Fandom and new blood
Got up this morning, had a cuppa whilst catching up on LJ, and came upon this post in fandom secrets:
Which I thought was interesting, as well as the comments therein. My viewpoint towards new blood for any fandom is mostly positive. In that, it's good that a fandom gets new fans; it gives vitality and more than not, new perspectives and feelings towards the characters.
Full disclosure here, I don't read much movieverse fic. It is not a slight against the writers of said fic, because the writers are good, but for a two hour movie to distil the history and depth of sixty years of comic canon, of various realities is a tall order, and at times, can be found wanting.
To be fair to Marvel, their comic book movies are better than most - it helps that they've gone for good, (mostly) charismatic actors, as well as tapping various directors' strengths with the properties they helm. For instance, the use of Brannagh's Shakespearean sensibilities to shape the solid, majestic elegance of Thor worked for the film, and Jon Favreau's irreverence towards the source material and coming up with Iron Man; a fun, sexy comic book movie with some heart and a lot of heat.
The movies are great as an entity in themselves- and sometimes they can be good for the fandom's treatment towards a particular comic character.
For instance, before the Iron Man movie came out in 2008, most people wrote 616 Tony Stark as this sensitive flower to my consternation. "But," I'd argue, "Stark can be an asshole! He might have days when he gives himself the side eye, but he likes himself in a lot of ways, too." After RDJ's stellar turn, people in fandom cottoned on to writing him differently- and I see RDJ's Tony Stark heavily drawn from David Michelinie's version - the one I grew up reading- and most comic book writers give a nod to. Tony is arrogant, deeply flawed, but charismatic with it all.
In the same breath, I liked what the Captain America did for 616 Steve Rogers to me. After spending a lifetime of holding the idea Captain America at arm's length 1, it took the movie for me to respond to Steve Rogers as man who just happens to be a patriot in the best sense. Steve Rogers holds on to his own moral code, in the maelstrom of everything, which is admirable. There's a reason why Marvel did the whole, I'm Captain America campaign a while back.
In addition, it's nice to see Pepper Potts in the movie being strong, confident, attractive and just getting a fairer shake in the movies than she's been getting in the comics for sometime. Paltrow's version of Potts has grown on me over the years, so I'm content. As much as Scarlet Johansson still hasn't sold me on her Natasha Romanova, the Black Widow is getting more traction in the fandom as a bad ass, and writing more women into being can't be a bad thing by any measure.
Then, to add to that; to read the old issues of comics from the 1960s is painful; with their easy racism, sexism and tokenism, as well as some good old fashioned propaganda (when Romanova was first introduced, for example, the U.S.S.R. and the iron curtain existed). Not that the movies are free from those things, but they are a better reflection of the times that we live in now. Nick Fury is black, but he doesn't seem token, more like a bad ass. Jane Foster is an acclaimed scientist who happens to be open to a bit of flirtation with Thor, and not seeing children and the white picket fence in their future. Rhodes is Stark's good friend, but he's his own man, and knows when to give a nod to duty over being a buddy.
As much as the movies are good in introducing people to the wider verse, the comic fan/nerd/geek in me tends to huff, they are only an introduction.
Stark and Rogers' relationship in the movie (in a general sense, here) will be painfully new, to the point of stickiness, whereas in the comics (be it 616, 1610, or Marvel Adventures), they are old hands. They have the push and pull that comes from a prolonged association with someone ; the old arguments, how they manoeuvre when it comes to the other's moral code. How they, in the true spirit of the history of each other, can take different sides, hurt and yet come back together. That's pretty deep.
Or just even the Avengers in general- will people know that Clint was a carny before he became an Avenger? That he and Natasha Romanova had history, and that it was his relationship with her that inadvertently caused him to fall into the Avengers in the first place? Or, if they are taking it from an Ultimate Avengers' viewpoint, that Clint and Natasha were in the same secret ops before she turned and did him harm?2
Then again, circling back to the movies; everything in one's life begins with an introduction, and people who come from the movie verse might be drawn to the comics, or they might not. For those of us who've lived with the comics, either them being woven in the tapestry of one's childhood, or only just a steady acquaintance in adulthood, either way, it is easy to be absorbed into the fandom hierarchy, wherein those who can quote the various issues chapter and verse are king, whereas a movie/comic dilettante might find themselves on the back foot.3
Nevertheless, new fans can only help us guard against rot, and various interpretations of canon is a buffet; you help yourself to what you want, and leave the rest for others. So upon seeing this comment in the thread: I dunno, I'm enjoying watching the old school fans lose control of the sandbox - one can only nod and agree.
If nothing else, this year will be interesting.
1 For this, you must understand, I grew up hearing about America invading Grenada, a sister Caribbean island, just because. I also grew up reading GQ's screeds on the school for South American dictators that the US government funded under Regan. Also, the Ollie North trials, so yeah, I have had issues with the idea of Captain America.
2 Not a spoiler, not really.
3 To be fair, the mods have been very good in welcoming all interpretations of Rogers and Stark. As long as warnings are given, they will leave you be.
