Hi, Stephen.
ST> Dude, when this character was in his prime, stuff like that didn't
ST> happen!
DH> I'm afraid that was then... and this is now.  You admitted that
DH> you hadn't bought comics regularly in over a decade.  If the old-
DH> guard aren't going to stick around and show support for "the old
DH> ways", those "old ways" are eventually going to give-way to
DH> something else...  which they evidently have.
ST> To the greater detriment of comics as we knew them....!
     To a point... yes, I agree with you.  I miss the elegant
simplicity of the way comic stories got told in "the old days".
Gone are the days when a term like "Unstable Molecules" could be a
catch-all for explaining why the Human Torch's costume didn't burn up
when he "Flamed On" or the Invisible Woman's costume turned invisible
when she did.  These days, we wanna know the mechanism by which those
unstable molecules work (we're like the fans in that infamous William
Shatner/Star Trek Convention skit on "Saturday Night Live"...).
One-issues stories, another thing I miss, are a rarity these days.
We've also lost the pureness to our heroes.  In the past, super-heroes
were always right.  They never did anything as remotely "human" as
make a bad judgement call or, by their actions (directly or
indirectly) got innocent bystanders killed...  and they never failed
to thwart the villains (even if it was in a round-about way).  But, as
the Neal Adams "Green Lantern/Green Arrow" issues showed us, things
are never as black & white as the world of comics (up till that point,
anyway) had led us to believe.  Realistically, there is a lot of room
for grey areas... and that's where the "new way" has shined, IMO.
     Upon reflection, just what were the "old ways"?  Comics
have almost always been reflections of the times in which they
are/were published... or so I believe anyhow.  From World War II
through the McCarthy-Era to the beginning of the Cold War, the Space
Race and "Flower Power" to Feminism, Disco and Nuclear Power to "The
Me Decade" and on to Generation X... they've all added their own
distinctive flavour to comics (even if some were around for a lot
longer than others).  No one era is exactly the same as the last...
and I suppose that is the way it should be.  How therefore, are the
'80s & '90s any different?  Eventually '90s sensibilities (such as
they are) will give way to something new... and comics will evolve
again (because they HAVE to).  I'd be remiss if I didn't admit that I
think mistakes have been made over the years (especially since
1980)...  but I guess that's to be expected.  However, to expect
things to remain exactly as they've always been (or as we remember
them) is unrealistic too.  Comics, as they always have done, must
change to meet the changing times (and new readers)... and sometimes
the changes are rather radical (rightly or wrongly).
ST> Just imagine if somebody heavily altered the legend of the Three
ST> Musketeers, or Luke Skywalker....Capatin Blood? It just wouldn't
ST> work, and I imagine that, if you were present during the silver
ST> age, when the REAL refinements were originally made to these
ST> characters, the present state of affairs would hit you the very
ST> same way it's been hitting me....as HERESY!! (g)
     I'm not going to dispute the possibility that somebody who gave
up reading comics 12 years ago would be shocked at the changes
implemented over that time (the word "Heresy" is a little strong,
IMO...  but that's just me).  I guess it's a lot like jumping into a
cauldron of hot water vs. sitting in that cauldron while they heat the
water up gradually.  One is a shock to the system... while the other
is not (although I'd still say the Crisis was a fairly big shock).
Heck, my comic buying was at it's highest during the '80s & early
'90s... and I'm still amazed (and sometimes shocked and even
disappointed) at some of the stuff that's been done...  I continue
to keep buying because, despite the changes, I still find lots to like
about comics... even in the characters who've been replaced and/or
undergone renovations to make them relevant to a new generation.
     I guess another point worth noting is that what we're talking
about here isn't new.  The golden age characters gave way to the
silver age characters... and now they're "moving over" for the modern
age characters.  Give the DC another 25 years or so... and we'll all
by crying in our beer over the loss of Connor Hawke, Kyle Rayner and
Wally West to a future generation of characters...
ST> Why couldnt they just have Ollie getting old and infirm, passing
ST> on the mantle gently to his son, (BTW, where DID his son COME
ST> from!?) instead of THIS El Topo bull****??
DH> Consider what DC was trying to do.  Ollie Queen, like Hal Jordan,
DH> wasn't a young guy anymore.  DC wanted to introduce a younger
DH> generation Green Arrow (seeing as just about every other major DC
ST> Always a mistake. Remember Robin? Speedy? Wertham? (g)
DH>      Remember Hal Jordan, Barry Allen, Ray Palmer, Katar & Shayera
DH> Hol, and the silver age revamps of Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman
DH> and yes, even Green Arrow?  They were all a product of DC wanting
DH> to introduce a younger generation of characters to a new
DH> generation of fans.  Using your arguement... that was all a
DH> mistake.
ST> How?
     How???  Because you said it's "Always a mistake", remember?...
This is your arguement I'm playing "Devil's Advocate" here with... not
mine.  8)
ST> The kids of the sixties were VERY different from the kids of the
ST> late thirties and all through the forties. The culture had changed
ST> significantly, since most of the heroes had been created to
ST> bolster patriotism, which wasn't so important in the
ST> sixties....Science and science FICTION was...witness TV of the
ST> era....Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Star Trek, Lost In Space,
ST> Thriller....Mr. Wizard....it was all reflected in the adventures
ST> of The Flash, Superman, Adam Strange, Fantastic Four, Ant-Man,
ST> Atomic Knights, Metal Men, etc....
ST> Those transformations were almost mandatory...today's aren't.
ST> They're just whimsical!
     I won't argue with you that the kids of the '40s were different
from the kids of the '60s... and that some changes were necessary,
IMO...  but I wouldn't exactly lump the kids of the '60s in with the
kids of the '90s either.  They are as different from each other as
they are from the kids of the '40s, IMO.  As I mentioned a while
back...  heroes who were hip to the "Flower Power"-views (such as Hal
Jordan and Ollie Queen) of the late '60s and early '70s aren't likely
to be as relevant to today's youth as characters created for their
generation are  ('cuz Hippies are not the same as Generation X).  To
that end, wouldn't that put these older silver age heroes in the same
predicament that their predecessors found themselves in back in the
'60s?
To be concluded...
.
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------