CH, CH, CH, CHANGES

Heroes are constantly changing. Bigger, stronger. larger muscles and breasts. Why must this year's superhero be better than last year's model? We've seen our favorite heroes go from picking up cars and leaping tall buildings in a single bound, to being able to ignite the sun, and move mountains. There will be a time where the power of the heroes will pass the point of suspense of disbelief normally accompanying comics. It this trend because the readers demand constant "one-up-manship," or is it driven from the industry itself? Readers are asking to be awe-struck primarily because they have grown to expect it over the recent years. Why do they (we) have this expectation? It is because the artists and writers feed it to us.

A character does not have to have dramatic improvements year after year. Case in point, Batman. Batman is still very popular after almost 60 years. He continues to make periodic surges in popularity without increasing of any power and only a bit more physique. Maybe his gizmo's are more technical, but the fans know that it is Batman's mind and physical abilities that make him what he is. Azrael was the example made for this point. Readers didn't want an all-powerful Batman, but rather they wanted a good story written for modern times but still in keeping with the established continuity.

Our heroes are growing (literally). Nearly all the men look like smaller versions of the Incredible Hulk, sans green, and the women tend to look like they are great melon farmers. Actually, the main DC character who's fallen into this trap is Catwoman (that woman defies physics.) Not all comic readers are sex-starved teenage boys looking for a thrill for $1.95. Fortunately, DC is one of the more conservative companies when it comes to the artistic rendering of the female anatomy. I'm happy to say that other companies flash much more T&A than DC. Comics are graphic novels, not pin ups. Some of us readers want a story to accompany their pictures. Everyone else can read Image. As for the men, they appear to be steroid-laden monsters that look more and more ridiculous every year. Fortunately, Impulse and Robin maintain a more boyish appearance which is more in line with what is "real" as it applies to comics. It seems that the most realistic looking comic heroes tend to be found in the alternate press books.

We need to ween ourselves away from looking for more stupendous stories with each passing year. The writers and artists need to help us in our endeavor. Don't say that it is inevitable. Comics went for decades without having the characters balloon up like Arnold and Ferrigno look-alikes. It wasn't until the 1980's when the muscles and breasts began their substantial growth. And as I remember it, that was when the comics industry began its latest slump. Is there a connection?

It isn't only in the size and powers of heroes that change over time. Every year, there seems to be a catastrophe that "changes our heroes' lives forever." "Forever" is a relative term meaning the next several issues or a year until fans decide they don't really want the latest change, and demand that everything go back to "normal." That shows that the writers weren't really looking to define the characters, but rather they were merely grinding out a story that would sell. Unfortunately, when writers forget the long term implications they have to create a "Zero Hour" or "Crisis on Infinite Earths" story to clean up the mess. Maybe it is only comics, and maybe these characters aren't flesh and blood; but they are real in their own way. They need to be treated with dignity, not exploited by management or the creative team.

I am not one to only spread gloom and doom, because it makes readers think they are reading something from a "whiner-butt." As such, this article can also point out that there have been many significant changes improving the comics we read. Some favorites are as follows:

Dick Grayson's transition from Robin still isn't seen by many readers as the right thing for the character, but we have seen him blossom into a great success in the form of Nightwing. Chuck Dixon is creating a modern character that remains in the confines of the Batman continuity. We are actually learning new aspects of one of the first characters to hit pulp.

I'm not sure about the most recent changes to Superman, but there was a lot of positive feedback when he emerged from "death" a couple of years back. His character was updated, and this regained him some respect by the fans.

Batman fights many of the same villains with the same arsenal that he's had for over half a century. Changes that we are seeing now are the glimpses deep into his psyche. Readers have always known why Bruce does what he does, but now we are seeing the results of the war on the man behind the mantel.

Finally, a more general comment. The vast variety of artistic styles is a great change from the past. Once passed the hulking muscles and anti-gravity breasts, readers are able to view a tremendous multitude of versions of their favorite characters. The gambit runs from traditional (Nolan), to artsy (McDaniel); from retro (Parobeck and Dini) to gothic (Jones). Wow, what a feast for the eyes.

Change is inevitable; let's make it good.

Column by Dave Runyon

[Main Page][Email][Back to Dave's Classics Contents]