posted
Interesting perspectives, Steph and Eryk, and certainly very valid ones.
However, for me, 5YL became so much more about Jo, Rokk, Ayla, Vi, etc. and so much less about Ultra Boy, Cosmic Boy, Lightning Lass, Shrinking Violet, et al, if you catch my drift. (See this post for an expansion of that thought) When you wear costumes 99% of the time like the Legion did pre-5YL, it's more about who has what powers and how they're going to use them to dispatch Bad-Guy-of-the-Month. 5YL took away the costumes and made me care, for the first time in many cases, about characters I hadn't particularly cared about before.
I'm not saying that can't happen in a book with codenames and costumes, but with the Legion in particular with its huge, unruly cast, it was highly symbolic of the new character-centric approach that was being taken. Honestly, before 5YL I needed a scorecard to help me remember all the Legionnaires' real names! I remember a lot of fan mail expressing confusion with this costumeless/codenameless approach as many weren't completely sure who was who (admittedly some of these comments were based on Giffen's sketchy art). But soon, for me and many others, knowing them by their names became second nature. And I feel we got to know them better than ever before.
Now, let me back up and make it clear that I'm not in any way saying there wasn't any characterization in Legion comics before this era. Certainly, Levitz, Shooter and many others did some awesome things with these characters. But I don't feel the focus was ever so squarely on the characters as it was during 5YL. Say what you want about the big uber-story from 1-38 and all the wild plot twists and shocking developments, but I stand by the statement that thru Tom & Mary's departure, the success of this take on the Legion was grounded by its excellent character work.
I didn't realize it at the time, but my discomfort with the return of using costumes and code names subliminally showed me that the focus on character above all was being phased out. I feel that that would have happened with any creative team that decided to bring back those trappings in some form.
Yes, it's likely the sales were beginning to dip which prompted the change, but I feel a positive push could've been made without bringing back those elements. After all, we still had the SW6 Legionnaires series to provide that take without doing the same to the more mature-themed title.
Giffen has said his goal, had he stayed, was to get back to the optimistic future after all the darkness was behind them. Do you think that necessarily meant returning to the costumes and codenames? (especially with the younger version running around?)
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Eryk Davis Ester
Created from the Cosmic Legends of the Universe!
posted
I agree with you completely about the character-centric nature of 5YL, and the importance of the lack of the "trappings" for allowing for focus on Rokk, Jo, etc. as opposed to Cosmic Boy, Ultra Boy, etc. And I think that's part of what was trying to be achieved in the storyline, as signaled in the first issue where Cham tells Rokk that he needs "Rokk Krinn" rather than "Cosmic Boy".
However, I guess I disagree that return to costume/code names necessarily would negate the advances in characterization that we got in the overall storyline. I actually think that what the role that the SW6 subplot plays in the story is to emphasize the idea that in an important sense, one needs "Cosmic Boy" as much as one needs "Rokk Krinn". Seeing the Adventure Era Legion flying through the air inspires people in a way that a bunch of poorly shaven guys in trenchcoats doesn't. Interestingly, Cham says something in one of the early Legionnaires issues to the effect that *that* was really the kind of thing he had in mind in trying to re-unite the Legion, and that it had never quite gone the way he wanted.
I think the situation where we had both the SW6 team and the Adult Legion running around was inherently unstable, and the most natural end to the storyline had to result in the recombination of the two teams, and resulting recombination of the values embodied by both sets of Legionnaires. The natural end, as I see it, should have been to combine the more advanced characterizations of the older team with the super-heroic trappings of the younger team.
In fact, that seems to me kind of what we got in the Legionnaires series while the Bierbaums were writing it. I think their characterization in that series was as good as anything they gave us in the "Adult" series, once you take into account they were writing teens as opposed to adults in that series.
From: Liberty City | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize that characterization didn't necessarily have to suffer with the return of costumes and codenames, but in my mind doing so would certainly create a certain expectation by the fans for what kinds of stories should be told. There's a difference between what makes a good superhero story as opposed to what LSH had evolved into, which was more of a sci-fi story.
Legion had always straddled the line between these two things but had previously been more on the superhero side. 5YL was more on the sci-fi side, and I feel sci-fi generally allows deeper characterization in its formula than does the superhero genre. So returning to costumes and codenames, especially after an extensive run without them, makes it implicitly more of a superhero comic again and theoretically brings with it that less character-centric dynamic (particularly with a super team). That's my opinion anyway.
