’t need new characters in genre stories, the genre is as dead as Latin.

That is very uncharitable and unfair, not to say mean.

Latin still have a lot of new developments and interesting stuff going on, it's unfair to compare it to fossilized, permanent-status-quo, sliding-time-window commercial superheroes.

[goattoucher]

I see what you did there...

[bradygirl_12]

Methinks a lot of comics writers resent the fact that people want the old heroes, often ignoring their new creations. Could be because heroes like Superman and Wonder Woman are timeless in a way, speaking to people no matter what era. There's a reason superheroes are considered modern man's version of the old gods/myths.

And, if you like older music, so what? New isn't automatically great, just as old isn't.

[goattoucher]

Wonder Woman is interesting because she is developing. The story of Wonder Woman is the story of women in the modern world, and that story is always changing.

Batman is entirely stagnant. He is able to operate only because of editorial fiat. He is the best example of what Busiek is talking about, because even his villains don't change. No Batman related intellectual property can change in a meaningful way, precisely because he is the most popular intellectual property in comics, and nobody wants to risk that.

Superman was created of the champion of the common man during the depression. Then he became the comedic god figure of the Silver Age, then simultaneously the moral center of the DC universe and potentially the greatest threat to it Post-Crisis. He is -always- good. Even when he gets mad, he backs off and does the right thing.

Other new DC characters? You mean like Kyle Rainer and Wally West, who got retconned into the background by Johns in order to bring back Hal and Barry?

The last two new characters to gain any traction in the two big companies in recent years have been Deadpool and Harley Quinn, and they were both created more than twenty years ago. Every time a new writer takes over an old book, he creates new characters that the next writer completely ignores in favor of the classic characters and his own new creations.

Doubt me? Name the current roster of X-Men. Name me one that debuted in the new millennium. There have been dozens, but the most we get is a group shot once a year where Rockslide, Armor, and Anole are standing around looking shocked while the main team does something important.

Busiek is dead right: Everybody wants the same characters telling the same stories. Current events are too politicized to talk about, and whatever social commentary you make will outrage a dwindling audience and lose you sales.

This, of course, could be solved by telling new stories about new characters with the priority being attracting new (young) readers, rather than telling six issue story lines for the trade and slavishly devoting yourself to half-century old continuity that takes -literally- years of study (that is what we have all done, after all) to make sense of.

The big two are stale, and they are circling the drain. They could salvage themselves and the industry as a whole in the long term by taking short term risks, but that isn't the way American business works any more.

Make new characters. Tell stories that can be enjoyed in one or two issues. Distribute digitally to reduce operation costs and the price of entry to new customers. The American culture hasn't been this interested in superheroes since the 1950's, but the publishers are letting fruit wither on the vine rather than change their business model to take advantage of it.

[jlbarnett]

but the writers have invented new characters and they didn't take. You even admit that

[goattoucher]

They didn't take with the current comic book audience. They want Batman eternally Batmanning in the same Batman way in which he has always Batmanned. They don't want anything new. Their idea of innovation is Wolverine being violent and grumpy with -gray hair- (until they turn him back to normal in a year, two tops).

Also, the characters didn't take in part because the new authors were not mandated to use them by editorial. I loved Rockslide and Anole, but the writers don't, so they are gone.

The industry needs to expand it's audience, and it can't do that by fixating on characters with fifty years of backstory you have to know about in order to understand what is going on. You can't do that by telling every story in either A: six issue arcs, wherein a new reader coming in on issue four will have no idea whats going on) or B: HUGE EVENTS that require you to read six different comics PLUS the event series to follow, all for the low, low price of five bucks an issue (twelve year old kids have fifty bucks a month to spend on comics, right?)

We need new characters that can the new audience can grow with and stories contained to one or two issues, and we need to distribute digitally because that's how the young people get their media, and that's how they'll be able to afford it.

And the stories need to be ones that young people can appreciate. I like a good psychosexual thriller as much as the next guy, but that's what Vertigo is for. Marvel and DC need to tell stories about good guys defeating bad guys. Sometimes with fists, sometimes with wits, sometimes with heart, sometimes losing.

The current business model saved mainstream comics after the post 90's bust, but it is killing comics now. Comics need, more than anything, new blood, and that means new mythology. We had Crisis and Inferno and the Infinity Gauntlet and Days of Future Past. What do they have now? Civil War, Seige, Fear Itself, none of which make sense if you haven't been following comics for the five years leading up to publication? HydraCap? The new stories are not for new customers, they are for the old guard like us, and a lot of us don't like them either. That's why, in this Golden Age of superhero movies, comic sales decline every year.

