|
|
Post by zaku on Apr 2, 2024 5:33:13 GMT -5
It was intended to be a more "realistic" superhero universe. The big problem is that for me, fundamentally, "realism" and "superheroes" are two antithetical concepts. You can make great superhero comics. You can also write some that will be studied in universities. But they will never be "realistic". There's a reason why cities aren't populated by Batmen and Daredevils (if we want to limit ourselves to superheroes without superpowers) busy fighting crime with batrangs and backward somersaults. The suspension of disbelief in superhero comics is very high. They weren't the only ones who wanted to create a "universe like ours but where suddenly people with superpowers appear!". The problem is that then we end up in the same tropes as superhero comics (rightly so, otherwise it would be another genre). Intersting. I agree that the superhero genre is inherently unrealistic - obviously! - and that thus one of the reasons Watchmen and Dark Knight caught on with fans in the 1980s is that aging fans like me were ready for the sort of re-imagining they offered. But I think it's worth looking at the difference between those two, where they pointed.
In later years the only interesting superhero series I can think of are Planetary - which I only heard about after it was almost finished - and Ennis's The Boys.
Regarding Watchmen and Dark Knight (and the infinity of more or less successful successors), I think that the big difference was that they broke the boundaries that the genre had imposed on itself up to that point. But analyzing them, the tropes of the genre are there. Batman beats up criminals by dressing as a bat. But obviously the complexity of the writing and the characterization is at a level infinitely higher than that of a monthly magazine. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 2, 2024 5:34:59 GMT -5
You make some fair points, Zaku. I don’t think all of the realism that was tried was unworthy, though. Ken Connell trying to get his bearings and utilise some navigation was at least different from a comicbook world where someone living in Mobile, Alabama gets powers - and then flies to New York City without any problem. Not that I need every Superman comic to show him working out latitude and longitude, but a little thing like Connell getting his bearings can work while giving us the superhero stuff as well. I just wanted to start a thread about this: How many elements of "realism" can you put into a superhero comic before it stops being, well, a superhero comic? Watchmen has always been held up as an example of "realism," but we find some tropes of the genre in it downright unrealistic. For example, in one issue we find a slightly overweight man and a woman in stiletto heels who single-handedly rout a gang of criminals. Ask any martial arts or street fighting expert: it simply can't happen.  Great idea for a thread, zaku! |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Apr 2, 2024 5:40:59 GMT -5
I do think 8 titles were too much, because they weren't 8 good ones. About half of that were good and the rest detracted from what they were trying to do. I think Shooter learned his lesson, by the time Valiant launched, to start small and build upon your success, before moving on the the grandiose event stuff. Valiant proper started with Magnus, then Solar (Magnus was on its 4thissue, when Solar, Man of the Atom, debuted), the Rai, as a flipbook, with Magnus, then Harbinger, X-O Manowar, Rai and the Future Force, Shadowman, then Archer & Armstrong and eternal Warrior debuted together, with the Unity event. All built slowly, introducing one character and establishing his world, before adding another, then another, then another, until we had a viable universe, to bring together, in Unity. I blame the success of the Valiant line for giving everyone shared universe fever, as that seemed to be the real catalyst, with the other indies. Eclipse had some crossovers, within certain titles, as had First, but usually limited to the same writer or something like Cynosure, for First and Grimjack. However, they all succumbed to crossover fever, after Crisis and the others, with Total Eclipse and Crossover, as well as Continuity's attempts at such things. Their comics had been shared universe, from the start, but Neal was so erratic in his publishing that they never really gained traction (and were horribly written). The lesson to be learned was not to trust the word of your bosses, which he didn't learn according to the debacle of his Valiant exit. New Universe was green lit and given a nice budget, and less than a month into it, they pulled back all the money and told him to do it on staff. No creator was going to leave a successful book that would give them royalties to do new unknown books. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 2, 2024 5:54:29 GMT -5
I don't think the New Universe was too ambitious, except insofar as it didn't have the backing it needed. A new line, showcasing new original titles, should definitely have something new and original to offer (which the NU mostly didn't). Meanwhile, a new shared universe should have an overall sense of direction, which the NU also lacked. (In that last regard, the early Valiant Universe was sort of the NU done right).
Marvel didn't offer sufficient financial incentive to bring in top talent (the big names that showed up mostly did it out of friendship or were gone almost immediately) and while there was indeed a general guideline to the new line ("superheroes living in the world we have outside our windows"), titles like Justice broke that rule immediately by starring a guy from a fantasy world in a parallel dimension.