So...how would you have "recombined" them, Eryk? It would seem kinda awkward to have the thitysomethings on the same team as the teens. I mean, it's certainly been done with varying degrees of success with, say, John's Teen Titans and Justice Society and even the X-Men when Kitty Pryde was incorporated during the Claremont times (of these three, I'd say JSA did it the best long term)--but if we had members of the younger version unite with members of the older one on a reglar basis, I don't know if it would work, especially considering there are different versions of the same characters involved.
Maybe you were thinking that the adults would mentor the teens and mostly be their support structure?
Or were you thinking of something specific I believe I've seen you post about before, literally "recombining" the adults somehow with their youthful counterparts as one entity. Two Jos become one, for example? If so, which version would emerge, teen Jo or adult Jo? The mind boggles!
Thinking about it further, I think it might've been best if they had followed the model Keith mentioned before where the Legionnaires could be "the" Legion (the superheroes), while the adults could morph into their own adventuring group (the sci-fi types), whether as a new Omega Men or Wanderers or whatever.
OR the creators could have done what Kent suggested a few pages back...have a group from both teams go back in time to the beginning of the five year gap with a mission to prevent it all from ever having happened! If done right, this could have satisfied a lot of people.
posted
IMO 5YL Legion went off the rails after "Terra Mosaic". The series started off instilling the notion that this universe needed what it had lost. Namely the LSH and all it entails - the codenames, the costumes, the bright shiny future! But things just seemed to get worse than better. They needed to bring things back around after the hard won victory over the Dominators. It would've been a great way to close that chapter of Legion history. (then the book should've started "One Year Later" where the team was back in full force and reestablished)
The quality of the book also went downhill. While the art on "LotR" was good, the art during the Khund War was terrible. (an even worse story, imo, but it usually gets overlooked)
From: New York, NY | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Eryk Davis Ester
Created from the Cosmic Legends of the Universe!
posted
I like the idea of moving the story "One Year Later" after Terra Mosaic, with the team back up and running again.
As far as the young and old teams, while I do like the idea of literally merging the two sets of Legionnaires into one being. As far as what results, I would see it as being mentally primarily the older version but physically reinvigorated. So, if the young version were late teens and the old version thirty-somethings, physically they'd basically be twenty-somethings after the merger. That's certainly what I would've done at End of an Era rather than rebooting.
However, an even more basic solution would've been to reveal the young Legionnaires as simply time-displaced, and send 'em back to Adventure #360 or whenever they're supposed to have come from, presumably with their minds wiped. Except of course one Legionnaire would remember the events of the future, which would explain some long-unanswered Legion mystery that we'd never thought to wonder about before.
From: Liberty City | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more I mull over the concept of 'merging' the adult and SW6 Legions, the more intrigued by it I get (when I first read the post about it I was skeptical). Here are some of the thoughts/ideas I had about it:
A merger would have done away with a lot of complications, such as Glorith's aging effect and Rokk's depowerment. I think Kent would be the only one still left out from such a merge, and perhaps restoring his adulthood could be his own personal quest after everyone else got restored. His arc could lead-in to what's come next for Glorith and a restored Time Trapper too.
A lot of the non-SW6 and TMK Legionnaires were generally younger than the Adventure members anyway and could still be peers to this renewed, mid 20s Legion. Celeste, Jacques, Dawny, and Drake for example. The SW6 Legionnaires with deceased counterparts could remain their age or (gross as it sounds) somehow be "merged" with their deceased selfs and restore an adult Andrew Nolan and Lyle Norg. Computo, Catspaw, and Dragonmage were new to heroing anyway, and could stay their ages. With Kono and a younger Mysa and Devlin (their Glorith ages uneffected by a merger), they could be their own youthful caste on the team. Adults without counterparts, such as Cham and Jeckie, could still work. Cham, Brin, and Shady could still be gung ho. Jeckie didn't look like she would leave her post anyway. Thom, Nura, and Chuck could have merged with their new SW6 versions.
Personalities from a merger may only be a problem for a few Legionnaires. I imagine most of them are similar. Vi is one obvious exception. Maybe she'd be a little softer from SW6, but more outgoing than her shy self thanks to the adult version.
One thing I loved about 'Legionnaires' is that even with complicated history these books could be made appealing/accessible. We weren't reminded every issue that they were possible clones, or that there was an adult Legion, or what happened to Earth, etc. You kind of just took the team at face value, while still having some nods to history and previous characterizations. That could be done with this 'revived' Legion if it had to, though obviously that may vague up why so many Legionnaires would be re-evaluating their place in life.
