Comic book fans are a fickle lot, it’s true. One
minute you can be a popular enough artist to afford a mansion and rare
autographed baseballs, the next minute your artwork is tagged “eye-bleach” by
the same people who used to read your comics. One minute you’re considered one
of Marvel’s most essential villains and the #1 foe of one of their most popular
heroes, the next minute you’re called a racist stereotype, a minor villain at
best and used as a joke in a major motion picture.
However,
fickleness can also have its unexpected upsides. One minute you’re a forgotten
supporting character in a Dracula comic no one under 30 has heard of; next
minute you have your own billion dollar film franchise and are more well-known
than Spider-Man on an international level. One minute you’re the most maligned
cartoonist in America and the subject of countless memes; the next minute
everyone comes out in support of you Capra-style after you get pranked by some
douche in a yellow hat at comic con.
And so on the cycle goes, who knows in which way?
So let us
take a look at how the sands of time have healed wounds, wounded heels and
buried once beloved creators, characters and movies; some deservedly, some not.
Creators:
Jack Kirby:
How fandom used to see him:
That ex-Marvel
guy who drew a bunch of comics where everyone had square fingertips, big buck
teeth and were covered in squiggles.
How fandom sees him now:
Christ
incarnate, beloved and infallible creator of Superman, Captain Marvel, every
single Marvel character ever, oh and the Romance genre.
Rob Liefeld:
How fandom used to see him:
The epitome
of everything that went wrong with comics in the 90s with his traced art, terrible
anatomy, bad perspective, stolen poses and poor storytelling abilities. Someday
his work will be shown in schools that teach sequential art as a way not to do comics.
How fandom sees him now:
An unjustly
maligned unique stylist who broke away from established model sheets, helped
stick it to the Big Two by founding Image and defied gender norms by giving
Captain America breasts. Someday his work will be studied alongside that of Fletcher
Hanks and Moebius; hailed as the product of one of the medium’s great eccentrics.
(I wish I was making this up, but sadly, if you
look around, you’ll find that defending Liefeld these days has become the new
equivalent of wearing lenseless glasses, drinking Pabst and watching My Little Brony: Aspergers is Tragic;
doing so gains you instant hipster/indie cred)
Carl
Barks:
How fandom used to see him:
That guy whose Donald
Duck comics were better than other people’s Donald Duck comics.
How fandom sees him now:
The single greatest
writer of children’s literature since Lewis Carroll.
If you no
agree, you will be burnt at stake in glorious People’s Republic of [some
European province that doesn’t use vowels].
(Seriously, there are actually places in Europe
where people subscribe to reprints of Barks comics from birth to death and make
them mandatory reading)
Stan
Lee:
How fandom used to see him:
Crazy, egotistical, flamboyant but always loveable
Uncle Stan. A man who helped to aim comics at a slightly older readership, gave
artists credit and made celebrities out of them at a time when doing so was
unusual and helped to redefine the superhero genre forever.
How fandom sees him now:
'A greedy, talentless hack who never gave anyone
credit ever and never did anything
but sign his name to other people’s work; all while tying virgins to railroad
tracks, kicking puppies and drinking the blood of babies!
It’s all
true; I read it in some post from a guy called kirbyluvver69 on the Comics
Journal and Marvel Masterworks forums.'
(Isn’t it funny how the people who bash Lee, whose worst sin was not giving credit for co-plotting, couldn’t
give less of a damn about Bob Kane, who really did screw over his
collaborators and erase their contributions?)
The man who
elevated the medium of comics to an art form and created storytelling devices at
least 40 years ahead of their time that modern creators are still trying to
catch up to today. One of the few creators who can be appreciated both by the
average superhero fanboy and the indie/arthouse crowd.
Alan
Moore:
How
fandom used to see him:
A dark, mysterious
sorcerer who held a diabolical influence over the Romanovs and was the cause of
all of Russia’s ills. Some said he was in league with the devil himself and
that he never truly died.
How
fandom sees him now:
A highly
eccentric, but mostly harmless oddball who possessed little political power
and, for all his faults, was undoubtedly
an ally of the Romanovs and about whom most of which is known comes from
accounts written by his enemies; accounts which most serious historians agree
are of dubious veracity.
That guy whose Vertigo comics were really, really
freaky and whose Batman comics were just plain wrong.
How fandom sees him now:
The best thing to happen to Batman since Neal Adams.
A brilliantly
accomplished writer inside and outside of comics who has truly elevated the art
form to literature with his wry humor, poetic prose and dark fairy-tale
sensibilities, justly being the only comics writer to win a World Fantasy Award
and gain a following of celebrity fans such as Norman Mailer, Tori Amos and
Jonathan Ross.
How fandom sees him now:
‘Goth kids
read Sandman LOL.’