[laughing_tree]

A lot of these people [saying comics are in a slump] are 90s comics fans, who’ve forgotten there was a sales slump then. Or 70s comics fans (another slump). The difference between the modern slump and the earlier slumps is that thanks to digital and TPBs and such, publishers are actually making more money now than they were then. We’re watching format turmoil, unlike when the 70s industry was thinking it’d actually go under. -- Kurt Busiek

[goattoucher]

I don't know how accurate this is. In the 90's heyday, individual copies would sell a million (Edit: McFarlane's Spider-Man #1, 7.1 million copies, June 1990), and normal issues of popular titles would sell 200k or more regularly. The huge financial windfall and spike in attention is what allowed creators to form their own publishing house (Image) and allowed non-superhero comics (Sandman, Preacher) to gain previously unseen popularity in America.

The advent of digital comics allows new publishers to get into the industry, but the bigger publishers are incredibly resistant to this, due to relationships developed with the printers and brick and mortar FLCS's these are anachronisms the industry cannot afford to indulge. I started to research this, and found that even people who are serious about the revitalization of the industry suffer from a wistful bias for the FLCS, indicating that there is no other way to find out what is good or to communicate with other comics fans, which is laughable, as some of the first communities on the internet talked about comics (our own SD has existed since 2003!), and the internet has websites and youtube channels to provide a dozen or more reviews of each individual comic sold.

Dig this excerpt from an article discussing a CBR thread about this very topic:

"ComicbookResources recently (August 2011) had a thread for old fans who left comics, often for more than ten years, and came back. Obviously they couldn't ask fans who left comics and stayed away, as they would not be on a comic forum.) These are the reasons why fans left:

Identikit covers
Tricks like the Death of Superman
Expensive and pointless crossovers like Secret Wars 2
Gimmicks like foil covers, poly bags, renumbering.
$3.99 comics
"Crisis" type manufactured events and reboots
Artists who couldn't draw (I will not name names)
Writers who became lazy parodies of their earlier work.
Colorists and letterers who produce muddy, confusing and ugly results.
Retcons - e.g. reversing the death of Phoenix; the spider-clone saga
The end of Silver Age style comics"

The article mentioned that a top selling individual issue these days might sell 200k copies, where a similar one in 1968 (the peak of comic sales) might sell 6-700k copies. The only reason the industry makes more money today is because of skyrocketing prices and inflation. I'm not saying that comics aren't profitable, but that the current model is unsustainable. The lion's share of comic consumers are in their late thirties. More leave the hobby every year than enter it, and the industry compensated by raising prices and putting out more titles and "events".

The youth market is largely untapped, and it is the future of comics. I cannot conceive of a reasonable argument that would suggest that creating kid friendly comics and distributing them digitally would not be a good idea.

[goattoucher]

https://www.newsarama.com/33006-is-the-average-age-of-comic-book-readers-increasing-retailers-talk-state-of-the-business-2017.html

"According to most retailers we surveyed, ongoing comic book consumers have aged in recent years to average in their mid- to late-30s.

"When we opened in 1988, we located close to three high schools, several middle and elementary schools," said Joe Field, owner of Flying Colors Comics in Concord, California. "Back then, the average age of a Flying Colors customer was about 18. These days, the average age is 35. Yes, comics sure have matured!"

"Our average age of our customer is 36-years-old," said Jesse James, owner of Jesse James Comics in Glendale, Arizona.

But for several retailers, that average age appears to be changing.

"The average age of our customer is actually dropping," said Matthew Price, co-owner of Speeding Bullet Comics in Norman, Oklahoma. "We are in a college town, so that refreshes itself to some degree anyway, but we are seeing more kids and young adults who are interested in the form."

"Until the last couple of years, our guests age range fell mostly into the 30+s region," said Ryan Seymore, owner of Comic Town in Columbus, Ohio. "This was a long-term concern for me for sure, but with the advent of social media, movies, availability of digital copies and the loss of the 'nerdiness' stigma attached to being a comic fan it no longer concerns me."

So even the FLCS owners are saying that digital distribution would help comics, yet the big two resist.

[laughing_tree]

They resist in what way? For $9.99 a month, a person can have unlimited access to every comic older than six months in Marvel's ENTIRE digital backlog. A backlog over 20,000 comics strong that literally every book they publish these days gets added to.

[goattoucher]

Because access to archives via subscription service is not the same as buying comics digitally. If I want to read the current issue of Ms. Marvel, I should be able to pay them for a PDF copy of the current issue of Ms. Marvel. I can do this with books via Amazon (which, sadly, does not provide significant discounts for PDF copies) or, for example, RPG companies (many of whom provide -significant- discounts for PDF copies).

Essentially, if you want your comics to be up to date, you have to deal with buying copies at a brick and mortar store, or simply pirate the scans that are available on Wednesday afternoons. Studies have shown that people will not pirate material when the material is readily available online from the publisher.

So, again, I would define the current state of affairs as resistance to digital distribution for the sake of brick and mortar stores.

[dustbunny105]

Essentially, if you want your comics to be up to date, you have to deal with buying copies at a brick and mortar store, or simply pirate the scans that are available on Wednesday afternoons.