But the cool thing about the merging concept is that you can play up that it happened. Hell, it could actually be embraced and be a good premise for the title: A group of older/retired super-heroes have been given a 'second chance' at being young heroes again. With the galaxy so in need, do they take up their old calling? Do they continue moving on?
I realize the thesis sounds more biased toward the adults than the teens, but I think that just works for some reason with the approach. It could include the best of both worlds: sci fi and heroes, characterization and heroic antics, commentary on the lives of adults and teens, etc. Some Legionnaires would embrace their 'rejuvination'; others may prefer to remain detached or still have other obligations that keep them away.
I imagine the Legion on the Run group and SW6 exclusives would be the guaranteed core. I could see Garth and Imra discussing the merits of rejoining before they age out of their 'prime' again, though ultimately remain on the plantation to raise their family. Maybe Imra would venture out with the team again for a mission or two; a nod to her rejoining the team in v3. Other Legionnaires could come and go, especially those that never did rejoin like Thom & Nura, trying to figure out if this was the life they want to relive.
Those are possibilities I took away from Eryk's concept. What do you guys think?
Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Eryk Davis Ester
Created from the Cosmic Legends of the Universe!
posted
That's a great fleshing out of the merging idea, and largely the way I've always thought of it, Future.
From: Liberty City | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stephbarton: I say the 5YL Legion did not 'successfully' remove the trappings of costumes and codenames. However, I say this in complete ignorance of the story, but more along the line that comic books do not 'successfully' change anything. Comics and heroes are, ultimately (she said making a very broad generalization) maintaining the status quo. . . . Now of course I can't really back that with evidence, it is all conjunction and speculation on my part, but I do think that the idea of 'change' in comics and 'changes' in comic universes are bogus, as the changes can not sufficiently affect the status quo otherwise they do not sustain themselves.
Even though the thread has moved beyond this discussion, I want to comment on this. I haven't been online for the past few days and only recently saw this post.
You make an excellent point, Steph -- one that I grudgingly agree with, if only because this seems to be the prevailing philosophy of those in power at Marvel and DC these days: Heroes don't really change; they are all about preserving the status quo, as you put it, or the franchise, from a business perspective.
Yet one of the things that attracted me to comics in the first place and sustained me through three decades of fandom was the illusion that heroes could change. No series exemplified this more than the Legion. The LSH of the 1970s was drastically different from the LSH of the '60s, yet they were clearly intended to be the same characters, just older and having undergone experiences that changed them as individuals and as team -- which also happens in real life! It was this resemblance to real-world happenings that encouraged me to identify so closely with the Legionnaires.
The Legion was not alone in this, as most mainstream comics (i.e., those published by Marvel and DC) perpetuated an illusion of change. Peter Parker graduated from high school and went on to college and post-grad work. Reed and Sue got married and had a child. The original X-Men moved on and were replaced. Even the Avengers changed their lineup as early as their second issue. The idea that heroes could change and that change, while sometimes bittersweet, could lead to better things set comics apart from other forms of mainstream entertainment. Most television series of the '60s and '70s, for example, truly maintained the status quo.
It's odd and disheartening to see this trend reverse itself. Modern TV series such as "Law and Order" and "Lost" (which I admittedly don't watch) have attracted large audiences by changing their casts and evolving their characters and relationships. Comics, on the other hand, dwindle in readership as they go from one mega-event to another while their characters avoid "real" change. I think this is particularly true of the Legion today, where reboots and multiple versions serve as quick fixes to such thorny "problems" as character growth and story development.
A "real" story, after all, has to go somewhere. This is usually accomplished by showing at least one character as significantly different from how he or she was when the story began. (The change, of course, could be internal instead of acquiring a new costume or power.) I concede that this is difficult to manage with most serialized characters, yet Marvel and DC pulled it off extremely well for several decades. That's what made them (Marvel more so) cutting edge. Nowadays, they seem to have taken a more conservative approach where even the "illusion" of change isn't so convincing.
From your post above and your previous posts, one might infer that you don't think change in comic book characters is ever a good idea. Is this true, or is there an instance where you think change is good?
And not to single out Steph: Do others prefer characters to maintain the status quo or to truly evolve as time goes on (meaning that they should reach a point where they cannot go back to how they originally were)?
[ May 03, 2008, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: He Who Wanders ]
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by He Who Wanders: And not to single out Steph: Do others prefer characters to maintain the status quo or to truly evolve as time goes on (meaning that they should reach a point where they cannot go back to how they originally were)?
I would say the latter - and writers should be careful about HOW they develop characters for exactly that reason. Very little grates more than a contrived reversion to an earlier version.
