DID I THINK THAT OUT LOUD?!? #37: DEFINING THE DEFINITIVE

[Jim Lemoine]

<img src="http://www.comixfan.com/xfan/images/logos/dittol_logo.gif" align=left border=0 alt="Did I Think That Out Loud?!? logo">By Jim Lemoine, jimlemoine@comixfan.cjb.net

Defining The Definitive

So a friend of mine complained the other day that the Bruce Banner he's been reading for the past few years in Hulk is so out of character that he refuses to read the title anymore. Another friend told me that he can't stand the way Iceman's been written in Uncanny X-Men, thus providing me inspiration for my last column. Still another colleague lamented that Tony Stark hasn't really been himself since Kurt Busiek's run on Iron Man, and I've been known to complain that the Hawkeye currently appearing in Avengers doesn't act at all like he normally does (or as he does in the Avengers/Thunderbolts mini).

But as much as some might like to think otherwise, these are not real people, and there are no real set-in-stone universal truths about them. Marvel Comics owns the full rights to all of these properties, and if Marvel wanted Bruce Banner to become a psychotic with ice powers, or Bobby Drake to become a black man who wielded a mystic sword, they could. And we couldn't say, "That's not Bruce! That's not Bobby!", because they would be. Marvel can make these characters whatever they want. They don't even really have to explain it... indeed, in several cases, they haven't.

So when you're talking about a fictional character, one whose very essence can change completely on the whim of a corporately mandated editorial direction or a writer who just never liked the character... what makes one interpretation better than another? What makes one story of a hero canon, but another one best forgotten? Why is Tom DeFalco's story firmly entrenching Ben Reilly (the Spider-Clone) as the one true Spider-Man brushed under the table, while Howard Mackie's tale of Peter Parker's vindication is considered canon? Not to pick on Tom, but why has his courtship of Johnny Storm and Lyja the Skrull been completely forgotten and ignored by Marvel, while more recent writers have crafted a much more eternally-single Johnny (and readers have commented on how much better that is)? Why are the actions of Iron Man during the old Avengers crossover "The Crossing" seen as so out of character, while the more business-oriented runs by creators like Busiek or Tieri are considered so much better?

What makes one writer's interpretation of a character better than another? What makes one right and the other so very, very wrong?

As an outsider, we the fans can only wonder at Marvel's official answer to this question... an editorial guidebook? A writer's stylesheet? The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe?

But from our perspective, there seem to be two sources of character canon, listed in order of priority: the Definitive Run, and the Formative Character (i.e. the character's origin). If a title has no Definitive Run, it falls back to the Formative Character... and if a story can't gel with those, it won't be considered canon. At least, that's my take on it.

By "Definitive Run," I'm talking about the runs on the book that are widely accepted as the best, the ones that make careers for writers and that are collected in trades many, many years later. These are the runs that define who the characters are, that influence many future generations of writers. One of the criteria for a Run to be Definitive, I'd hypothesize, is that it has to be pretty much universally agreed upon to be Definitive. For instance, Captain America, in all its long years of existence, has had exactly one Definitive Run (although one split into two parts) - the run by Mark Waid. Just about everybody who's read Waid's Cap agrees that he presented the core of the character, and arguably wrote him better than anyone had since the Captain's origin. Meanwhile, there's another standout run on Captain America, one of the longest runs in comics: the tenure of Mark Gruenwald. But while the Gru crafted some really great and ambitious stories during his time with Steve Rogers, most of it was generally considered to be pretty basic comic book fare. There is argument about just how definitive that run really was, despite its massive length, and there are many moments within that are hard to qualify as "pure Cap." Did the Gru run substantially change the way writers wrote Cap, or the way that readers understood Cap? No, not really. That doesn't make it a bad run... it just prevents it from being considered "Definitive."

And a run has to be long enough to really leave its mark to be considered "Definitive." Still using Captain America as an example, the recent runs by John Ney Rieber and Robert Morales had everything needed to form another Definitive Run... but in both cases, the runs were cut short before the writer could bring his plans to fruition. There wasn't enough time to make us think differently about the character… so we didn't.

Just as Waid's Cap forever changed the way writers approached the character and readers understood the character, other books and heroes have been similarly affected by their best writers. Thor has also had exactly one Definitive Run: Walt Simonson's time with the God of Thunder made Thor who he is today. Iron Man has also had one and only one Definitive Run: David Michelinie and Bob Layton are responsible for Tony Stark as he currently exists in the Marvel Universe. Can the average fan name another Thor writer, other than Walt Simonson and the current writer? When you ask someone who's read comics for a while who the best writer of Iron Man was, whose names will pop up most often?

That, my friends, is what creates a Definitive Run. Of course, books like Cap, Iron Man, and Thor are easy to talk about, because they've been unlucky enough to have very few of these standouts Runs (although I would argue that Jurgens' current run on Thor will one day be considered to be in the same realm as Simonson's). Everyone agrees that Waid, Michelinie/Layton, and Simonson nailed the cores of their respective characters. But can a character or team have more than one Definitive Run? And when they do, can one supercede the other?

I'd argue that yes, they can, and no, they don't have to. Look at Daredevil. The Daredevil title has easily had no fewer than four Runs of this quality... runs created, chronologically, by Frank Miller, Ann Nocenti, Kevin Smith, and Brian Michael Bendis. Each of these runs was a masterpiece in its own right, each was a huge influence on future writers, and each alone could define the character of Matthew Murdock. But together, the runs show a logical progression of the character, from his true beginnings as a dark vigilante (Miller) to the ultimate tragic hero struggling more than ever to hold on to his sanity (Nocenti) to a vigilante seeking his peace with the strange directions his life had taken (Smith) to a man unable to cope with the tragedies of the heroic existence (Bendis). Each played into the other, building for its successors and respecting its ancestors. That, at its core, is why Daredevil is such a popular and powerful title. Similarly, it's logical progression like this that retained the strength of the Spider-Man franchise for thirty years (after which things kind of collapsed, although it's still a point of contention as to whether things collapsed during the Clone story, or immediately following it).

So if a Definitive Run, that Holy Grail for a comics writer, is a run that respects a franchise's origin, tells powerful stories, creates or enhances the foundation of the character for years to come, influences future writers, and is pretty much universally agreed upon, where does that leave other Marvel mainstays?