Or buy the new digital issues from the likes of iTunes or Comixology on that very same Wednesday?

[goattoucher]

I just had a look at Comixology. No discount. Why would I bother buying an electronic copy if it costs just as much as a physical one? The entire point of electronic distribution it that it eliminates the cost of producing, shipping, and selling physical copies. Selling PDF comics at the same price as physical copies missed the point of digital distribution entirely.

One of the obstacles to new people getting into the hobby is the relatively steep price point. If a new reader were to limit themselves to three titles a month, that is still $12 plus tax. That's a spicy meatball for a twelve year old kid. Low cost digital copies would hit the younger demographic in their financial comfort zone via their media of choice.

[dustbunny105]

Why would I bother buying an electronic copy if it costs just as much as a physical one?

Lack of conveniently-located physical shops, preference for digital comics, impatience, whatever other reasons that thousands of people may have to buy a digital copy full price.

Selling PDF comics at the same price as physical copies missed the point of digital distribution entirely.

I've always seen the point of digital distribution as being easier access for more people, a goal which is indeed met.

One of the obstacles to new people getting into the hobby is the relatively steep price point. If a new reader were to limit themselves to three titles a month, that is still $12 plus tax. That's a spicy meatball for a twelve year old kid.

Fair enough, but a failure to mark digital issues with lower prices still doesn't indicate resistance to digital sales. All new issues of Big Two comics-- plus thousands of back issues-- are readily available to be purchased in digital; Marvel even offers codes for free digital copies with some of their physical issues. If anything, it suggests that they aren't ready to kill physical copies for the sake of digital, since reduced digital prices would pose a serious threat to physical sales.

[goattoucher]

My point is that physical sales is a cost sinkhole for them. If they eliminated physical sales (or relegated them to specialist commodities), they would save -enormous amounts- on producing and distributing physical copies. Then you could sell a book for, say, $.99 and probably make greater profits than you make of selling a physical book for $3.99, fulfilling two important business goals: reducing overhead and increasing the customer base.

[laughing_tree]

Considering the price of digital-only titles is not nearly so low, I'm not sure about that. Pretty sure I've read that the vast majority of overhead for a comic comes from paying staff and creative, not the printing.

[goattoucher]

I can't say as I have read any breakdowns of that, so I would not presume to speak definitively. I do know that companies like Paizo sell PDF copies of their books at less than half the price of physical copies.

At any rate, eliminating printing and shipping should result in -some- kind of discount, if only dropping their $3.99 comics to $2.99. It might seem like a quibble, but when you are tying to get younger kids to buy multiple books, reducing digital prices by 25% will certainly help.

[laughing_tree]

He's referring to the late 90s, post-speculator boom, which is after the days of McFarlane Spidey.

I don't know what the CBR thread you're citing is meant to show. The reasons given there for leaving comics are hardly exclusive to the modern era but rather span eras, and only one of them, retcons, has a connection to the absence of change you're talking about. And even there, some retcons revert a change, but others *are* change. And the last reason on that list -- the end of Silver Age style stories -- is about precisely the opposite of lack of change.

The ratings for a hit TV show today can't hold a candle to a hit TV show from a few decades ago, but nobody says TV is dying. The reason is the Balkanization of TV -- there are more shows, more channels, so the audience gets divided up between them. And that's something that should be kept in mind for comics, as well. That's why numbers alone really don't really prove anything. To borrow another Busiek quote:

"I remember when being a comics fan meant you could buy everything Marvel, DC and Warren put out each month. Good, bad, all of it. Nowadays there are more good comics coming out than any but the most dedicated reader can keep up with. More bad, too. Nowadays is better than thenadays."

You said:
"I cannot conceive of a reasonable argument that would suggest that creating kid friendly comics and distributing them digitally would not be a good idea."

Both those are being done. Perhaps imperfectly but there's a pretty big gap between "there are things the industry could be doing better" to "comics are dying."

[goattoucher]

First, I -often- hear that broadcast television is dying, because FCC restrictions prevent them from doing, saying, or showing many things that cable and streaming channels can show readily. Also, because broadcast commercial television relies on advertising for income, and the value of advertising is greatly reduced by the advent of DVR technology.

So, while our current culture has been called "the second golden age of television" due to the quality of the material available, the old delivery system is, in fact, dying, and we will probably see it gone within our lifetime.

As for comics, I don't think "comics are dying" so much as "comic publishers are undermining themselves".

[laughing_tree]

But in this analogy we aren't talking about broadcast TV, just TV in general.

[goattoucher]

We're talking about content delivery systems and revenue.

Cable and streaming services produce new content, readily available without interruptions and without content restrictions. The shows end when they are over, and new shows replace them.

Broadcast television is going by the wayside because or content restrictions, an outdated revenue model (commercials), and shows last for -decades- with little change because that is what the core audience wants. Big Bang Theory is the Batman of broadcast television. It goes on and on, and nothing every really changes.

