Dark_Images
Well-Known Member
What would you say the life expectancy is of a hero in the Ultimate universe? Beast lasted 44, or 45, issues. Can we expect Spidey to outlive 200? 300?
(By the way, the FF are more like solo characters themselves, in this regard. Other than X-Man, Avengers, JLA or most other teams, the FF were always and will always be Reed Richards, Susan Storm, Jonny Storm and Ben Grimm).
In that respect, one can't compare solo characters to team members in ongoing titles. OR rather, one can compare them, and one will find a huge difference:
The death of a solo character automatically means his title will have to be cancelled (okay, okay, DC invented the mantle characters like green lantern and flash, but that wouldn't even work for superman or batman, much less for most marvel characters). What would it be called, otherwise? "Ultimate MJ Watson"? "Ultimate Aunt May?" "Ultimate Kong?"
It's far easier to kill of a single character from a team book. You can even disband a team, and have it reform with a changed rooster. The book still continues.
Death is not the only issue, though. Anyone remember Ben Reilly? I didn't read it, but it was suppossedly stated, that Ben had been the original Peter, and the guy we read about for over 30 years had been a clone. Well, it might have worked for a team member on avengers or x-men, but nor for a solo character. That's why it became ignored afterwards, in my opinion.
(By the way, the FF are more like solo characters themselves, in this regard. Other than X-Man, Avengers, JLA or most other teams, the FF were always and will always be Reed Richards, Susan Storm, Jonny Storm and Ben Grimm).
How do you mean?John Q. Public said:I think sales figures might play a role in this.
David Blue said:How do you mean?
I said..I..think...sales.....may..play..a..role..in...this.
Then again, after contemplating your questions, I really doubt that profit plays a part in the industry's decisions on the life expectancy of a character or a comic book. They are way too noble and ethical to stoop to that sort of thing.
Depending on the circumstances, I would agree. For example, if Reed and Sue got married and had a child (which I hope will not happen quickly), I would want that child to grow up normally (in a couple of decades) and be a member of the team, either an active explorer, or if without powers at last included in some role such as Doctor Franklin Richards has. I might find it odd and unpleasant if Reed and Sue's child was excluded from the team in some way in order to keep the present roster unchanged. The kid has his or her rights by blood, and if that means the team logo changes to five, it changes to five.ourchair said:Blue, I love the Fantastic Four roster as family members schtick just as much as any of the more hardcore FF enthusiasts, but I don't necessarily think that the changing roster is a bad thing.
There is a lot of truth in that, and I think you are right in pointing to Ben Grimm as a candidate for replacement due to his being chronically under-powered.ourchair said:To me its really just a natural intersection of the dynamic of a family with the demands of a super-team. When the Thing gets replaced by another heavy like Luke Cage or She-Hulk, that's just a matter of Ben not having the power to stay within the super-team. It's not that he's less a member of a family, but when he can't contribute to their role as explorer-adventurers, its almost like he's become the grumpy Dutch uncle who can't pull his weight around the house.
Is the mutability of values the sort of thing that can be betrayed? How much loyalty is mutability owed?ourchair said:Changing the core cast isn't necessarily BETRAYing the concept of a family or destroying what the FF are about, it's just an idea that needs some greater consideration before being executed. In short, it needs an Ultimatization. The notion of what family is suppsoed to be has changed so often across the past few decades that having the roster become so sacrosanct as to only include the core four would betray the mutability of the family concept.
Exactly. This is the key term, it cannot be dispensed with, and there is no universally accepted definition of it.ourchair said:I mean, what is a family anyway?
I only half agree with that. That's certainly not the only definition of a family, but I do not agree that Reed, Sue, Ben and Johnny are tied mostly by legal relations, I think they are tied mostly by blood relations that are more fundamental and ancient than any laws, and which laws if they are just recognise, give way to, and only then support and consolidate.ourchair said:For Reed, Sue, Ben and Johnny they're tied mostly by legal relations: spouses and in-laws and one grumpy best friend... but it's not the only definition of a family.
Indeed.ourchair said:For most people it's blood relations. Sometimes its just a bunch of strangers sharing space, heat and water.
There are, as you say, many possible ways to understand this.ourchair said:For others, its the ability to share confidential matters with similar folk united by kinship.