Fantastic Four has only really had one run that fit the bill: the original run by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Avengers, on the other hand, has had many: Englehart, Shooter, and Busiek at the very least, and perhaps Stern as well. Defenders never really had one at all, nor did Spider-Woman or Power Man & Iron Fist, which might explain why those titles aren't around these days. And the mutant books? Claremont's first run on Uncanny X-Men is absolutely a Definitive Run, almost a textbook case, and all the more impressive when you get into how long that run actually was. But beyond that, there isn't much for the X-Titles: David's X-Factor changed the way we looked at its characters forever, as did the Claremont/Davis Excalibur and the Claremont/Sienkiewicz New Mutants... you could probably throw in the Lobdell/Bachalo Generation X, too.

And it's not only the titles that have been around forever that can have Definitive Runs: you could easily make an argument for the Valentino Guardians of the Galaxy, Nicieza's New Warriors, Jenkins' Inhumans, or Gerber's Howard The Duck.

Look at these runs and ask yourself what they all have in common. One of the keys to creating one of these Definitive Runs seems to be respect for the core of the character. A writer doesn't necessarily have to take a franchise's origin 100% verbatim, but they have to make the best parts of it relevant, and they have to make it all work as an overall package. The reason Miller's Daredevil worked so well, even though it was completely different from the happy-go-lucky-just-like-Spider-Man DD that preceded it, was that Miller's take on the character made so much bloody sense based on Murdock's origin. Nocenti's DD was a far cry from Miller's, but based on what had happened to the character since then, it was a believable progression. On the other hand, D. G. Chichester's later take on Daredevil, in which the title character would abandon his Matt Murdock identity, pretend to be sighted, and become a darker hero more in the vein of Wolverine, is now considered a failure. Why doesn't Chichester's take on DD work when Nocenti's and Miller's did? Because Chichester didn't build on the origin or what had come before. Sure, his script was bold and ambitious, and it really wasn't a bad story in the slightest, but it wasn't true to what had been established as the core of Daredevil, and it was too far a deviation to form the basis for a new core.

The Definitive Run is respectful of a character's past in a way that other runs aren't. Claremont took Stan Lee's original "protecting a world that hates and fears us" premise much farther than Stan Lee or subsequent X-Men writers ever did, focusing on the all-too-real evils of prejudice and bigotry - bringing out the root (and to that point, ignored) strength of the X-Men revitalized the franchise. Simonson tore Thor away from day-to-day superheroics as usual to go back to the root mythology of the character. Mark Waid made the "America" matter for Cap with a present-day relevance that Steve Rogers had always lacked. In lieu of a Definitive Run, writers (the good ones, anyway) base their stories around the franchise's origin... the aforementioned "Formative Character." That's what the best runs build on, and attempting to contradict or ignore it almost always leads to disaster for creator and sales alike.

That's not saying that continuity has to be strictly and perfectly followed, mind you – it's the origin that's most important. Look at those three runs just mentioned, and you'll notice that one thing they have in common is that all three pretty much ignore the stories in the issues immediately preceding theirs, choosing instead to build something entirely new. They respect the origin, but they don't feel the need to slavishly continue the previous writer's vision. Issue #227 of a franchise is never as important as issue #1.

Easier said than done, but there's the formula for the best of the best, the Definitive Run: respect your origin, tell powerful stories, and enhance the foundation of the franchise for the future. So with that in mind, what modern stories will readers look back on in ten years as the best of the best? How's Marvel doing right now?

Waid's Fantastic Four will undoubtedly go down in history as that franchise's second Definitive Run. Jurgens' Thor will likely receive the same honor, as will Bendis' Daredevil. The Busiek/Perez JLA/Avengers certainly earns its spot, and so does the Bendis/Bagley Ultimate Spider-Man. Straczynski's Amazing Spider-Man has a shot at immortality, and so does David's Captain Marvel. Morrison's New X-Men will be seen as either a brilliant Definitive Run, or as a swept-under-the-rug Clone Saga... dependent, probably, on what the X-Men's fanbase looks like in ten years.

And there are other stories that individual readers may argue for, but to really fit the bill, to be universally agreed on... I'd argue that the titles listed in the paragraph above are pretty much it. But then, I could be wrong.

So in the last few years, we've seen (or are currently seeing) no fewer than eight of what could very well be the greatest Marvel runs ever... and that's not even counting stories a bit further back like Busiek's Avengers, the Busiek/Nicieza Thunderbolts, or Milligan's X-Force.

Maybe it's not such a bad time to be a Marvel Reader after all.

<center><hr width=75%></center>

A few months ago, Jim Lemoine (ComiX-Fan's Columns Editor) completed the manuscript for his first book, an examination of business leadership. Oddly enough, his second book is being published this summer, while his first book is still delayed by guys in expensive suits. I like monkeys.

<center><hr width=75%></center>

The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and are not reflective of ComiX-Fan or its other staff in general.

[harlekein]

Just plain amazing Jim, great column.

[DarkCrisis]

I disagree.

By your beginning statements, Lucas should make any changes to Star Wars he pleases cause they are *his*.

As mentioned in a south park episode about this subject, movies/comic books/etc aren't just *yours*. They are *ours*.

We are the fans, we are the ones who love the characters. WE support them. With out us they and the company behind them are nothing.

So go ahead and change Bobby into a sword wielding black man, and watch us stopping supporting the *new character* with our voices and our money.

[psylockefan]

I loved this article...it was very well written.

I just want to put my vote in for Morrison having a definitive run. I LOVED HIS RUN!!

There's just so many good things i dont even kno where to start:

1) Cassandra Nova - Ingenius!!!
2) Feline Beast - if u have cat like agility..wouldnt it make sense to look like one?
3) Adding Emma to the team - after Gen X...she coulda sat in limbo...but GM took her and did wonderful things with her. She's more popular now, more than ever. I'd argue its cause of him that she has her own SOLO now!
4) The Special Class - How could u not like a mutant freakshow?!

I'd be thoroughly upset if all GM's wonderful creations were swept under the rug. Clone Saga was easy, it was just a story arc...SWEEP SWEEP. GM's run lasted a few years...(was it 2?). You cant sweep 2yrs away....

everything else about the article was totally on point! Claremont/definitive X. Busiek/defienitive Avengers. Miller, Bendis, & Smith = Daredevil. However, i think you missed a few that Id like to nominate.