Which I thought was interesting, as well as the comments therein. My viewpoint towards new blood for any fandom is mostly positive. In that, it's good that a fandom gets new fans; it gives vitality and more than not, new perspectives and feelings towards the characters.
Full disclosure here, I don't read much movieverse fic. It is not a slight against the writers of said fic, because the writers are good, but for a two hour movie to distil the history and depth of sixty years of comic canon, of various realities is a tall order, and at times, can be found wanting.
To be fair to Marvel, their comic book movies are better than most - it helps that they've gone for good, (mostly) charismatic actors, as well as tapping various directors' strengths with the properties they helm. For instance, the use of Brannagh's Shakespearean sensibilities to shape the solid, majestic elegance of Thor worked for the film, and Jon Favreau's irreverence towards the source material and coming up with Iron Man; a fun, sexy comic book movie with some heart and a lot of heat.
The movies are great as an entity in themselves- and sometimes they can be good for the fandom's treatment towards a particular comic character.
For instance, before the Iron Man movie came out in 2008, most people wrote 616 Tony Stark as this sensitive flower to my consternation. "But," I'd argue, "Stark can be an asshole! He might have days when he gives himself the side eye, but he likes himself in a lot of ways, too." After RDJ's stellar turn, people in fandom cottoned on to writing him differently- and I see RDJ's Tony Stark heavily drawn from David Michelinie's version - the one I grew up reading- and most comic book writers give a nod to. Tony is arrogant, deeply flawed, but charismatic with it all.
In the same breath, I liked what the Captain America did for 616 Steve Rogers to me. After spending a lifetime of holding the idea Captain America at arm's length 1, it took the movie for me to respond to Steve Rogers as man who just happens to be a patriot in the best sense. Steve Rogers holds on to his own moral code, in the maelstrom of everything, which is admirable. There's a reason why Marvel did the whole, I'm Captain America campaign a while back.
In addition, it's nice to see Pepper Potts in the movie being strong, confident, attractive and just getting a fairer shake in the movies than she's been getting in the comics for sometime. Paltrow's version of Potts has grown on me over the years, so I'm content. As much as Scarlet Johansson still hasn't sold me on her Natasha Romanova, the Black Widow is getting more traction in the fandom as a bad ass, and writing more women into being can't be a bad thing by any measure.
Then, to add to that; to read the old issues of comics from the 1960s is painful; with their easy racism, sexism and tokenism, as well as some good old fashioned propaganda (when Romanova was first introduced, for example, the U.S.S.R. and the iron curtain existed). Not that the movies are free from those things, but they are a better reflection of the times that we live in now. Nick Fury is black, but he doesn't seem token, more like a bad ass. Jane Foster is an acclaimed scientist who happens to be open to a bit of flirtation with Thor, and not seeing children and the white picket fence in their future. Rhodes is Stark's good friend, but he's his own man, and knows when to give a nod to duty over being a buddy.
As much as the movies are good in introducing people to the wider verse, the comic fan/nerd/geek in me tends to huff, they are only an introduction.
Stark and Rogers' relationship in the movie (in a general sense, here) will be painfully new, to the point of stickiness, whereas in the comics (be it 616, 1610, or Marvel Adventures), they are old hands. They have the push and pull that comes from a prolonged association with someone ; the old arguments, how they manoeuvre when it comes to the other's moral code. How they, in the true spirit of the history of each other, can take different sides, hurt and yet come back together. That's pretty deep.
Or just even the Avengers in general- will people know that Clint was a carny before he became an Avenger? That he and Natasha Romanova had history, and that it was his relationship with her that inadvertently caused him to fall into the Avengers in the first place? Or, if they are taking it from an Ultimate Avengers' viewpoint, that Clint and Natasha were in the same secret ops before she turned and did him harm?2
Then again, circling back to the movies; everything in one's life begins with an introduction, and people who come from the movie verse might be drawn to the comics, or they might not. For those of us who've lived with the comics, either them being woven in the tapestry of one's childhood, or only just a steady acquaintance in adulthood, either way, it is easy to be absorbed into the fandom hierarchy, wherein those who can quote the various issues chapter and verse are king, whereas a movie/comic dilettante might find themselves on the back foot.3
Nevertheless, new fans can only help us guard against rot, and various interpretations of canon is a buffet; you help yourself to what you want, and leave the rest for others. So upon seeing this comment in the thread: I dunno, I'm enjoying watching the old school fans lose control of the sandbox - one can only nod and agree.
If nothing else, this year will be interesting.
1 For this, you must understand, I grew up hearing about America invading Grenada, a sister Caribbean island, just because. I also grew up reading GQ's screeds on the school for South American dictators that the US government funded under Regan. Also, the Ollie North trials, so yeah, I have had issues with the idea of Captain America.
2 Not a spoiler, not really.
3 To be fair, the mods have been very good in welcoming all interpretations of Rogers and Stark. As long as warnings are given, they will leave you be.