(Could be worse though, Scans_Daily thinks he's the mastermind behind a conspiracy to oppress transwomen---because of a comic he wrote in the 90s that he has since apologized for)
That guy who wrote Groo.
Kevin
Smith:
‘An ingenious
independent filmmaker whose films accurately capture both geek culture and
post-college angst with a style that, for all his constant pop culture jokes,
is uniquely his own.’
How
fandom sees him now:
‘Geek
sell-out! And he made Batman retroactively piss himself. HACK!’
(While I’m not much of a fan of Smith’s post-Dogma work, I feel sorry for him over how he’s
gone from being the face of ‘hip geeks’ to having more ‘fake geek’ accusations thrown
at him than any overweight cosplayer ever has)
Christopher Nolan:
How fandom used to see him:
Greatest director
of his generation! First person to truly make a great film based on a comic
with no pandering to kids! The new Kubrick!
How fandom sees him now:
OMG U GAIZ! He produced a Superman movie where
Superman snapped Zod’s Neck! HACK!!!!!!
Characters:
The
Joker:
How fandom used to see him:
‘Greatest villain EVAR! I only read Batman comics
for him! Killing Joke rules! Why so
serious? LOL.’
How fandom sees him now:
‘OMG why
hasn’t Batman killed him yet? Overused villain! Killing Joke is misogynistic! Ledger wouldn’t have won if he hadn’t
died LOL.’
‘Best hero in comics! The definitive depiction of
the character, superior to the Lee/Ditko original and a far more mature and
likeable character than his 616 counterpart!’
How fandom sees him now:
‘They’re replacing him with a black character?
Ugh---Good, I never liked him anyway! He’s a Mary Sue, a whiny brat, and [insert
fan-phrases that have lost all meaning here] I hope he never comes back! If he had a corpse, I’d spit on it!'
Venom:
How
fandom used to see him:
‘Greatest
villain EVER, maaan! Most X-treeeeeme character in the Marvel Universe! They
should just kill Spider-Man off and have him take over, ‘cause he’s KEWL!’
How
fandom sees him now:
‘Oh god, how
could I have had such shitty taste back then?’
‘Who?’
How fandom sees him now:
‘Best villain EVAR dudez! Better than Venom!’ So Badasssssss:
(It’s kinda funny how so many fanboys claim to like
Captain Marvel because he represents a more innocent time, yet they themselves have championed
this eye-gouging, generic evil twin/anti hero to the point that he has
become the face of the franchise).
Namor:
One of
comicdom’s great characters, a forerunner of all anti-heroes to come who has
managed to remain a vital character decades later because he can be used as
either a hero or villain at the drop of a hat.
How fandom sees him now:
Marvel’s Aquaman/Black
Adam rip-off.
(I wish I
was kidding about people who think that.)
A second rate Captain Cold:
How fandom sees Captain Cold now:
A second rate Mr. Freeze.
Swamp
Thing:
How
fandom used to see him:
“Swamp Thing is truly a
work of art. There will never be anything like it—now or in the future. So it
too will soon fall from its present perch on top of the comic industry. All
things must come to an end, and I only hope when the Swamp Thing declines that
it is something else, something that is so totally different it is phenomenal,
will rise to even loftier precipices, where it too will totter in greatness for
its lifetime” (actual letter from Swamp
Thing #10).
How fandom sees him now:
"Swamp Thing
sucked and no one liked him until Alan Moore LOL."
(Again, I
wish I was kidding.)
Loki:
That horn-helmet
guy who fights Thor and was the first Avengers villain.
How
fandom sees him now:
(Sometimes I wish I’d never written this)
Movies:
Superman:
The Movie (1978):
The gold-standard for superhero films, with a
timeless performance by Christopher Reeve, an impressive four act structure,
and a John Williams score that never fails to make the most hard-hearted soul
get misty-eyed.
How fandom sees it now:
‘LOL the
effects have dated.’
Batman
(1989):
‘A brooding masterpiece of neo-expressionistic
filmmaking by the most innovative director Hollywood has ever seen, and which
has redeemed the character after the stench of the Adam West show. Nicholson’s
performance as the Joker will never be topped. The only downside is Michael
Keaton’s boring turn as Batman.’
How fandom sees it now:
‘Just a more
violent version of the Adam West show made by a Goth sell-out hack and marred
by unfunny Nicholson mugging. Michael Keaton’s performance is brilliantly
underplayed though, and the film’s saving grace.’
(Seriously, I do kinda like how fandom has warmed
towards Keaton in recent years)
Batman and Robin (1997):
How fandom used to see it:
The epitome of suck.
How
fandom sees it now:
‘A cult classic! You
fans take things too seriously! This movie is a masterpiece
because…uhhhh…neon….doesn’t take itself seriously…uhhh…homophobes don’t like
Schumacher….something something.’