1) Hama, Tieri = Wolverine
2) Sorry guys..I know im gonna be lambasted for this..but I enjoyed Claremont/Larrocca's run on FF. (if anything...just for introducing me to Larrocca's Art) Plus I like Valeria.

PS...just think, Austen could have definitive run... (i neither like nor dislike him)

[Alphabet Pet]

Good column Jim.

But I gotta ask... Was 227 a random number or is there some specific comic book you were thinking of when you wrote that?

[Merlin]

I so agree what a great article

[david r]

Oh come on!! "Daredevil" did NOT have Four definitive runs. Ann Nocenti??? WHAT?? Kevin Smith?? You call his hack work here definitive?? Frank Miller's run blows them all out of the water. Nobody will remember Kevin Smith or Brian Michael Bendis' work 10-15 years from now. The only reason Smith gets any notice here is because Daredevil was his first mainstream comics work.

"Avengers" run:Perhaps Stern as well?? PErhaps STERN AS WELL!! Roger Stern is one of the best writers on "Avengers" ever. And his run was far better than Kurt Busiek's IMO.

I think "Spider-Man"has had 4 True Definitive Runs. The early Stan Lee/Steve Ditko/John Romita era. The Roger Stern era of the mid-80s. The Todd McFarlane/David Michilenie time, and J. Michael Strazynski's current period. Though I still think that JMS stuff is not as good as the great periods of the past.

I agree on X-Men. Only Chris Claremont's blockbuster 17 year run really adds up to Definitive. But what about John Byrne's Definitive Run on "Fantastic Four"? That cannot be passed up.And WAS better than Waid's current run, hands down!!

And why are we only looking at Marvel? DC has longer runs on their books.

[mr. 983]

Originally posted by psylockefan

I'd be thoroughly upset if all GM's wonderful creations were swept under the rug. Clone Saga was easy, it was just a story arc...SWEEP SWEEP. GM's run lasted a few years...(was it 2?). You cant sweep 2yrs away....

[/B]

IIRC, the clone saga lasted about two years, versus GM's three year run on NXM. however, the clone saga sports over 4 times the amount of issues. so its very possible this could happen (though i hope not). i think the main reason this will stick around is that NXM had a build and direction and focus, whereas the clone saga became a mess that the writers and editor's could not contain.

anyway, another good one jim. keep 'em up!

[crozack]

Once again, Jim, you prove your column is the only one worth reading around here. Thought-provoking and detailed. Love it. But I always say that.

However, there was indeed more than one definitive run for the FF. John Byrne was truly a mastermind on that title.

Spider-Man as well. Lee/Ditko/Romita, and then McFarlane.

We should throw Byrne's Alpha Flight as being a definitive run. As well as David's Incredible Hulk but hey, we all know that right?

And kudos for throwing in Jurgens' Thor. Truly good stuff going on there, even if no one else is reading it.

Morrison's work on New X-Men would be considered definitive, if Marvel was willing to continue in the same vein that Morrison wrote in. Sure, no one can fill the shoes of Morrison, but in order for a run to be definitive, it must produce long lasting changes. Morrison's run ended so neatly, and then rushed into this "Reload" that I don't think Marvel is going that route.

[Martin Dudek]

Excelent job, Jim. These are really excelent reads, you present the ideas in a clear manner, getting your point accross, and educate well. Plus I find them enjoyable.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Alphabet Pet
Good column Jim.

But I gotta ask... Was 227 a random number or is there some specific comic book you were thinking of when you wrote that?

I imagine that he is referencing to Dardevil 227 which was the issue frank millar returned to Dardevil for his classic Born again saga

[Jim Lemoine]

Originally posted by Alphabet Pet
Good column Jim.

But I gotta ask... Was 227 a random number or is there some specific comic book you were thinking of when you wrote that?


Originally posted by Wolverine


I imagine that he is referencing to Dardevil 227 which was the issue frank millar returned to Dardevil for his classic Born again saga

Ummm... actually, no, it was just the first number that popped to mind. Although actually... #227 has always been a pretty good number for Marvel, if you ask me. A decent FF, a strong Avengers, a great Daredevil, a fantastic Uncanny X-men... there's lots of good 227's.

For the record, I did not seek to list ALL the definitive runs in this column... just to discuss the concept. If I were to try to list them all, things like David's Hulk and Byrne's Alpha Flight would be included. I wouldn't include Byrne's FF, though... although I liked it, I've met too many people who hated the run, and honestly, a lot of the ideas he brought forth in that run (not the core four, Johnny & Alicia, Reed & Sue can't have more kids, etc.) have long been abandoned.

And you didn't see any DC titles mentioned for the same reason you'll probably never see me write a DC column, or a Hulk column... because that's not my area of expertise at all, and I try not to write about things I know nothing about when I can help it.

And for the record, I do, as always, appreciate all the posts and e-mails I receive that call me an idiot for the unforgivable offense of having an opinion different from your own.

[trinh]

Originally posted by Jim Lemoine
Morrison's New X-Men will be seen as either a brilliant Definitive Run, or as a swept-under-the-rug Clone Saga... dependent, probably, on what the X-Men's fanbase looks like in ten years.

no, i don't think so.

whether you liked his run or hated it...and i LOVED his run...you cannot deny that he made the x-men interesting again. made them fresh after years of stagnation.

swept under the rug as another clone saga? please.

[Cable2x]

Great article. I believe this article explains why Soldier X was a faliure.

[Anand Khatri]

Great column. :clap: I completly agree. :yeah:

[Anthony Lucynski]

Joe Kelly: Definitive Deadpool (ducks various objects thrown in general direction)

Just saying 'sall.

anthony L

[Lithera]

Originally posted by trinh


swept under the rug as another clone saga? please.

Okay. I'll get right on that since you asked so nicely.

*sweep sweep sweep*

[Justice Daye]

Great column as usual, Jim.

I disagree with the beginning Jim. These are fictional characters and can change at the whim of a stoic corporation. However, you cannot maintain a property by changing it repeatedly. All readers have to go on is what the characters have done in the past and how that adds up to who they are now. If it doesn't add up, you have a right to say that they "are out of character" simply because if characters don't have a stable, reliable core readers won't care or read. If that "core" is defied as it were, then there is a basis for a complaint. However, your friends seem to have been reading awhile after they felt that the property had changed. This likely only helped maintain the change that they disliked and felt wasn't true to the character. Their ability to put down that comic that's been changed beyond all recognition, is your power over that property. Though with this pov of yours, are discounting all of your columns of character study?