[laughing_tree]

But however endangered broadcast TV is, TV itself is in no danger. Likewise, the idea that however stale Batman is is some huge problem that risks "killing comics," as you put it, doesn't fly with me.

[goattoucher]

"Killing comics" was not the best phrase. Consider comics like the energy industry: renewable energy is the way to go, but these companies have billions invested in the old way of doing things. Rather than start to change the paradigm now, they resist in an attempt to wring every last drop from the figurative turnip.

Publishing companies have a lot of money invested in printers and brick and mortar stores. The repercussions of not moving to digital publishing are obviously not as dire as continuing fossil fuel use, but the future of the industry and the genre would be better off if they would start coming to terms with digital distribution sooner rather than later.

The cost reduction of producing comics would free up funds to establish kid friendly titles. The combination of kid friendly comics available through digital media at a lower price point that $4.99 an issue would open up the youth market, which would turn into the mainstream comics market with time. New readers means more money, which means more and better quality comics, which means a better hobby for us all.

[laughing_tree]

I'd say the publishers are making the transition, with books like Ms. Marvel and Squirrel Girl, which I understand sell better digitally than in print.

I mainly took issue with the doom and gloom tone of your comments. It's a tone that seems to have been around as long as I've been reading comics, and yet the medium's still here and flourishing. With so much good stuff coming out and available, more than at any point in the medium's history, I just get frustrated when people insist said medium's in crisis just because the Big 2 heroes they grew up with don't scratch their itch anymore. The whole point of the original Busiek quote is the pointless and dangerous restrictiveness of keeping those characters at center.

[goattoucher]

It's hardly flourishing. We are in a golden age of superhero movies and the sales numbers today are just now starting to match the numbers of the late 90's -slump-.

The reason we have the embarrassment of riches that we do today is because digital distribution reduces the entry cost of new publishers. Most of the most interesting and exciting comics aren't coming from the Big Two. At while we might use those comics to "scratch our itch", the Big Two are Big for a reason: more people read those stories. You aren't going to be able to sustain the industry based on admittedly high quality comics that only sell 10k copies a month.

And I agree with Busiek: we need heroes to adapt and change to reflect the culture. Superheroes in the big two don't do that, because nerds of our generation don't want them to. They want the same, decade after decade, and they want the stories less and less appropriate for children (via mature themes and graphic content), producing another obstacle to new readers.

If I seem "doom and gloom"y, it is because it seems obvious that changes need to happen, but the Big Two are reluctant to make them.

[laughing_tree]

"We are in a golden age of superhero movies and the sales numbers today are just now starting to match the numbers of the late 90's -slump-."

See what I said about Balkanization. Plus, now there are also the digital and trade paperback sales to consider. Comparing single physical issue sales alone no longer says much, nor does it paint the whole picture.

There are more good comics available today, catering to a greater range of tastes than ever, than in any other era of the medium's history. I'm hard pressed to not consider that flourishing.

"Most of the most interesting and exciting comics aren't coming from the Big Two."

Yeah, but isn't that what should be the case? Isn't it right and proper that it's the newer stuff created for today rather than the stuff created for yesterday that is the most vital, the most relevant, the most interesting? We've come back to the point of the original quote there, which you agreed with.

You agree that we shouldn't keep clinging to the outmoded ideas designed for yesterday's audience, yet at the same time you view the diminishing relevance of those outmoded ideas not as their right and proper fate finally catching up to them but rather as some abnormal crisis that endangers the medium. That unless these old characters created for readers in the 40s and 60s continue to thrive, it's a problem. There seems to be a contradiction there.

[goattoucher]

The fact that the most exciting comics are not coming from the big two is a problem because these companies lack the budgets to adequately market these books, so, unless you are already in the hobby, you are unlikely to know that they exist.

As for old characters, I like them well enough, but I find more than a few of them dull, and I find the fetishization of the 80's that Johns and Quesada engage in to be -maddening-: taking what little progress has been made for these characters and completely negating them.

One of my least favorite popular characters is Batman. He suffers from three important problems:

1: Due to his iconic status, many fans will not tolerate change. Batman must continue to be Batman the way he has always been Batman. Batman Inc.? -Great- idea. Fans hated it and it went away.

2: Due to his popularity, any unpopular moves will result in loss of revenue. Batman cannot change. The classic elements of his rogues gallery cannot change. The editors are paralyzed by the fact that any move they make away from the status quo would likely have -profound- negative revenue results, so everything must remain the same.

3: Because he is popular, he must be -everywhere-, which results in him regularly moving away from the street level heroism he was created for, into cosmic level adventures (where he must not only participate, but be a key element of success), and then back to the street level. He fights Two Face one day, is key to the defeat of Darkseid the next, and is back to being legitimately threatened by the Scarecrow the next.