-------------------- My views are my own and do not reflect those of everyone else... and I wouldn't have it any other way.
quote:Originally posted by He Who Wanders: Even though the thread has moved beyond this discussion, I want to comment on this.
Just to clarify, HWW, I take my cues from my fellow contributors when I edit the Roundtable topic to reflect what's going on currently in the thread. There are no steadfast rules and NO dead topics! If anyone misses a few days, or is new to the topic, I hope they DO take the initiative and comment on something we've "moved beyond"!
Please, everyone, this is YOUR topic and wouldn't have gotten to these 14 wonderful pages without you!
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for your latest point, HWW, I prefer evolution, man!
That said, I can see the dilemma the Big Two face when trying to apply this philosophy to their most iconic mastheads. Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman for DC and Spidey and maybe Wolverine for Marvel are just so imbedded in the culture that I can see why it would be problematic for them to stray too far from the concept or put someone else in the identity.
To me, pretty much everyone else at either company is fair game because the people under the masks don't seem as integral to their basic concepts. I'm not saying any of these are necessarily poorer characters than the icons, just that the general public doesn't know them as well, if at all, and that should give the creators lots of leeway. But the Big Two obviously disagrees. Wally West makes a great Flash--why do they have to bring Barry back? And Captain America--I've no doubt they'll bring Steve Rogers back very soon, but what's wrong with having Bucky stay in the role when Brubaker sold the majority of fandom on Bucky's return in acclaimed fashion?
And the Legion, of all properties--being set 1,000 years in the future and being as below the radar as anything being published by a major company--why in the United Planets did it have to be rebooted twice and retconned several times before that? Change was something preboot Legion excelled at. Now, it seems that change for the Legion is synonomous with reboots or retcons! I swear it makes about as much sense for something so outside the mainline DC continuity as the Chewbacca Defense parody did in that episode of South Park! Bloody grife!
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stephbarton: I say the 5YL Legion did not 'successfully' remove the trappings of costumes and codenames. However, I say this in complete ignorance of the story, but more along the line that comic books do not 'successfully' change anything. Comics and heroes are, ultimately (she said making a very broad generalization) maintaining the status quo. . . . Now of course I can't really back that with evidence, it is all conjunction and speculation on my part, but I do think that the idea of 'change' in comics and 'changes' in comic universes are bogus, as the changes can not sufficiently affect the status quo otherwise they do not sustain themselves.
You make an excellent point, Steph -- one that I grudgingly agree with, if only because this seems to be the prevailing philosophy of those in power at Marvel and DC these days: Heroes don't really change; they are all about preserving the status quo, as you put it, or the franchise, from a business perspective.
Yet one of the things that attracted me to comics in the first place and sustained me through three decades of fandom was the illusion that heroes could change....
The Legion was not alone in this, as most mainstream comics (i.e., those published by Marvel and DC) perpetuated an illusion of change. Peter Parker graduated from high school and went on to college and post-grad work. Reed and Sue got married and had a child. The original X-Men moved on and were replaced. Even the Avengers changed their lineup as early as their second issue. The idea that heroes could change and that change, while sometimes bittersweet, could lead to better things set comics apart from other forms of mainstream entertainment...
It's odd and disheartening to see this trend reverse itself. Modern TV series such as "Law and Order" and "Lost" (which I admittedly don't watch) have attracted large audiences by changing their casts and evolving their characters and relationships. Comics, on the other hand, dwindle in readership as they go from one mega-event to another while their characters avoid "real" change. I think this is particularly true of the Legion today, where reboots and multiple versions serve as quick fixes to such thorny "problems" as character growth and story development.
A "real" story, after all, has to go somewhere...
From your post above and your previous posts, one might infer that you don't think change in comic book characters is ever a good idea. Is this true, or is there an instance where you think change is good?
You know, when I first read this I was all ready to defend myself because I have become 'aware' that to argue against 'change' is to be a disgruntled fanboy that no one likes, however, after thinking about it a bit more, I think you're right, I don't like change. I like growth in my characters, and I really don't like it when a character 'digresses.' But in the end, I want my good guys to win, and winning, especially in comic books, is PREVENTING bad things from happening (as opposed to be a social crusader or some such). So if things were to 'change' in comics (and generally change = bad things happen to hero to boost sells) then I generally am against it, as usually the hero must fail on some level for the story to come about.
However, this isn't really about my own ideas of what I expect in comics, its about the 'illusion' of 'change' in comics.