I do agree with you though that there can be more than one definitive run (as definitive as a run that doesn't define the character(s), but redifines ortakes them in a new direction can be). Also, your ideas of what makes a definitive run are very true. It's one reason why one of my favorite books, Cable, worked with Weinberg (at least for it's readers) and not with Soldier X. The sae goes for Wildcats and T-Bolts. They worked because, despite lasting and drastic changes, they were faithful to the core o the character(s).

I really don't see GM's run becoming definitive because he didn't define anything. CC had so much freedom as the x-men weren't properties then. No one's ever going to have that amount of freedom. Even if someone does, there isn't anyone to appeal to in the way that CC's run appeal to children and teens in that climate of social change. Besides, GM's run, whether liked or hated it, when boiled down to it's core didn't do much of anything new. If someone else had done that exact run (with changes in style, logic, allusions), it'd be seen as cliche. People, IMO, liked GM's run because of his style, his allusions, and his logic because that was what was new, not the events themselves which differs from Claremont's run (which the events were new though the style and dialogue broke no new boundaries, though he did deeper character study than usual at the time, IMO). His story and elements included therein weren't new in the x-men pantheon at least. GM's run would have to be longer and affect more of the core x-men characters (which include many). GM didn't have control over the entire x-universe which would've made his run definitive (maybe not well-liked by all) because it was the only expression of the x-u for 3 years. In essence, a long run, compressed. This happened with FF, Daredevil, and Avengers, IMO. Their prospective writers had complete control over the entire family of characters. This also happened with CC's first run.

[spam]

i just though i'd comment that uncanny x-men #227 really was BETTER and more influential than all x-title #1s to follow it.

there have been better non-#1's though.

just my 2 cents ;)

[russbrett77]

Great column Jim.

But I would add Liefeld's New Mutants / X-Force to the defintive X-roster.

He took Sam, Tabitha, Rahne and Cable (not sure how much he should count) and sent them in a new direction while building off their histories. The characters they are today are completely reflective of Liefeld's work on them. Sounds like a defintive run to me.

As for Morrison's X-Men... my personal feelings for his run aside, the world in which the X-Men inhabit really didn't change much under his pen, nor the characters as a whole. But (provided Marvel runs with the idea), an argument could easily be made for some of the specific characters that were a part of his run.

Morrison's Emma could easily be seen as the definitive Emma. Same could be said for Cyclops (though I preferred Lobdell's post Apocalypse Scott to Morrison's). These characters were changed so much during Morrison's run that it would be difficult (if not impossible) for future writers to ignore them.

[roach]

Morrison's run is already being rewritten with Magneto already back and Xorn shown to not be Magneto.
...and as much as we like to believe we have some power over our characters let's remember that the worst story ever written(the Draco) was written by Austen and still fans kept buying his work because they didnt want to break their collections....and he is still writing Xmen.

[Justice Daye]

Originally posted by russbrett77
As for Morrison's X-Men... my personal feelings for his run aside, the world in which the X-Men inhabit really didn't change much under his pen, nor the characters as a whole. But (provided Marvel runs with the idea), an argument could easily be made for some of the specific characters that were a part of his run.

Morrison's Emma could easily be seen as the definitive Emma. Same could be said for Cyclops (though I preferred Lobdell's post Apocalypse Scott to Morrison's). These characters were changed so much during Morrison's run that it would be difficult (if not impossible) for future writers to ignore them.

I was thinking the same thing, at first. Then, I noticed every development he "created" was already apart of each characters development. GM gave readers a hyper condensed, hyper realized version of each characters pasts. Ema's emotional problem were covered over the entire span of Gen X and especially in the finall arc when she killed her sister.

Scott's development was a condensed version o his previous life as well (though somethings lacked complete motivation). Scott's development, IMO wasn't very definitive as GM only tackled stuff related to Jean, not stuff related to how Apocalypse had changed his morals, his strategies, and feelings for the x-men and much esle. The definitive, modern take on Cyke won't happen until they've broached how Apocalypse changed Cyke, not Cyke in relation to Jean.

[Alex Guillen]

great column, Jim.

For me definite runs are the creators that take a book and really add soemthing new to it and make the characters more interesting to the reader.
For example Claremont's uncanny x-men run (that's still back today), after 20 years he's got these characters down to a science and has given so much tot he characters and to the overall fan base of the book that it's one of the best. And in this case we can take a writer who injected soem fresh ideas into it by revamping some old fan faves, in this case Grant Morisson.
he brought back the school, Emma Frost into the team & brought the issues about mutations and ideas into the mix.

[Patrick James]

Amazing job, Jim. Now if only you'd mentioned that Lobdell's Iceman was the definitive characterization of him;):iceman:

[Dylan McKay]

I would disagree about Iron Man having a definative run. On another board where I was encouraging people to read "Best Defence" the topic came up as to what defined Iron Man, and while there were few events that changed him, dropping out of the military industrial complex, revealing his identity etc, there was no story which defined the character. Maybe we're all just ignorant on the characters history. But most comic fans know the definative runs, and alot of comic fans can't think of Iron Man ever having one.

Of course there is another side to this, does a definative run also hav to be concidered a "must read."

[DKBatman]

it does seem likely that grant morrison's xmen gets the "rug sweep", but fans can hardly compare it to the clone saga. nobody ever mentions The Invisibles" when we hear "watchmen" "Dark Knight Returns" and "sandman" either, but those who wade their way through it know GM is the next generation of comics wrapped in a bald, crazy, sometimes mini-skirted body.

[Dylan McKay]

But that's the real GM, the Vertigo stuff is much more influential than his mainstream stuff. Heck, Invisibles indirectly created a multi-million dollar movie franchise. That said, his JLA run is pretty definative. But his X-Men run, really hard to say, the elements are there to be forgotten and there to be definative, time will tell.

[Cable2x]

Unlike many posters here, I actually agree with The first part of the article. It is true that who and what the characters are and what they behave like is at the whim of the company in charge. Some may say that a character that changes against fan opinion will not last, but non the less it is up to the company what character X is like. The sales might drop and and the book might get cancelled but the character still belongs to said company and what they say goes. Like the article says, there's no such thing as out of character. The character simply is what it is in the books.