The creative gymnastics necessary to make this happen are mind-boggling, and stretch the suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point. The most common (and most aggravating), method is to turn everyone into jobbers compared to Batman. Heroes like Green Lantern and the Flash save the world and cosmos regularly in their own books, but are bumbling half-wits when they are the same room as Batman. If I had a nickel for every time Batman just pulled a GL's ring off their finger in the last fifteen years... I'd have a lot of nickels.

This enforced status quo is -terrible-. It makes for by stories and a static universe. Batman stories regularly call back to twenty year old or older stories that would leave new readers scratching their heads.

But these characters are necessary to the industry. They are hugely popular, and form the fiscal backbone of the publishing companies. The problem is that they aren't for new readers: they are for established readers. Further, because a comic with a bat on the cover is a sure-fire money maker, the company is more likely to create another Bat-Book to satisfy the current audience than risk it on a new book to attract a new audience.

[jlbarnett]

I'm not sure that you can really build an audience based on "grow"ing. That kind of requires your characters to start at zero and your audience to grow to

[goattoucher]

Well, I'm not suggesting things like eliminating the sliding timescale (though wouldn't that be interesting?), so much as starting new continuities. Ones that are not between 50 and 70 years old.

If they started a new continuity today, at this very moment, a reader coming in to the hobby in 2027 would only have ten years of continuity to catch up on.

A lot of "superhero novels" are usually grounded in some sort of inciting event that happens in the novel or shortly before it. It shows the world coming to terms with superpowered beings. It avoids tropes like "Reed Richards is Useless" or "BatGod" by either eliminating them (There are smart people, but not "smarter than advanced aliens" smart) or by virtue of the fact that, since the characters are new, there is no character that the audience is so invested in that they cannot lose or change (like Batman).

There has actually be some success with this before, but the universes failed for one reason or another. Marvel's "New Universe" failed because it was the brainchild of Jim Shooter, who everybody hated by the time he left, so they killed his project when he was gone. Consider the Ultimate universe: Ultimate Spider-Man not only took advantage of the movies, but provided newer, fresher, spider-man stories! The Ultimates were a mixed bag, because they were trying so hard to be The Authority (a 180 degree shift in tone from Ult SM), and they let Jeph Loeb take the reins without having read any of the material (Shakespearean Thor diction?)

Hell, Wildstorm was hugely popular for years, to the point that, when it folded, many characters were integrated into DC proper. New continuities -can- work.

[jlbarnett]

and yet the new continuities ran out of ideas within a decade

[goattoucher]

Think about what you just said: is it possible to run out of ideas?

You are suggesting that it is easier to find new stories to tell with seventy year old characters than with new ones. Does that make sense?

[jlbarnett]

think about the state of the UU at it's end vs the state of the MCU.

[goattoucher]

As I have pointed out in other parts of the thread, the problem there was that editorial stopped caring. They gave the third Ultimates series to Jeph Loeb without making sure that he read any of the previous material and had any idea about how the characterization of Ult. characters differed from their 616 counterparts. They stopped caring about the Ultimate U. and turned it into the Avengers and the X-Men, but with more blood.

Plus, many of the Ultimate U characters were just simulacra of 616 characters, so they were not exactly "new stories" the way the "New Universe" from the 80s was telling new stories.

[coldfury]

I think the problem is that the solution isn't as simple as you think. You can make all the new characters in the world, but if the young eyeballs aren't even looking in your direction it won't make a difference.

Sometimes what's 'new' is taking something old and putting a new spin on it. Squirrel Girl comes to mind.

Not saying your problems aren't accurate, but I don't think anyone has a real solution yet.

[goattoucher]

I think that they have done great things with Squirrel Girl, and Ms. Marvel as well. Note how popular those series are. Note how kid friendly.

The problem here is not unique to comics: Look at how many sequels, reboots, and adaptations are produced in movies: Nobody wants to take a chance on anything that does not have an established audience (they made a movie about emojis, for Christ's sake!), so very little new material gets made.

Fatigue is starting to set in. A lot of these adaptation films are flopping hard. I'm not suggesting that anybody cancel Batman, I'm saying that we have to cater to a younger audience as well in order to draw new readers. Maturity of content is an obstacle, gigantic continuity is an obstacle, and price is an obstacle. New, digitally distributed, kid friendly content would only help.

[q99]

-Doubt me? Name the current roster of X-Men. Name me one that debuted in the new millennium.-

Fantomex (Astonishing), Jimmy Hudson (Blue). And... well, depends on how you count the young O5 and Old Man Logan.

But still, it's not like there's not Kamala Khan, Spider-Gwen, Silk, America Chavez, Kate Bishop. Or even for Batman, Damian Wayne and Harper Row. Laura Kinney's not currently on an X-team but she's big enough that she without a doubt will get on one again (and legacies still count as change if they bring something new and aren't 'new verse, same as the first').

It takes time for characters to build, for the weight of their stories to reach a point where they become more than the 'new one,' but they're being added and in there.

