Creativity in comics: Today vs. Yesteryear
Are comics today better than they weer during the height of the Silver Age???
What about the creativity?
I don't think there will be another time when so much happened in such a short span of time. From the creation of the entire Marvel Universe by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and the other greats at Marvel... and also at DC who also experienced a rebirth when Flash was reintroduced in 1955. The ideas were flowing out at a crazy pace... setting the foundations for the next 40+ years.
I think the QUALITY of storytelling in both the writing and art have vastly improved over the decades to the high point we are at now. The cheesy inner monologues, the awkward art and bad dialogue (especially early on when the characters were finding their voice) was just plain bad, though it helped the reader get into the characters head... espcially solo guys like Spider-Man.
But what made the Silver Age (and the Golden before it) so special was the vast influx of NEW characters, new worlds, new stories... and the changing of the status quo.
But since about the mid-1970's there has been a real halt to the massive influx of new characters or character evolution.
But who's fault is this?
This is our fault. Yours, mine... 99% of comic fans are to blame!
People don't want evolution of the characters. They want the Spider-Man they grew up with. Whenever a character is replaced there's always complaints... look at HEAT and Hal Jordan... or all the houpla with the New Blue Beetle and new Atom.
It's also the fault of the creators. Look at Alex Ross... he won't do a story with Kyle Rayner because he's not Hal Jordan! Not the "real" Green Lantern... or, in other words, not the one HE grew up with.The mentality is to stick with what's familiar and safe... whenever there's a change to the status quo people FREAK.
Hell, at Newsarama Joe Quesada is saying Peter's marrage to Mary Jane ruined some potential of the character... but that was 19 YEARS AGO NOW! Cummon... move on... but people just can't let go. So we get the rehashes over and over again.
Quesada's attitude is quite silly in my opinion because as I write this there is an Ultimate Spider-Man that's single and in highschool, there's a Marvel Adventures Spider-Man who loves Mary Jane (but is still young and not married) and then there's a huge availability of reprint material of the single Spidey in the (horrible) Essentials and the (beautiful) Masterworks.
All that being said, I don't think you can fairly compare the creativity of the 1960's to today. When the 60's boom hit there was almost nothing in the way of superheroes... so for an entire generation it was brand spanking NEW and FRESH. For us it's 40+ years and counting of continuous publication, convoluted continuity and long histories.
Whereas superheroes went from 1938 until 1950-ish before they went on hiates for almost a decade when the only options and where Horror, Romance, Sci-Fi and Western comics were the only real options (I'm generalizing of course... but you get the idea... NO superheroes).
Today's comic industry is also a different beast than the 60's with corporate $$$ with things like movies and merchandising that wasn't an option or issue in the early 60's. It's beneficial to the companies to keep the characters the same with the ILLUSION of change... but no real change actually occuring. That's why you get so many "versions" of Spidey... but it's all still the same.
What was my point in all of this? I think I lost it somewhere... but regardless of my near-mad rantings I think comics are in great shape, and in my 22 years of collecting I can't think of a better time to enjoy great stories.
What about the creativity?
I don't think there will be another time when so much happened in such a short span of time. From the creation of the entire Marvel Universe by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby and the other greats at Marvel... and also at DC who also experienced a rebirth when Flash was reintroduced in 1955. The ideas were flowing out at a crazy pace... setting the foundations for the next 40+ years.
I think the QUALITY of storytelling in both the writing and art have vastly improved over the decades to the high point we are at now. The cheesy inner monologues, the awkward art and bad dialogue (especially early on when the characters were finding their voice) was just plain bad, though it helped the reader get into the characters head... espcially solo guys like Spider-Man.
But what made the Silver Age (and the Golden before it) so special was the vast influx of NEW characters, new worlds, new stories... and the changing of the status quo.
But since about the mid-1970's there has been a real halt to the massive influx of new characters or character evolution.
But who's fault is this?
This is our fault. Yours, mine... 99% of comic fans are to blame!
People don't want evolution of the characters. They want the Spider-Man they grew up with. Whenever a character is replaced there's always complaints... look at HEAT and Hal Jordan... or all the houpla with the New Blue Beetle and new Atom.
It's also the fault of the creators. Look at Alex Ross... he won't do a story with Kyle Rayner because he's not Hal Jordan! Not the "real" Green Lantern... or, in other words, not the one HE grew up with.The mentality is to stick with what's familiar and safe... whenever there's a change to the status quo people FREAK.
Hell, at Newsarama Joe Quesada is saying Peter's marrage to Mary Jane ruined some potential of the character... but that was 19 YEARS AGO NOW! Cummon... move on... but people just can't let go. So we get the rehashes over and over again.
Quesada's attitude is quite silly in my opinion because as I write this there is an Ultimate Spider-Man that's single and in highschool, there's a Marvel Adventures Spider-Man who loves Mary Jane (but is still young and not married) and then there's a huge availability of reprint material of the single Spidey in the (horrible) Essentials and the (beautiful) Masterworks.
All that being said, I don't think you can fairly compare the creativity of the 1960's to today. When the 60's boom hit there was almost nothing in the way of superheroes... so for an entire generation it was brand spanking NEW and FRESH. For us it's 40+ years and counting of continuous publication, convoluted continuity and long histories.
Whereas superheroes went from 1938 until 1950-ish before they went on hiates for almost a decade when the only options and where Horror, Romance, Sci-Fi and Western comics were the only real options (I'm generalizing of course... but you get the idea... NO superheroes).
Today's comic industry is also a different beast than the 60's with corporate $$$ with things like movies and merchandising that wasn't an option or issue in the early 60's. It's beneficial to the companies to keep the characters the same with the ILLUSION of change... but no real change actually occuring. That's why you get so many "versions" of Spidey... but it's all still the same.
What was my point in all of this? I think I lost it somewhere... but regardless of my near-mad rantings I think comics are in great shape, and in my 22 years of collecting I can't think of a better time to enjoy great stories.
posted by He Said... She Said at
10:06 AM
2 Comments:
agree with u somewhat that it is the readers' fault. Marvel's actually been more bold with their new ideas. U see new heroes now and then from marvel like Arana, Gravity, Runaways while in DC, all u get is a younger version of the same character (Blue Beetle, flash).
By
Thomas Cai, at 12:58 AM
While I like the legacy aspect from DC it pains me they always undo it... Jay to Barry to Wally to Bart who is now Kid Flash is the only one where the main hero has changed though Jay's still around.
I think the problem with Marvel is they try so many things but rarely give them a chance to succeed before they pull the trigger on them The books you listed are the exception.
Thanks for posting!
By
He Said... She Said, at 5:46 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home