[Zach Kinkead]

As always, great column. I do have a couple issues with it though.
Spider-Man franchise for thirty years (after which things kind of collapsed, although it's still a point of contention as to whether things collapsed during the Clone story, or immediately following it).
Actually I consider the period between the Clone Saga and the revamp (with the exception of the last two pre-revamp arcs) to be a Golden age for Spider-Man. There was a book for every kind of Spider-fan and they each managed to maintain their individual voices while staying true to the characters. Its a shame that this had to be followed by a Dark Age which we still haven’t gotten out of (granted Jenkins has always done great work but he’s the exception, not the rule).
Straczynski's Amazing Spider-Man
JMS has proven time and time again that he has no understanding of the characters that people like Lee, DeMatteis,
Michelinie, and Stern helped develop. The only time Peter ever acted remotely like himself was when JMS had a co-writer. I will concede that JMS wrote a pretty good May Parker...until the Doc Ock story where he made her an idiot. How the hell did she not remember that Otto is Ock when she’s SEEN HIM (with his arms) FIGHTING SPIDER-MAN ON HER LAWN?

I’m sorry but JMS’s run is about as far from “definitive Spider-Man” as you can get.

[Paul Shinn]

Real interesting column, Jim. And I'm not just saying that. This one really kept my interest all the way to the end!

Thoughts? Well, I do have to question the inclusion of Kevin Smith's Daredevil as being classed as definitive. I just don't think that Smith's run can truly stand the test of time in the same way that Frank Miller's run has, and I believe will continue to. Then again, Bendis' current run (which I do think will eventually be regared as definitive!) does play off of a lot of the ground work laid down in Smith's run... would you consider the work of two different creators to make up a singular definitive run?

As for your comments regarding contemporary definitive runs:
I would certainly class Milligan's X-Force as a definitive run, especially as it encapsualted both the origin of the characters alongside their development. And while I personally consider Morrison's New X-men to be a definitive run - or at least the nearest we've had to a modern day one, I do have to echo your comments about it very well ending up as "a swept-under-the-rug Clone Saga", especially considering that Marvel is already seemingly altering a number of key moments from Morrison's run just a few months after it ended!

One more question Jim, while I'm familiar with the other runs you referenced, I was left scratching my head at the mention of Ann Nocenti's Daredevil run. What issue numbers are we talking about here? Any key storylines I might have heard of?

[OcCaM]

Hmph! I'm almost tempted to say that someone is a blithering idiot for thinking that Byrne's run of the FF isn't at least partially definatitve.

First off, it's never been said that Sue and Reed can have a baby again. They had to use an extraordinary plot device and a little of Franklin Richard's cosmic hocus-pocus to infuse Valeria into Sue. So, if that's your idea of them having a baby, it's kindof a cheat really!

Anyway, there's more than a few things that have stayed. The least of which is that Invisible Girl errr Woman now THANKS TO BYRNE was a more powerful force to be reckoned with. Not to mention that she wasn't swooning over Reed every two seconds and complaing, "Oh Reed dear I don't if I can do this or that, save me!" I cringe reading older FF issues because she was such a wuss!

And, while I don't know if She-Hulk strictly qualifies as FF, Byrne definately made his mark on her in the FF pages.

Hell, I won't go on, it's late. But, Byrne not definative? Please!

Waid's run is good, but thus far there's been very little definately about it, except maybe Doom.

Still, it's all opinion I gues. And one other thing, Nocenti's run of DD definative? I want some of that crack you're smoking! :) I don't know ANYONE who really loves her run! And Smith wasn't on long enough to be definative. I'll give you Bendis though. HIs run will probably go down as one of those defining runs!

[RingoStarr]

I can't believe Byrne's Fantastic Four didn't get a shout out. That is MY definative FF run....DeFalco's is a close second.

[Nathan J. Wilson]

Great column, excellent read. :)

Haven't much more to say, as I'm mainly a DC guy...

Look forward to the next one :D

[DRB]

[B]Oh come on!! &quot;Daredevil&quot; did NOT have Four definitive runs. Ann Nocenti??? WHAT?? Kevin Smith?? You call his hack work here definitive?? Frank Miller's run blows them all out of the water.

I'm sure every one agrees that Millers Daredevil is the definitive DD, but Nocentis is excellent also. Nocenti had a hard way to go, she had to follow Miller. Nocenti introduced Typhoid Mary. "Hack" to harsh. :dd:

[Ann Nichols]

Originally posted by Justice Daye
Great column as usual, Jim.

I disagree with the beginning Jim. These are fictional characters and can change at the whim of a stoic corporation. However, you cannot maintain a property by changing it repeatedly. All readers have to go on is what the characters have done in the past and how that adds up to who they are now. If it doesn't add up, you have a right to say that they &quot;are out of character&quot; simply because if characters don't have a stable, reliable core readers won't care or read. If that &quot;core&quot; is defied as it were, then there is a basis for a complaint.

Absolutely! One of the reasons why I left comics in 1983(4?) was that I sick and tired of being emotionally invested in characters and their lives and then having a new writer come in and make sweeping changes in very short order. (This was particularly true in the matter of romantic relationships. Why should I bother to care about Hero(ine) X's latest when I know that a new writer could come in at any time, break them up, and have a new love in place in the space of two or three issues? Have Hero(ine) X get over breakups in a hurry often enough and that person starts looking pretty shallow.)

No, I don't want the main characters to remain exactly the same year after year after year. I've seen that carried to ridiculous extremes in mystery series, for instance. C'mon, our amateur detective has been involved in ten cases now and she's still making the same mistakes she made in the first one? Would someone please give her a brain transplant?

When the publisher reprinting the Miss Seeton mysteries (squeaky clean) decided to have new books written, the new books were spiced up with some non-marital sex, including adultery by the third book. The fourth new book appeared under a new pseudonym and, like the ones that followed, was much more like the originals. That was a readers' success story. I'll bet the publishers were stunned to find out that the spicy change was not appreciated.

In Mr. Austen's case, he's not uniformly awful. I genuinely enjoy his reformation of the Juggernaut. From the back issues I had, those I've since bought, and what I've read about him, I think the seeds for reformed Cain were in him all along. Yes, we saw him lose his temper after Xavier invited him to stay, but Cain used his fists to batter objects, not people. The people he did attack were
hurting friends of his.