And, I think it sometimes gets underestimated how much second tier characters (and even to a lesser extent first-tier characters) change. I mean, Jane Foster is not new, but as Thor, she's a radical change. Pepper getting armor similarly. Yadda yadda, I can go on.

[goattoucher]

You kind of make my point here: There have been dozens of new x-men introduced in the last 20 years, and about a half dozen are still in rotation (and Jimmy Hudson is just there as Wolverine placeholder).

All the great female Marvel characters you mention? Characters that our community loves? Those are the characters that Marvel blames for a decline in sales. Remember the speech blaming "diversity" a few months back? Awesome.

Laura, however, does undermine my point. She is a new, well used, well developed, and popular character. But she is in a tiny minority.

Second tier characters develop, but their comics don't sell, and they face critical backlash. The idea of Pepper operating a non-combat suit, specifically rescuing and defending people, is terrific! Sadly, it did not last. People want Iron Man blowing shit up.

When I watch a movie, TV show, or play, I almost always prefer the support characters to the leads. They are flawed. They grow and change. There is a character arc. They are much more dynamic than the main characters, who are there to be beautiful audience fantasy objects. It would be nice to see them grow and change, but their traits have been specifically chosen to make them appealing to the mass audience, so what can you change without undermining the popularity of the character?

[q99]

-Those are the characters that Marvel blames for a decline in sales. Remember the speech blaming "diversity" a few months back? Awesome.-

That was one guy, the company refuted him (as do sales stats), and those characters (1) had books that lasted way longer than most new characters, and (2) are assured to continue to show up.

Heck, this is the company still putting out Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur! Between her, Kamala, and Laura, I don't think they're giving up on diversity, most of the ones from the last wave reached pretty natural end points.

-
Second tier characters develop, but their comics don't sell, -

I mean, yes and no. They don't hold solo titles for as long, but they do bounce book to book and continue to be around.

It normally takes 15+ years to hit first tier, barring unusual circumstances, but while we only have a tiny number from the 00s, a few more from the 00s, we have a solid amount from the 90s- like Deadpool and Harley Quinn (to mention a DC), both of who reached A-list via continual on-and-off mid level push, starting with miniseries, co-starrings, team books, and so on before eventually getting high selling ongoings.

[goattoucher]

-Heck, this is the company still putting out Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur! Between her, Kamala, and Laura, I don't think they're giving up on diversity, most of the ones from the last wave reached pretty natural end points.-

I cannot express how much I hope you are right. I would rather be proven a cynical, foolish fool and have those characters maintain and gain popularity than to have the cycle of new characters fading away continue.

-we have a solid amount from the 90s- like Deadpool and Harley Quinn (to mention a DC), both of who reached A-list via continual on-and-off mid level push, starting with miniseries, co-starrings, team books, and so on before eventually getting high selling ongoings.-

You mention Deadpool and Harley Quinn, but can you name any others?

That's the trick, from an entire decade of comic creations, only those two characters have risen to the A list. The rest are seldom seen.

We have seen one from the '00s: X-23, and that is a recent thing. She was on and off as well until she was featured in a movie six months ago, and is now enjoying a resurgence (which I dearly hope lasts, as she is a far more interesting character than her progenitor, precisely because she has not calcified into certain traits and roles in the eyes of the audience like so many 30+ year old characters have).

I'm not saying I don't like the older characters either. I'm just pointing out that if the Big Two are so determined to not allow their big name characters to change (which has been the case for several decades) for fear of alienating old fans, we need new, dynamic characters (like Kamala, RiRi, Luna, Laura, a cast of a hundred Inhumans, etc...) to keep things interesting and draw in new fans.

[q99]

-You mention Deadpool and Harley Quinn, but can you name any others?

That's the trick, from an entire decade of comic creations, only those two characters have risen to the A list. The rest are seldom seen.-

War Machine (James Rhodes, in movies), Gambit, Jubilee, Cable, Midnighter, Squirrel Girl (another with a current ongoing that's lasted a few years!).

I mean, it depends in part on what one calls 'A list,' but 'characters that regularly show up, get either repeated minis or solo titles or other big roles,' is fairly sizable.

Ultimately I'd say a lot of it is just rising to A-list takes time. Like.. Luke Cage, in the 90s he'd be B-list definitely, Early 00s, ditto. Nowadays? A-list. It's not that they aren't making A-list characters, it's that the characters aren't A-list yet. Rapid rises to A-list are super rare, lightning in a bottle moments, but most of the higher tier characters are cultivated and grow in importance over time.

I expect in the next decade, several more 90s heroes will have broken through, some more 00s heroes, and a few 10s ones.

-We have seen one from the '00s: X-23, and that is a recent thing. -

Jessica Jones for another, what with her TV series and all.

