San Diego Comic Con 2014 is only one week away. And yet, this past week has seen a huge upsurge in comic book news. News that's come through the most unlikely of avenues. If I told you ten years ago that major comic and comic movie news would come through The View, the Colbert Report, and Entertainment Weekly, you'd probably haul me away in a straight jacket. And yet this week alone, we not only got our first official photos and plot points for Avengers: Age of Ultron, but major comic announcements that Thor will now be a woman and the Falcon will become the new Captain America.
Now keep in mind, shake-ups to the status quo happen in mainstream comics all the time. In fact, they happen pretty much every few months, as a way to gain new readers. But what's so perplexing about these latest announcements are that Marvel, and their parent company Disney, are using major talk shows to break the news. That means they want an audience, one that spreads far beyond your typical Tuesday afternoon comic shop crowd. In short: Disney/Marvel want casual readers and moviegoers to pay attention to these new developments. But what's the point, especially since we know these changes won't last in the long run? The point, true believers, is that there's an ulterior motive here.
Let's consider what we know about the current state of the Marvel and DC films and their comic book counterparts. DC rebooted their entire line up a few years back with the New 52, creating changes not only to superhero costumes but their personal histories as well. Compare Henry Cavill's Man of Steel suit to the Superman suit from the New 52. Then take into account how the direct-to-DVD animated films DC are making are now adapting New 52 story arcs (Justice League War and the upcoming Throne of Atlantis). Look at the few real announcements we know about Batman v. Superman, and you'll see how Cyborg and Aquaman, two of the founding New 52 Justice Leaguers, are set to appear. From where I'm standing, it sounds like DC's New 52 reboot was a way to streamline their continuity, not so much for new readers, but to have a readily available source to draw from for animated and live action films.
But that's nothing compared to the synergy between Marvel films and comics, since no one can question they pretty much run the superhero film genre right now. The Spider-Man comics had a year long arc where arch foe Doctor Octopus swapped brains with Peter Parker, taking over his body. While there was a fan outcry at first, readers generally warmed up to Spider-Ock and found some of the best told Spider-Man comics in years. Then when The Amazing Spider-Man 2 hit theaters, Peter got his body back. Coincidence? More like an attempt to create synergy with the films to draw in new readers. Peter even fights Electro upon returning, with the villain now revamped to look like his film counterpart.
Then we have the X-Men and Fantastic Four. Several websites have run a rumor that Marvel is "disowning" the FF due to their rivalry with Fox. While this doesn't make sense from a business standpoint, we do know that the Fantastic Four books are being cancelled in favor of properties that Disney can directly adapt. Look at the image at the top of the page, and you'll find no Fantastic Four anywhere (no, the flaming guy is not the Human Torch). We don't even see fan favorite Wolverine. That could have something to do with Marvel's heavily publicized Death of Wolverine story arc, which is posed to finally kill off the character.
Barring the fact that this probably won't last long (what superhero death ever does?), this not only removes Logan from Marvel's roster for a while, but conveniently provides a story that Fox could potentially adapt into their X-Men films. Face it, Hugh Jackman won't be around forever. He's already played the character seven times, and is poised to do it again for another X film and solo Wolverine film. Could Wolverine 3 adapt this Death story, to write Jackman out of the pictures? It's a strong possibility.
And while this move on Marvel's part doesn't really impact what Fox does creatively with X-Men and FF, it seems like Disney is strategically positioning the characters it owns film rights to in favor of those it doesn't. Spider-Man is the exception, since Spidey is still the face of Marvel and Disney has a favorable relationship with Sony. Marvel's upcoming comic event Spider-Verse unites every version of Spidey from parallel dimensions. Sony could end up using this in future films if they are indeed putting their Spidey series in limbo, after ASM2's under performance. Opening up multiple Spider-Men would be an easy way to recast and reboot the character on film, while not exactly disavowing what came before.
So if Marvel is indeed pushing X-Men and FF aside in favor of their other characters, then this new initiative exists to give consumers a taste of what's coming in the films. Why else use the View, Colbert, and Entertainment Weekly to highly publicize changes to the comic book canon? The fact of the matter is, MCU mainstays like Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, and Chris Hemsworth won't be around forever. If the franchise is to continue without them but keep their continuity going forward, others must take up the mantle. So how do you reboot Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor without actually rebooting them? Well, if you've highly publicized that comics Thor will now be a woman, and Cap will now be Falcon (just introduced in the Winter Soldier film) then it's easy to assume these characters are being pitched as replacements for the films.
As for the still Tony Stark Iron Man? The upcoming Superior Iron Man comics mention Tony will be going in a darker, more cynical direction. That doesn't sound like somewhere RDJ would like to go, should he continue playing the character. And yet, in Entertainment Weekly's Age of Ultron scoop, they mention how Ultron is the corrupted leader of Tony's Iron Legion drone army. Ultron has a personality modeled after Stark's, specifically his cynicism. Could the events of Age of Ultron lead Tony on a path to becoming the Superior Iron Man they're now pushing in the comics? I don't want to say "never", but given the amount of publicity, it could very well happen.
"But wait!" you cry. "Isn't this all just circumstantial? Where's the real proof?" Well, look again at the top image. What do you notice? Aside from the changes to the Big 3, we have Winter Soldier and Deathlok, both inducted into the MCU this year. Then we have Scarlet Witch, Doctor Strange, and Ant-Man, all set to make their cinematic debuts in the next few years. That leaves Angela, Thor's new sister, and the Inhumans Medusa and Inferno. The Inhumans are heavily rumored to be a property the MCU wants to adapt, and given their cosmic ties and the ongoing Thanos arc, they could easily squeeze their way into one of the now six empty slots in the Phase 3 release schedule. And if Angela is getting this much exposure, she could find her way into a new Thor film, maybe as a way to shake up the Thor/Loki dynamic. Also, keep in mind that should FemThor and FalconCap catch on, it would expand the MCU's diversity, drawing in an even wider film-going audience.