Most of Mr. Austen's issues have at least one scene that made them worth the purchase price for me and that includes "The Draco". ("Holy War" is good only for laughs.) "She Lies With Angels bored me so much, though, that I'd made up my mind to skip issues that didn't have anything I wanted in them. But I liked UXM 442 & 443 & XM #157.

Hope can keep you going. I was enjoying Mr. Morrison's "New X-Men". #146 thrilled me. "Planet X" bothered me more and more each issue because I'd read about reformed Magneto, met him in some of the back issues I've obtained, and caught glimpses of him in the "X-Men Evolution" version. I was willing to tolerate the horrors happening in NYC because, until proven otherwise, I was hoping they would turn out to be a drug hallucination. I hated #150. "Here Comes Tomorrow" didn't have the characters I cared most about and I didn't care much about the characters it had (except for Martha).

Jean will be back. I know that. In the meantime, it looks as if I might be getting the return of sane and honorable Magneto. While I hope that the reason will prove to be logical and make sense within the context of who Magneto has been and what happened in "Planet X",...

...it could be as idiotic as the "Holy War" or "The Draco" and I'll still accept the explanation. That's how much I hate what Mr. Morrison did to Magneto. I know these are only fictional characters, but I still care what happens to them.

As for Bobby Drake, I'm willing to go along with the idea that the changes to the school and becoming entirely ice (Grrrr) have stressed him to the point that he's regressed to earlier, more immature behavior that he displayed in back issues. Even so, I want to see some progress in future issues.

Looney Lorna I can accept because of what she went through during the destruction of Genosha and its aftermath, but I'm glad she seems to be getting better.

Now try to tell me that Cyclops just got up one morning and decided he's attracted to wombats instead of women without any mind control/drugs/spells/clones/robots/impostors being involved, and I think I would justified in screaming that it's out of character and to h*ll with it.

Before you vote with your wallet, I suggest e-mailing Marvel and telling them just what you hate about a comic and how long you're prepared to wait for it to change before you drop the title -- then drop it.

Alternatively, drop the title but tell Marvel why you're dropping it and what needs to be done for you to buy it again. If you learn from whatever source that the title is fixed, buy it again -- and be sure to tell Marvel that you're buying it again and why.

[Joel Phillips]

I enjoyed the column, Jim, and though I agree with the ideas I think you've made it to easy for something to be considered definitive. There is one characteristic of a definitive run, perhaps the most important characteristic, that you gave only a momentary nod to: it defines (or redefines, as the case may be) the title.

Take the much argued about Daredevil example. Frank Miller's run is definitive not only because of its near universally praised quality, but because it made DD who he is today. Every other writer since has been playing in the sandbox Miller created. THAT is definitive.

Contrast that with Nocenti, Smith or Bendis. Great runs? Not as universally accepted as such, but let's say that they are great anyway. Definitive? Absolutely not. Their takes on Daredevil, while interesting and representing excellent writing, did little to alter the mould created by Frank Miller. Once you've had one definitive run, the only way to have another is if a run comes along that substantively REdefines the character(s). And none of those writers, despite the quality of their work, has done that.

I think of definitive this way. The first definitive run makes the characters what they are... until the next definitive run makes them something else. The first defines, the second (and beyond) REdefines.

I think your column lists a lot of GREAT runs, but definitive? I don't think the word applies to most of the examples you cited. As much as I love Waid's FF I don't think it takes the team beyond the mould established by Lee and Kirby. And say what you want about Morrison's X-Men, but in terms of style and direction the X-Men pre-Morrison are almost identical to the X-Men post-Morrison... hardly the necessary lasting influence to be considered definitive.

Of your modern examples, only PAD's Captain Marvel and Jurgens' Thor truly strike me as definitive. The first took a character that was totally inconsequential and constructed a brand new mythos around him, while the second took the character in a direction unlike any previous (but still, as you say, staying true to the precedent established by others before). The rest are, at best, really great runs. But that doesn't make them definitive.

Still a great, thought-provoking column. I enjoyed it thoroughly.

[Jeanne]

The premise and article is excellent. I think where some people are getting up in arms is that they are confusing definitive with good.

Definitive often is the best stories for a character. And therefore, often are good. However, definitive actually means 'setting the definition of'.
This is not the same thing as good necessarily.

I didn't like Grant Morrison's work. It ran counter to my tastes certainly, and I really disliked many of the characters he used or introduced. I didn't like what he did to the characters as individuals and thought the action in his arcs was very illogical. I also know that many people liked his run...I just didn't.

That said, I agree with the assessment that Grant Morrison's run /may/ become a definitive run. Chris Claremont and Chuck Austen both seem to be taking up some of the themes defined in Grant Morrison's arc, including the Xmen as being outed to the world, the global increase in the number of mutants to true population minority levels, the destruction of Genosha, and the pathetic decay of the memory of Magneto and his destruction of New York. If they continue to run with these themes, and do nothing to make them 'un-happen' (which does not seem likely at this point), then Grant Morisson's run will have defined the Xmen franchise for a long time to come, possibly permanently. And this, then, will make it a definitive arc for the Xmen Franchise.

Also worthy of note is that while a comic book can have a definitive arc that defines the franchise as a whole, an individual character can also have a definitive arc. For one-character titles, naturally, these often are the same, but even then, they don't have to be. The comic book 'Thor' might have a definitive arc where the plots for the comic become more mythologically structure, changing the dynamic of the book for a long time to come, but the character of Thor himself may not undergo any radical character development or exposition during that time. In general, though, one-character comics will keep in synch.

In multi-character comics like Xmen, an arc can redefine a character even when overall the comic title is not being defined in that arc. For example, the comic arc story of Zero tolerance did very little for the Xmen franchise, but the character arc that it took the character Iceman on, capped with the issue 'A Son's Pain' could be considered a definitive arc for Bobby Drake. If future writers fail to consider Drake's father's change of heart towards mutants out of desire to protect his son in their books, fans will be pretty unhappy. The story was well written, touching, and logical.

There are three kinds of stories that writers have to consider: Canon, Not Canon, and Canon but not mentioned at the moment. For Gambit, the story of how he and Storm met, and his betrayal of the Morlocks generally seem to be canon. Not Canon would be his Gambit and Bishop mini-series. Not mentioned, right now, are his connections to the thieves guild and the events of the Gambit miniseries.