I like my characters to grow. That's one of the things that really appealed to me about the Legion, the fact that Levitz clearly drew upon their earlier adventures made me aware that this team had grown and aged, that their view, one of naive innocence (adventure era) has matured along with their role in the galaxy. I love the idea of growth with Wally West, I find it very natural for him to have kids (maybe not aged kids...) but I do feel that the character, due to becoming the Flash, has become a character whose part of his central concept is now growth.
but growth is not change in the way I meant it in my post. I'm talking about changing the concept behind the heroes/franchise going back to the idea that the Legion, originally conceived/presented as a superhero group, had 'successfully' moved on from superhero trappings. That is the change I'm talking about, changing the core concept of the idea.
The only example I can think of is Justice League International. Hugely successful when it hit. It changed the concept of the Justice League from the World's Greatest Heroes to being a group of B and C listers. Again, successful at the beginning (just as 5YL was successful at the beginning) but ultimately the JLI and JLE incarnations disappeared, to be replaced by the World's Greatest Heroes version of the League (Morrison's JLA) that people were most familiar with. JLA goes away, but the current Justice League is still about the Greatest Heroes uniting to defend the world, as opposed to the JLI and JLE.
So JLI changed the core concept of the franchise and was successful for A TIME, but it eventually went away. I feel that the 5YL Legion, reboot or no reboot, would have gone the same way. Look at the two ideas to 'fix' the Legion, one is to go back in time to the superhero (Baxter) Legion and the other is to merge older with younger, giving a more mature, but still costumed/optimistic Legion. The reboots returned the Legion to its superhero roots. I think this shows that, regardless if Giffen had stayed or not, the Legion would have eventually gone back to superheroics, to codenames and costumes.
I don't think that the lack of change is a 'problem' or that it is a modern phenomenon. You say that there were changes in line-ups and character's lives (like Peter Parker growing up) but that is superficial change, it does not touch upon the core concept of who the character is or what stories you can tell with them.
I cannot think of any example where a concept was truly changed and the franchise continued with that change. I look at Green Lantern, change with Kyle Rayner, lasted 10 years which is impressive, but in the end you have a problem. Your 'rookie' superhero can't remain a rookie, you make him competent and he has turned to 'Hal-lite'. The original "everyman Green Lantern" can no longer be an everyman after everything he experienced. So what do you do with him? well, they brought Hal back and I honestly think it was because they didn't know what to do with him. Even Kyle Rayner FANS don't know what 'role' Kyle should play now, they just want to see him around more.
Elseworld stories, alternate futures, all those are great to explore 'what if' situations, but those are all finite projects, not ongoing like comics are intended to be. You can't have a comic based on Superman being a freedom fighter, or where America has been conquered by Russian, or where Wonder Woman is powerless and runs around in a jumpsuit (ha, another example). You can have short term change, hiccups in the overall flow of a story, and you can have great growth. But in the end, the status quo remains, or the book simply dies.
If you can think of any book/character that has been reinvented successfully and has had a sustained run, I would be interested to hear it, because I am only basing my views on my own experiences/observations and of course I do not have nearly half the reading experience as most on this board. However, it is not an editorial mistake, or a deficiency in the publishers, it is the way that the medium is, comics, being serialized entertainment without a set end, then you simply can not change the status quo, the concept, too much otherwise what people like disappears and you lose your money.
So I like growth in comics, both character and situational, however, I want my growth to make sense, to be logical, to respect the characters, and to entertain. However, I also think that change in comics is simply B.S. because if you enact real change in comics you have to undo in order to keep the franchise viable.
-------------------- Long Live the Legion!
Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in growth as well. As long as it's a natural evolution. We've seen too many contrived departures of behavior from characters when it's clear the change services a story rather than the story servicing the character. I'm also in favor of exploring deeper into a character, giving them an added dimension or facet that has yet to be explored, but one that fits into what has been established about the character so that the change or revelation makes sense. (even if it surprises)
From: New York, NY | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree about growth, but I'm with Drake in it being 'natural' evolution. It has to service the character as well as the story.
Sometimes I feel better knowing Marvel and DC own these characters so someone like Avi Arad (at Marvel) can call up Joe Q and go 'nuh-uh' if they plan on doing something outrageous.
Also, its the writers jobs to keep the series interesting and to make it run well past their leaving the series and even well into the future where the creators and fans of one particular time period have since moved on. Only the rarest of exceptions should be allowed to break this rule. So sure, make natural changes to Superman, but know that Superman will outlive you--so don't try to conclude the series. Like I said, there are exceptions to the rule, and I don't have an outline, and I don't want to provide one
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Love]](graemlins/love.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