So it seems that mainstream comics now exist to provide synergy with their films. Why is that a big deal? People always seem to get angry at bad adaptations. But good or bad, the people making these adaptations realize they're drawing from a different medium. In this case, comic books. And while comics and films thrive off visuals, their mediums are still different. Films are meant, in their most basic function, to be mainstream, so they can entertain a wide audience. Comics may have a stigma of only catering to teenage boys, but the best can deliver sophisticated stories that are specifically anti-mainstream. There's a reason that some of the greatest comic stories ever made came from the counterculture movement of the '60s and '70s, at a time when mainstream media (like the Adam West Batman TV show) was largely schlock catering to the masses.
Comic book adaptations started getting good when filmmakers saw the innovative stories comics were willing to publish. Stories some film producers wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Recall the decade long battle to get a dark and gothic Batman film made, after mainstream culture had written the character off as campy due to Adam West. None of them read the then current Batman comics, where Frank Miller's Year One and Dark Knight Returns made him a dark avenger of the night. Those comics inspired the tone of Tim Burton's first Batman film, and then years later, the story of Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.
Comics have always been at their best when they go against the grain, and if the stories are written well enough and become popular, Hollywood will come knocking. The problem now is that since comics and comic fandom has entered the cultural zeitgeist, comics (at least the mainstream Marvel and DC) don't get opportunities to tell innovative stories anymore. Comics have gone from anti-mainstream to mainstream itself, all because of the popularity of the movies. So to cater to that mainstream audience, publishers are using comics as either tie-ins or pitches for adaptations.
Now I admit, sometimes a popular adaptation can be a boon to comics. Look at the exposure the D-List Guardians of the Galaxy title is getting now. Look at the upcoming animated Big Hero 6 movie. Remember what Robert Downey Jr. did for Iron Man, or how Bruce Timm and Paul Dini canonized Harley Quinn, a creation for an animated Batman show. But while that's all well and good, the sheer wealth of superhero films means the very concept has now transcended the comic medium. It's now a film genre, one that's bringing in millions at a time. So to keep the film genre going, comics are tying in, hoping for more exposure and more readership. While I understand this need, especially from a business standpoint, it's not going to help comics grow as a medium.
Like I said before, films and comics are two entirely different mediums of entertainment. And as such, they play by different rules. These rules may constrict both mediums at times, but they give each one their own distinct identity. To force the rules of cinema on a print medium like comics will only limit them, not find them more exposure. You can look at making Thor a woman or Captain America black as a risk, but it's a gimmick meant for increased readership, not an innovative story. As controversial as the Spider-Man/Doc Ock swap was, that was an interesting, comic-based story that allowed the franchise to explore brand new territory. And it wasn't meant as a movie tie-in, given that the minute a new film came out, the series reverted to status quo.
It's not wrong to make comics that cater to a wide audience. But that doesn't mean their stories should exist only as gimmicks. Because while retailers might sell a lot of first issues, casual fans won't suddenly become hard core comic geeks. They go to the movies or watch the shows for a superhero fix. Wikipedia will fill in the gaps if they're that curious about the source. History has proven that comics thrive when the mainstream isn't paying attention to them.
We look at how Netflix and HBO have given birth to niche audiences for unique genre shows. Comics work the same way. It's great to have comics accepted and embraced by the mainstream, but once they start catering to just casual fans instead of real comics fans, the stories wind up short. Comics may exist to sell, but if, like movies, they're treated as merely products, then they'll suffer from the same creative drought everyone believes Hollywood is currently stuck in.
Just look at the comics of the '90s, with their shiny variant covers and uber-violent pandering to the grunge era. The Death of Superman arc makes news headlines, everyone thinks comics can sell to casual audiences, and then the industry nearly goes bankrupt. Before you know it Marvel has to sell their characters' film rights to keep themselves afloat, and you have the situation we're in now where we can't have a true Marvel Cinematic Universe. The point is, no one benefits when publishers try to make comics appealing to the lowest common denominator. The superhero genre may have gone mainstream, but the comics medium itself is still for a niche audience. Making announcements on the View will not change that.
Now does this mean I think comics should only cater to uber nerds? Far from it. As I've said, comics provide a medium where a lot of sophisticated stories can be told, for anyone of any age group. And if a publisher wants to heavily promote a comic they think is a game changer, I say full speed ahead. I applaud attempts to introduce casual fans to the wonders of comics. I myself got into them through the movies, with Sam Raimi and Chris Nolan showing me the wonders of Spider-Man and Batman.
But a good comic should stand on its own, and be appealing enough that casual and long-time readers can get into it. A good story has that power. A story made as a marketing gimmick, solely to tie in to a popular film, doesn't have that effect. And that doesn't mean licensed comics, like Dark Horse's Star Wars books, are complete crap too. It just means the best comics should focus simply on good storytelling, instead of specifically manufacturing books for an audience that probably won't even care to read them.
Comic adaptations may be the "it" genre right now, but they won't be forever. They'll fade just as any other genre has. But the comics themselves will go on, and keep finding new ways to push storytelling forward with its unique medium. This year's 75th anniversary for Batman comics is proof of that. Synergy between comics and film can be a wonderful thing, but it can also lead to ruin for one or both mediums. But if nothing else, at least we get San Diego Comic Con out of it next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment