|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,406 Likes: 20 |
Cool your jets, turbo. Time to inform you. Quote:
Prometheus said:
Quote:
Dave said:
Most of these guys did it to make a buck, and didn't give a rat's arse about the characters they were creating.
At what point did my post lead you to believe that this fact may have been in question?
I posted this to query why we should care, when there was no passion to their creation. If they didn't care, why should we?
Quote:
Quote:
Should anyone care about Bob Weiner of Pittsburgh, dead at 90, if he created "The Super Masked Guy with a Cape" back in the 1940s to cash in on the popularity of Superman?
Was his character popular? Did it live on over the decades, adored by millions of kids, through multiple generations? Is it still around today, raking in the cash?
These are only a few things that can be respected about someone's creativity.
The question r3x29yz4a proposed wasn't "Why do I have to care?", or, "Why am I required to care?". He asked "Why should I care?". To which, I answered, given my opinion on the subject.
Given all of this, now, what was the point of singling out my reply, among the rest? Is it because I was the only one to have anything to really say on the subject?
I ask you this: Why shouldn't you care?
Here are some possible reasons I can come up with:
1.) You claim to not like superheroes, and claim not to read them. Yet, you are never at a loss for something to say on any given subject when it comes to that particular genre. Still, it's possible, if just for the sake of keeping that particular public image of yourself consistent, that you do not care simply because that is how you promote yourself. Understood.
Let me clarify this. I do not like the way superhero comics are written, on the whole. But if I think an example of the genre is well-written or pushes the bundaries of the genre in new and interesting ways, then I will happily read and enjoy it. For example, I have previously admitted (and received derogation for it) I am a fan of Mark Millar's work on Authroity, on Wanted and on The Ultimates. Capes and masks everywhere in those books.
Quote:
2.) You have a sincere distaste for anything concerning the superhero genre, and have no love for anything connected to it, in any fashion. Also understood.
A repeat of your point one. But let me go even further. I am doing a PhD thesis on the intellectual property rights in famous people's personalities and character properties. So I have a keen academic interest in superhero and other fictional properties, the way they evolve, they way they are licensed, the way they are fought over, and so on.
One thing I have noticed, and is plainly obvious to anyone who reads the genre, is how similar these character concepts are.
Much of this is intentional. Its an effort to pass off the reputation and goodwill of a previously existing character. So, for example, I have no respect creatively for the person who invented Captain Marvel - its a clear rip off of Superman. Similarly, the Submariner - he's like Superman, but he fights crime underwater! Why should we celebrate such a person when their driver was to make money in creating a Superman clone?
On the other hand, when someone like Neil Gaiman can take the genre and make it something new under the sun, or Frank Miller can take an existing character and twist it almost beyond recognition, then that's something creative to applaud.
Quote:
3.) Cynicism leads you to degrade the accomplishments of one man's good idea, by lumping it into the whole of culture, or comparing it to another idea that was derived from something decently original. Taken that stance, it's true that you really shouldn't care.
From a commercial perspective, an idea is worth the value of its commercial exploitation.
From an artistic perspective, an idea is worth the creative effort put into it.
My complaint is not that a character like Mr Terrific has or has not generated money for its owner, which is the usual measure of popularity in any artistic medium. My complaint is that we shouldn't revere the person who lacked creative passion in manufacturing Mr Terrific, as simply another character out to capitalise upon the popularity of the mystery man.
Quote:
4.) Perhaps you believe by allocating a percentage of concern or thought to a subject that, by simple comparison, is wholly minute to the accomplishments of other intelligent specimens of humanity in varied fields, that you are doing a disservice to those great accomplishments of our history. That to care about something so insignificant as the creation of a fictional character may take away from the achievement of curing Small Pox. An extreme stance, if so.
On this point, if only you put the passion you imbued in this post towards lobbying your government to improve education.....
But no, I do not draw a comparison to people who create superhero characters and people who create cures. Everyone has their strengths.
Quote:
5.) You simply want to spark further debate and discussion on the subject, and are, thus, playing devil's advocate.
Yes, but I also believe what I say.
Quote:
I am one of those people that believe that ideas should be celebrated. Even accidental ideas. Even those born under less than artistic or altruistic circumstances. And, I believe that it causes no harm in appreciating and celebrating those who created that idea in the first place, even if it is the only great idea they had their entire life.
Just my opinion, you understand.... 
If someone sees the popularity of a painting dabbed in horse shit, is inspired to take a vat of pig shit, smear in on a canvas, and sell it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art for a million dollars, then I applaud their commercial instincts. But I do not think it is art, because I think it lacks original creative process, and I will not honour the passing of the pig shit painter.
But I will pay respect to Shuster and Siegel, and to even to Stan Lee, Steve Dikto, Gardner Fox, and Jack Kirby for revitalising the genre in the 60s.
|
