Tuesday Post Part 1- Being a Comic Book Fan

So as many people who know me, and as anyone reading this blog know by now, I am an avid comic book fan.  Mostly I follow comics from the big two (Marvel & DC) with a few exceptions here and there.  As a comic book fan, especially of the big two, I have many favorite characters that have existed for decades upon decades.  Some who are reading this may like books who feature the same protagonist over a large amount of years, even being written by different authors.  Those folks will probably understand better about the issues that many comic fans deal with when a new writer comes onto their favorite title, or a reboot or relaunch or big change happens in a comic universe or comic line.  Recently I was at San Diego Comic Con and at a Marvel panel they made a jab at DC and their propensity to have events that either reboot their history or continuity, or fix some problems that have come up.  Marvel has never done any reboots but have done what is called ret-cons (changing continuity retroactively) to varying degrees.  However, after reflecting on what was said at the Marvel panel, I realized reboots or ret-cons are flamboyant ways to discussing what happens all the time in comics....a new writer does something new with a classic character.

To fans of comic books or even just books as well as television and movies, really two things matter the most: plot and characters.  Some of are more concerned with one over the other, some of us like those two simple, others more complex.  However, it really boils down to those two elements.  I want Bruce Wayne/Batman to sound, think and act in an essential way like the Batman I have been reading for over a decade.  And good writers, will create a plot that engage and challenge those characters in interesting and enticing ways.  Sure, writers will sometimes take a character when they are older or younger than the norm, or might change some part of their back story that might affect the character in a way that hasn't been seen before; for example when DC rebooted it's continuity, they now have a young Superman, who was an orphan by the time he was 18 and starts working for a rival to the Daily Planet.  It's a twist on what is expected, but it doesn't truly change the essential of a character.  Some fans will always be upset at change - no matter how small or how cool or how interesting.  However, most fans get truly upset not at changes or twists, or even the killing of a characters, but when a character they know and love does not act as he/she should.

What do I mean? If Bruce Wayne/Batman starts murdering criminals, that would be a problem.  However, the recent plot twist that he may/may not have a younger brother he never knew about has not been problematic.  And for two reasons.  A.) It does not change the essential of who Bruce Wayne/Batman is and B.) that story was told really well.  Really good writers get away with a lot more when they tell a story very well.

Another example before I go.  Around the same year, the writers of Batman and Captain America decided, without knowing decided to bring back the title characters presumed-dead sidekicks.  One was met with more negative critical reaction than the other.  I liked both. What the Cap story did was make the sidekick a tragic figure, used by forces beyond his control into being a villain.  The Batman story took a not fan loved sidekick and made him into a lethal vigilante.  Both stories had the character act uncharacteristically, but only one gave a journey for that character to redeem those actions that were in large part beyond his control.