As a fan, I just hope for follow up on the things I like as we go along.

Jeanne.

[Ryan Day]

Originally posted by Ann Nichols


Absolutely! One of the reasons why I left comics in 1983(4?) was that I sick and tired of being emotionally invested in characters and their lives and then having a new writer come in and make sweeping changes in very short order.

This, I think, is one of the reasons why I lost may loyalty to series or characters. People who religiously buy a book like X-Men will often say they read the book for the characters, yet one of the first complaints about a new writer is that he/she doesn't understand or respect the characters. In other words, they end up buying books for characters which may no longer exist as they knew them.

I like Morrison's X-Men, for example. Didn't love it, but it was enjoyable. But now it seems that Marvel wants to totally disregard nearly everything he did, so why would I want to continue reading the series?

Originally posted by Joel Phillips
And say what you want about Morrison's X-Men, but in terms of style and direction the X-Men pre-Morrison are almost identical to the X-Men post-Morrison... hardly the necessary lasting influence to be considered definitive.

Part of that, though, stems from Marvel not particularly caring about what Morrison did. The other part, of course, is that it fizzled out a bit too early.

Of your modern examples, only PAD's Captain Marvel and Jurgens' Thor truly strike me as definitive. The first took a character that was totally inconsequential and constructed a brand new mythos around him, while the second took the character in a direction unlike any previous (but still, as you say, staying true to the precedent established by others before).

I'd have a hard time considering either to be "definitive". Jurgens' Thor seems destined to be forgotten, as the central premise of Thor, Lord of Asgard is untenable in the long term - like Morrison, Jurgens' stories will lack impact. And frankly, it will be a long time before anyone comes between the words "definitive Captain Marvel" and "Jim Starlin."

Really, it's hard to do anything truly "definitive" these days because of the nature of the industry. Nobody is going to be allowed to change the X-Men like Chris Claremont once did. There will never be an "All-new, All-different" team of X-men because the current team is too profitable. Ditto Daredevil: Frank Miller rescued the character from the B-list (or worse) by redefining him in a way that made him more popular. While lots of people may have written a good Daredevil since then, the nature of the character hasn't really changed. Any changes on a popular book are almost guaranteed to be re-set.

[Radiate]

Great article Jim hope to see some more from you in the future;)

RADIATE!

[Lithera]

Sorry about that post earlier. I was hit by a wave of snark. Unlike me.

Anyway, this is something I think about a lot. If you create something and send it out to the public and the public grabs it and takes it into their homes and their hearts can it ever truly be yours again? I understand that legally these cahracters are owned by Marvel from now until the end of time, likely. That's not really what I'm saying here, though.

Spidey is a great example. I grew up with Spider-Man. I think all of us did in one form or another. My first exposure to him was Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends. All three of those characters were amazingly campy and silly there. I owe my love of comic books to that show and The Superfriends. Obviously those shows were silly but they're a version of the characters that is out there.

This is part of why I had a problem with Morrison. It isn't just that he changed the characters. I'm all for change and growth. I just wanted to be able to see the events that changed the characters. When I read Morrison it was like I was suddenly in a Folgers commercial. There was no warning, no chain of events - people were just different. And it wasn't the sort of different that I could trace back to anything. At the core, a large number of the characters were simply... different people.

Change characters, force them to grow, build upon what has happened in the past - please! Just don't do it overnight.

[n25philly]

I'd be thoroughly upset if all GM's wonderful creations were swept under the rug. Clone Saga was easy, it was just a story arc...SWEEP SWEEP. GM's run lasted a few years...(was it 2?). You cant sweep 2yrs away....

[/QUOTE]

2 years could be sweepable. Maybe we'll get lucky. I've already banged my head against a hard surface trying to knock to parts of his run out of my memory.

[Dylan McKay]

Originally posted by Ryan Day
Really, it's hard to do anything truly &quot;definitive&quot; these days because of the nature of the industry. Nobody is going to be allowed to change the X-Men like Chris Claremont once did. There will never be an &quot;All-new, All-different&quot; team of X-men because the current team is too profitable. Ditto Daredevil: Frank Miller rescued the character from the B-list (or worse) by redefining him in a way that made him more popular. While lots of people may have written a good Daredevil since then, the nature of the character hasn't really changed. Any changes on a popular book are almost guaranteed to be re-set.

I would diagree. Geoff Johns has had some definative runs at DC. I have a hard time seeing his work on the JSA not be definative. Same for Hawkman. He may even challenge Mark Waid for definative Wally West Flash.

The problem is this, definative runs often happen when I title is revitilized in someway, and Marvel has been unwilling/unable to revitalize characters. So Marvel is struggling to create definative runs. Also, definative runs don't necissarily effect what directly follows. For example, Frank Miller is concidered to be one of Batman's definative writers, when in fact, it was an out of continuity mini-series that defined post-crisis Batman. It's just that the majority of writers since have looked to DKR for how Batman is, it's not what comes directly after, it's the relevance of the run 10 years latter.

[Trotter293]

Despite the recent retcons, Morrison did do some things that will enable his run to be considered definitive. The key change, and something that should prove difficult to undo, is that the team, and Scott in particular, have finally fully inherited Xavier's role. Sure, Xavier's been gone before, but there's a real sense of finality to it this time. Before you always got the sense that the team was always just sort of waiting around for him to get back, but now they seem completely resolved to carry on business without him. The X-Men are no longer students; they are now teachers with students of their own. Even if Magneto is back, the point of Planet X remains the same; the ideological war between Xavier and Magneto has (hopefully) run its course, and now it's time for their students to step up.

[M-Angel]

Great Column..really great
makes you appreciate comics
You dont like the way a comic is turning out?..wait they´ll change the creative team sooner or later and that always gives comics an edge against other types of media.

I mean when a movie has bad writting, it comes out to teathres and it will have bad writting, whereas in comics you can change the writter half way through the proccess and apologize for the bad times.

Take Avengers for example, very few people like Austen´s run..so he´s getting replaced with Bendis who´s definitively gonna make some changes in the way characters act..why? because nothing it´s set in stone in comics, and that´s a reason why I buy them

[Justice Daye]

Originally posted by Ryan Day
Part of that, though, stems from Marvel not particularly caring about what Morrison did. The other part, of course, is that it fizzled out a bit too early.