(Seriously, watching people try and defend this turd
as anything other than a so-bad-its-good film is cringe-inducing, especially
the “You don’t like it because Schumacher’s gay!’ crowd. These people are in
for a rude awakening over the fact that you can’t just force something to
become a cult movie)
Swamp
Thing (1982):
How fandom used to see it:
It was lame, but at least you got to see Barbeau’s tits…
How fandom sees it now:
An unreleased
film which well-deserved being unreleased.
How
fandom sees it now:
Bad, but still
a better FF movie than the ones that actually made it to theaters.
(No argument here either)
Hulk (2003):
How fandom used to see it:
“Not enough
action, too much talk, obvious CGI, stupid hulk dogs.”
How fandom saw it’s sequel in 2008:
“Too much action! Not enough talk! Hulk isn’t as
endearingly fake-looking! And where’s the first film’s sense of fun with things
like the gamma dogs?”
(I hear this a lot on IMDb)
~
So whether for good or for ill, that’s how
things have changed. Hope you enjoyed the list, and who knows how things will
change in just a few years?
Oh, jeez. I leave this blog alone for two measly weeks, and suddenly a gem of a post just pops up...
ReplyDeleteFor a minute there, I actually thought you were going to go ahead and defend Bob Kane. The circles of the 'net I run in, people dump ten times as much hate on him as Stan Lee's ever gotten. Even Chris Sims, who wrote an entire column defending Lee, basically sneaked in a few potshots at Kane.
I was legitimately surprised to see the whole Morrison entry, though. Is "Morrison = God of Batman comics" still Gospel amongst most fans today? I'd think that the in-thing to do would be to call him overrated (while flocking incessantly to Scott Snyder, who I seriously can't see as being much different).
Still, I agree that Barks and Kirby are a little too worshiped these days - especially when Barks at his worst could be just as racist as Eisner was ("Voodoo Hoodoo", anyone?).
Heh - not too long back, I actually made a post on tumblr discussing how I wasn't really bothered by Smith's whole "Batman pisses himself" scene, mainly because the first time I learned of it was in an interview where Smith was desperately trying to defend it. I, too, kinda feel sorry for the guy.
Plot-wise, I do agree that Batman '89 was more or less just a more violent version of the Adam West show (I can't really blame Burton for this, though, since WB Studios apparently had him on a very tight leash and kept demanding rewrites to make sure that the film didn't stray too far from DC's party line). Honestly, I'm rather annoyed by how the #1 line of defense for Nicholson's Joker is "it's more faithful to the comics!", when most of that faithfulness was entirely superficial (like it's that much of an effort to give him lethal laughing gas and a joybuzzer? Come on).
And on Batman & Robin... I seriously think its main issue was that it tried too hard to be both silly and serious, and wound up succeeding at neither. How can we enjoy the sheer lunacy of Bat-skates when there's an "Alfred is wasting away from cancer" subplot weighing down the laughs? How can we properly appreciate Freeze's loss when his tears literally freeze on his cheeks?
... and I'm honestly curious. Was the 2005 FF film actually that bad?
It's me, by the way - lego_joker. Long time no see!
DeleteSorry for not replying earlier, personal stuff's been going on. Heh.
DeleteI'd never defend Bob Kane, because he actually did do the kind of things others have only been accused of, and worse. And sadly, the majority of fans (and Wikipedia) still believe his hoopla about himself, so nothing has really changed regarding fan perceptions.
>Voodoo Hoodoo
I don't want to sound like I'm saying that there aren't people who are genuinely offended by Eisner's work, but the excuses the same people who condemn Eisner for Ebony will make for Barks regarding that story (and Herge for 'Tintin in the Congo') have convinced me that the majority of Eisner bashers are like the people who search for plot holes in Citizen Kane; they just want to feel smarter than academics by pointing out flaws.
Either that, or they view The Spirit as a superhero comic, unworthy of being in the same league with their oh-so serious Duck comics.
>Batman and Robin
The Alfred-subplot and Ah-Nuld's attempt at pathos (to be fair, he himself isn't that bad in that scene) are the reason I've never bought the "it's just a fun movie people shouldn't take seriously" argument, especially the people who are trying to push it as the new Rocky Horror Picture Show.
>Was the 2005 FF film actually that bad?
Evans is great as the Torch, Chiklis is great (if a bit too cuddly) as The Thing, Alba actually tries hard to prove she's more than eye candy (and doesn't entirely fail) but otherwise the best thing you can say about it is that it's not offensively bad or tries too hard to be adult. The guy playing Reed acts like a boring straight man from a romantic comedy (think Dean Martin with none of the charm), and Doom comes off as a low-rent villain from the Torch's solo series like the Beetle or Plant-Man. It's just a completely 'meh" film.
The Corman movie really IS much more satisfying, despite having none of the 2005 film's advantages in either effects or acting.