There was little of the "I gotta get THESE," sense that should come with a big launch; no momentum, and little joy in the line (I mean, Merc died before his title had reached 12 issues).
The whole experiment should have been canned, as its most interesting titles could simply have been published as out-of-continuity books, like The Nam or Strikfeforce Morituri.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Apr 2, 2024 6:02:10 GMT -5
Marvel didn't offer sufficient financial incentive to bring in top talent (the big names that showed up mostly did it out of friendship or were gone almost immediately) and while there was indeed a general guideline to the new line ("superheroes living in the world we have outside our windows"), titles like Justice broke that rule immediately by starring a guy from a fantasy world in a parallel dimension. I've never read the series, but I remember they tried to retcon it with the protagonist being delusional or something. After how many issues? |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,399
|
Post by shaxper on Apr 2, 2024 6:51:58 GMT -5
What I’d like to specifically discuss (although thread drift is fine!) is whether launching eight titles was too ambitious. Would launching fewer titles have worked, or not made any difference? At the risk of self promotion, Icctrombone and I did a whole podcast episode on how Valiant was Shooter's New Universe 2.0 in everything but name. In that instance, the company only allowed him to start with two titles featuring established heroes (Magnus and Solar) to test the waters for the first nine months, after which Shooter launched pretty close to one new title each month over the course of seven months and then imediately jumped into the first company-wide event. October 1991: Harbinger November 1991: X-O Manowar December 1991: Rai February 1991: Shadowman April 1991: Eternal Warrior, Archer & Armstrong, and The Unity crossover event Still eight titles, but not delivered all at one time. (A lot) more on all this here. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 2, 2024 7:06:06 GMT -5
Thank you, that’ll be worth a listen.
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 2, 2024 7:08:33 GMT -5
You know, two is a better number to launch a range with. I’d say the same about a lot of things. I mean, if I set up a food company, launching two ready meals/TV dinners might be better than launching eight; if I set up a DVD distribution company, starting with a couple of titles would be better than flooding the market; and if you’re gonna launch, say, the beginnings of a TV universe, well two, or preferably one, is better than announcing, “We’re setting up a new fictional universe - eight shows in all, to be seen on CBS.”
Less is more, I feel. Those analogies may not be perfect, but two titles, as your podcast discussed, seems more logical.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Apr 2, 2024 8:46:02 GMT -5
How many titles did the Malibu universe start with?
|
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 2, 2024 9:29:34 GMT -5
How many titles did the Malibu universe start with? I would ask ChatGPT, but I remember that silly, bogus answer it gave you about Emil Hamilton appearing in the first Superman movie… Wikipedia would suggest the Malibu Universe started with 3 titles: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraverse |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Apr 2, 2024 9:41:56 GMT -5
You make some fair points, Zaku. I don’t think all of the realism that was tried was unworthy, though. Ken Connell trying to get his bearings and utilise some navigation was at least different from a comicbook world where someone living in Mobile, Alabama gets powers - and then flies to New York City without any problem. Not that I need every Superman comic to show him working out latitude and longitude, but a little thing like Connell getting his bearings can work while giving us the superhero stuff as well. I just wanted to start a thread about this: How many elements of "realism" can you put into a superhero comic before it stops being, well, a superhero comic? Watchmen has always been held up as an example of "realism," but we find some tropes of the genre in it downright unrealistic. For example, in one issue we find a slightly overweight man and a woman in stiletto heels who single-handedly rout a gang of criminals. Ask any martial arts or street fighting expert: it simply can't happen. How many elements of realism a comic reader desires is subjective, and everyone’s mileage will vary, but it is an interesting question. There are certain immutable things that I feel matter, e.g. a newspaper having deadlines, cops carrying pistols in a holster, anything that has to believable in a scientific way, etc. For instance, even in a Superman comic, someone flushing a stolen TV down a toilet would be silly. I can accept a man flying, or an alien arriving from Apokolips, but a crook flushing a stolen TV down a toilet has no basis in reality, our reality or Superman’s reality, so such a scene would just be completely silly (I chose the most unlikeliest example). Or someone driving from New York City to Los Angeles, on a regular motorcycle, in a couple of hours. Even if such a story featured aliens