It's not like there aren't others gaining in prominence though, they just rose the fastest. Ones like Hulkling and Wiccan, Nico Minoru and the other Runaways, Renee Montoya, Batwoman, and let's not forget Blue Beetle, who's been in two TV series (Young Justice even being un-cancelled) and is on his third ongoing right now.

Plus there's ones which while not technically from the decade, might as well be due to reinventions, like the Guardians of the Galaxy.

[goattoucher]

-War Machine (James Rhodes, in movies), Gambit, Jubilee, Cable, Midnighter, Squirrel Girl (another with a current ongoing that's lasted a few years!).-

War Machine hasn't had his own title since the 90's. The same with Gambit. Jubilee and Cable make sporadic appearances (moreso than characters from the 00s, but are not regulars. Midnighter is fairly popular, but also largely unknown outside the hobby (and, notably, he is a Wildstorm creation, not a DC one).

Squirrel girl is ascendant, and it is glorious. However, she is from the 80's. She spent the 25 years from her inception to a few years back as a memetic badass making only occasional appearances, and has always been more of a joke character. The new series takes her "seriously" by virtue of examining her character in more detail and giving her an actual arc instead of just showing her walking away from beaten foes. What makes he different, however, is that, despite the fact that the character has been around since Secret Wars II, she has no history. No backstory and mythology. All of that is being established in the current series. She is, for all intents and purposes, a new character.

As for what defines the "A list" I think that is pretty clear: characters that show up in permanent front line roles in comics and have a presence in the culture outside of the hobby. If they only show up occasionally, they aren't on the A list. If they get the occasional solo series, but then you don't see them again for years, they are not A list. If nobody who does not read comics religiously knows who they are, they are not A list.

By this litmus, Deadpool and Harley Quinn are undeniably A list. Squirrel Girl is rapidly getting there. Gambit was in a movie once, but is seldom seen in the comics. Nobody outside comics has any idea who Cable is, but they will when Deadpool 2 comes out. Will this result in his return as a regular presence in comics? Time will tell.

You point out Luke Cage and Jessica Jones as examples, but consider this: Cage had -far- more personality and character earlier in his career. Not the early blaxploitation days, but the early and mid 80's. Luke Cage has been somewhat artificially pushed to the forefront by Bendis in recent years, but who is he really? Strong guy with a kid. Friends with Iron Fist. Does his character hold more details than that? Not so much.

Jessica Jones has gained some prominence, but bear in mind that she is, to a great extent, a subversion of superhero tropes: she gained powers, but did not have a successful superhero career. She is the victim of abuse who only escaped by chance. Her most notable achievements have been as an investigator. This is exactly the kind of new and different character that I would encourage.

But, bear in mind that, since Alias ended, her appearances in comics have been sporadic, and largely as a support character for the Avengers and Luke Cage, and that is with Bendis behind her shoving her into the spotlight at every opportunity. Hell, Alfred has been a mainstay of comics for seventy years. People outside the hobby know who he is, and he has had arguably more character development over the last twenty years than Batman. Would you call Alfred A list?

Cage and Jones' Netflix series does not particularly strike me as a move toward the A list. Sure, more people know about them, but the number one reason they were chosen is because special effects reproducing feats of strength are the cheapest to produce. We aren't seeing Netflix series about people who fly or shoot energy beams, because that shit is expensive to animate.

Iron fist has his own series too, and has had a number of solo series, yet I hardly think anybody would call him A list. He's in there with Moon Knight.

Guardians of the Galaxy is an interesting case. All of the characters are from the 70's, but they are all hugely popular now. Awesome. They regularly appear in comics as headliners as well.

But consider this: If you had to write the continuity for all these characters, would it take you more than a paragraph for any of them?

Again, they are popular, but this is in part because they are not weighted down with decades of continuity. Quill is a half human space pirate. Drax is a human genetically manipulated to kill Thanos, which he has done several times. Gamora is the "most Dangerous Woman in the Galaxy" and she also hates Thanos. Rocket is Hilariously violent given his small stature, and serves as a sarcastic foil to any character he interacts with. Groot is a character whose simplicity makes him awesome (honestly, his precipitous growth in popularity given his three word vocabulary is a tremendous achievement for the writers). this paragraph I wrote is really all you need to know about the entire group to enjoy the comics. Their adventures are light hearted and (aside from Quill's amorous adventures, which are still pretty tame) decidedly kid friendly. This is the kind of book Marvel should be putting out to attract new customers (if only they could quit writing for the trades and give us one or two issue stories).

[q99]

-
War Machine hasn't had his own title since the 90's. The same with Gambit. Jubilee and Cable make sporadic appearances (moreso than characters from the 00s, but are not regulars. Midnighter is fairly popular, but also largely unknown outside the hobby (and, notably, he is a Wildstorm creation, not a DC one).-

War Machine had solo a title in '09 (and is in movies), Gambit in '04 and '12, and both show up in comics a lot.