and flying men, a person on an ordinary motorcycle going coast to coast in a couple of hours would be silly (of course, if the motorcycle is magical, anything goes…) I feel if the grounded, regular stuff is believable, there’s leeway for the more fantastical stuff. But there’s a lot to ignore. New York City, as Slam Bradley pointed out in one of his reviews of early Marvel, seemed to be the epicentre for NASA space launches (or however he put it), including in one Spider-Man tale. Rocket launches within the vicinity of Spidey’s territory makes no sense, but I ignore it because if the tale has to involve John Jameson or a saboteur within NASA, then I can take the entertainment first and foremost. Even in wrestling, which I know some might consider lowbrow, and we’ve discussed this in the wrestling thread, there has to be some logic, such as when referees make decisions, or whatever, but even that makes no sense at times. Example: wrestlers are hit with all sorts of objects on the head, which can daze/slow them down - even chairs - but it seems that whenever their heads are hit with championship belts, it knocks them out. Must be made of adamantium or something! In a nutshell, I think if you can make the foundational and routine stuff believable, then we’ll accept the more fantastical stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by majestic on Apr 2, 2024 9:42:53 GMT -5
I only picked up Starbrand. The rest of the line didn't interest me. I also did this later with Valiant and Malibu. I just read 2-3 titles from each company. Later on I went back and got into more of the Valiant titles.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Apr 2, 2024 9:59:44 GMT -5
What I’d like to specifically discuss (although thread drift is fine!) is whether launching eight titles was too ambitious. Would launching fewer titles have worked, or not made any difference? At the risk of self promotion, Icctrombone and I did a whole podcast episode on how Valiant was Shooter's New Universe 2.0 in everything but name. In that instance, the company only allowed him to start with two titles featuring established heroes (Magnus and Solar) to test the waters for the first nine months, after which Shooter launched pretty close to one new title each month over the course of seven months and then imediately jumped into the first company-wide event. October 1991: Harbinger November 1991: X-O Manowar December 1991: Rai February 1991: Shadowman April 1991: Eternal Warrior, Archer & Armstrong, and The Unity crossover event I think opening with fewer titles may have helped in the short term, but made not much difference in the long term. The funding was the main issue: Shooter wanted to launch the NU with big-name fan-favorite creators, but wound up only using staffers ... with the consequence that none of the books looked or felt any different from mainstream MU books. Someone ought to mention newuniversal, which revived the NU characters into a single title, and which ended when he lost the files he was working on for the second arc. No fan of the original NU, this was one of my favorite Warren Ellis comics, and I still feel bereft. (I was disappointed that Valiant revived all these Gold Key superheroes but not the Owl / Owlman ... I can appreciate how they might not have wanted to step on DC's toes, but even as a supporting character in Solar it would have been good to see him.) |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Apr 2, 2024 10:33:11 GMT -5
Realism is impossible in a super-hero series. What the creators should aim for is verisimilitude (at least if they're not aiming for some sort of surrealism), especially regarding the characters' emotions. It's my experience that if a story presents realistic emotions, the audience will accept even the most fantastical elements.
Cei-U!
I summon the Tuesday morning ruminations!
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 2, 2024 11:55:42 GMT -5
How many titles did the Malibu universe start with? June 1993: Hardcase Prime The Strangers July 1993: Freex Mantra August 1993: Exiles Prototype September 1993: Firearm October 1993: Night Man Sludge The Solution December 1993: Solitaire Break-Thru (crossover event) January 1994: Wraith February 1994: Rune May 1994: Warstrike June/July/August 1994: Ultraforce (0a-June, 0b-July, 1-August) October 1994: Malibu Ashcan: Rafferty November 1994: Elven Lord Pumpkin Marvel buys Malibu So, 3 titles at the launch, 2 new ones, each of the following two months, 1 in September, 3 in October and 1 in December, plus crossover event. At the same time, Dark Horse was releasing its Comics Greatest World line, with a new title each week, introducing the characters and their city environment (there were 4 distinct cities, each with its own set of characters), before launching regular series (which didn't last particularly long, other than Ghost). Malibu was also launching other tiles, in relation to its Protectors comic, which was its first major dabbling in superheroes, using the public domain Centaur Comics characters. They started with the team book, then slowly added solo titles, including The Ferret, Gravestone, Airman, Man of War and Arrow. Those titles, and things like Dinosaurs For Hire, were lumped under their Genesis imprint. |
|