Jubilee was a regular in Patsy Walker, the Brian Wood X-men, and had minis in '04 and '11 as well as being one of the team leaders in a New Warriors team. She's high enough list that Jubilee having solo minis or leading roles is fairly common place, and even when she's not she's usually in some book.

Cable has a current series, Cable and the X-force before that, his solo with baby Hope, and Cable & Deadpool back when he couldn't maintain a solo. So with small breaks for being dead, he's headlined in a lot of titles since the mid 00s.

-Squirrel girl is ascendant, and it is glorious. However, she is from the 80's.-

Nope, '92. It just *felt* very 80s ^^

-
As for what defines the "A list" I think that is pretty clear: characters that show up in permanent front line roles in comics and have a presence in the culture outside of the hobby. If they only show up occasionally, they aren't on the A list. If they get the occasional solo series, but then you don't see them again for years, they are not A list. If nobody who does not read comics religiously knows who they are, they are not A list.-

I'd say most of the above qualify with that definition- even when Jubes and Gambit don't have their own series they're usually making appearances in other comics (More than I think you realize), and they both have TV presence. Being the 90s X-men show is a big boost since that has a lot of nostalgia in it.

That's one thing that really helps with exposure, being part of a popular show or movie from a prior decade ^^ Heck, that was X-23's trick too,

-You point out Luke Cage and Jessica Jones as examples, but consider this: Cage had -far- more personality and character earlier in his career. Not the early blaxploitation days, but the early and mid 80's. Luke Cage has been somewhat artificially pushed to the forefront by Bendis in recent years, but who is he really? Strong guy with a kid. Friends with Iron Fist. Does his character hold more details than that? Not so much. -

Uhhh... gonna disagree, I feel he's grown into a leader and a fairly thoughtful guy (with the note I read him mostly in non-Bendis title, like Ewing's Mighty Avengers). And regardless, still undoubtably A-list in exposure and name recognition.

-
Cage and Jones' Netflix series does not particularly strike me as a move toward the A list. Sure, more people know about them, but the number one reason they were chosen is because special effects reproducing feats of strength are the cheapest to produce.-

Jones is a pretty well-received show, and both of them also are in the defenders and have regular comics roles.

If you have your own TV show plus a role in another live action show (also he and Iron Fist are regular characters in the Ultimate Spider-Man show for most of the run), plus show up consistently in comics, that's pretty big. Definitely the 'known to people who don't read comics religiously' thing.

-But, bear in mind that, since Alias ended, her appearances in comics have been sporadic, and largely as a support character for the Avengers and Luke Cage, and that is with Bendis behind her shoving her into the spotlight at every opportunity. Hell, Alfred has been a mainstay of comics for seventy years. People outside the hobby know who he is, and he has had arguably more character development over the last twenty years than Batman. Would you call Alfred A list?-

Kinda yea? A-list of supporting cast at least. But we're adding on additional criteria here. The question isn't 'A list and also only certain types of A-list,' but just 'has a certain level of exposure and amount of role in comics.' And unlike Alfred, Jessica got her own well received TV show- which helped pave the way for other shows.

-Iron fist has his own series too, and has had a number of solo series, yet I hardly think anybody would call him A list. He's in there with Moon Knight.-

I would solidly disagree! He's on another level than Moon Knight, he almost always has either a solo or dual-with-Luke book, many of the books by major talent and critical acclaim (the Immortal Iron-Fist was a hugely well liked book and introduced a number of characters who spun off and appeared elsewhere), has a TV show, and a major role in multiple other TV shows. Sometimes he's even shoehorned into events that don't seem related to him (AvX).

I'd argue Danny was pretty close to A-list before the shows, at least high B.

-
But consider this: If you had to write the continuity for all these characters, would it take you more than a paragraph for any of them?-

Depends on whether I want to include all the stuff which isn't really relevant anymore or not ^^ They can be summed up pretty easily in core concept, yea, but some like Drax actually have pretty convoluted histories. "Ok, first he was a dumb brute and his daughter is the telepath Moondragon who has her own thing, he was part of a team called the Infinity Watch which ironically had Thanos, then he regenerated and became space Riddick, and...".

Peter Quill was 'the guy with the living ship and ties to the Spartax empire' at first with no connection to pirates, who only got criminal links *after* an event where he fought an evil Herald of Galactus and sacrificed a colony to do so. He's big because after years of trying, the 'dirty dozen in space' take on him seen in Annihilation Conquest took off and largely overrode prior stuff.


New or old, I think most heroes can be summed up in a paragraph, but plenty of simple-seeming modern ones have a lot more complex history in there, and space heroes often have really odd ones. It's more about being able to describe a hero rather than whether or not they really have a convoluted history.

[goattoucher]

Hmm...

It would seem that I am in error on a number of fronts.

Thank you.

[q99]

I know sometimes I do the exact same, sometimes stuff just doesn't show up on personal radar.

[philippos42]

Tom Wolfe and a reference to Sylvia Warner's "The Phoenix"! All right!