This doesn't make it any less true. If they want to disregard his run, they can, as they did much of the 90's, as they did with CC's 2nd run and as GM did with Lobdell's run. As GM, himself said, that is the nature of the beast. There really seemt that there will never be any regard to continuity anymore. Why should that cahnge or one writer when it's the same for everyone else whose ever written x-men?

Originally posted by Trotter293
Despite the recent retcons, Morrison did do some things that will enable his run to be considered definitive. The key change, and something that should prove difficult to undo, is that the team, and Scott in particular, have finally fully inherited Xavier's role. Sure, Xavier's been gone before, but there's a real sense of finality to it this time. Before you always got the sense that the team was always just sort of waiting around for him to get back, but now they seem completely resolved to carry on business without him. The X-Men are no longer students; they are now teachers with students of their own. Even if Magneto is back, the point of Planet X remains the same; the ideological war between Xavier and Magneto has (hopefully) run its course, and now it's time for their students to step up.

Actually, the x-men were already teachers. Check out Gen X. He didn't need to bring the school aspect back because the x-men graduated before Chris Claremont's first run started. Definitive means that GM's stories set the style, stage, and tone for these books for the foreseeable future. Marvel knows that isn't very profitable and they're working to have change without drastically overhualing the property. They could be right or they could be worng. urthermore, another thing that would make his x-men run definitive is that future writers would have to want to write their stories like GM and used they techniques he used. Regardless o what I thought o the writing, I know GM is a very unique writer and I have yet to see any write "like" him. People trying to imitate CC was what caused alot of bad stories. However, CC was imitatable to a degree, while GM just isn't. There's no way that he could set the tone for the future of the x-men when someone else would be doing the writing.

I never got the sense that they were waiting around for him at least not in the last 5 years. Besides, GM gave Marvel an "out" for everything he wrote. He left alot unexplained and he made Mags of "Planet X" a Sublime-controlled loon. So, that wasn't him talking or acting. Therefore, it's not set in stone. Bessides that, something would have to happen to set that story apart ro the others and there wasn't, IMO, any really big difference and every other final Magneto story. Every one of those types had Mags raving and pontificating, had an x-man irrevocably changed, and had something to make it seem final. Mags started Asteroid M, got some Acolytes, turned Colossus, and off to live on that Asteroid. Then, he tried to destroy all humans again, snatched out Logan's adamantium, got mind wiped, and was in a coma for years. Then, he triedto kill all humans again, Joseph died, then he got Genosha. Noticing a pattern? The core o all of the final Mags stories have been exactly the same. This is why I siad that GM-ans don't really care so much for the events, but for how GM writes them and what he brings into the story. He basically, during his run, collected the entirety o everything that happened in the x-u in one book. His run was like a condensed x-history. It's that very unique type of voice that, whether I like it or not, can't be recreated. And it would be a disaster if anyone tried.

[Trotter293]

Originally posted by Justice Daye


Actually, the x-men were already teachers. Check out Gen X. He didn't need to bring the school aspect back because the x-men graduated before Chris Claremont's first run started. .

Gen X played the school angle, but the core team wasn't involved and the chain of command still led back to Xavier. And the X-Men may have graduated earlier, but they still just seemed to hang around the mansion taking their marching orders from Chuck.

[Justice Daye]

Originally posted by Trotter293
Gen X played the school angle, but the core team wasn't involved and the chain of command still led back to Xavier. And the X-Men may have graduated earlier, but they still just seemed to hang around the mansion taking their marching orders from Chuck.

The chain of command didn't change until Riot, so they were still going through Xavier. They didn't begin doing what they wanted until...well now.

And, though I don't really agree with the hanging around thing, how did that change under GM? Did they discover Nova and go after her? No. Weren't they standing around when Quire attacked? They were standing around complaining when Emma was shot and when Nova came back from space. You seem to be basing this idea on the only (or biggest) storyline when they tred to do something before the fact, "Planet X." (and maybe The Weapon X storylines. I'm not counting HCT) Other than that, nearly all stories were centered around the mansion. There's no way anyone could be all pro-active, all the time. GM did no better in acheiving such an impossible feat than anyone else.

[dopplegager]

Great article. Marvel has had hundreds of titles so we cant expect to have all the definitve runs listed. Thats a lot of book to read.

What about austins run on anything hahahahahahahhahahaha.

I'm just kidding people.

[Trotter293]

The cutting of ties with Xavier was less the meat of Morrison's run than the destination(it end after all with Scott more or less taking up his mantle) so if a definitive run is something that leaves things significantly changed from how they found them, then I think Morrison's run will end up falling under that heading, but that's just semantics.

And I wasn't saying anything about the X-Men being proactive. All I meant was that regardless of any changes they may have gone through, ultimately the relationship between Xavier and the X-Men remained essentially unchanged, and now at the end of Morrison's run that relationship seems fundamentally altered.

You might say that Morrison's run was less definitive than deconstructive, tearing everything down and laying a new foundation to be built upon. Whether anyone follows through remains to be seen.

[Dylan McKay]

The question is what kind of change is significant. For example, is Byrne a definative F4 writer, or just the definative Sue Storm-Richards writer. Team books seem especially difficult to re-define. And I'm just not sure Morrison re-defined what the X-Men are about.

Frank Miller is the best example of a definative run. He changed what a Daredevil title would be about. Did Morrison change what the X-Men are about? I just don't think so... Lasting ideas, probably, fundamental changes, no.

[Zach Kinkead]

Originally posted by Trotter293
Gen X played the school angle, but the core team wasn't involved So I imagined Beast teaching classes? ;)

[Joel Phillips]

Originally posted by Ryan Day
I'd have a hard time considering either to be &quot;definitive&quot;. Jurgens' Thor seems destined to be forgotten, as the central premise of Thor, Lord of Asgard is untenable in the long term - like Morrison, Jurgens' stories will lack impact.

It's entirely possible (perhap even probable) that you're right. But if Jurgens' run isn't immediately reversed, it would certainly qualify as definitive. The argument could also be made for Morrison's X-Men had it not already begun to be unraveled.

And frankly, it will be a long time before anyone comes between the words &quot;definitive Captain Marvel&quot; and &quot;Jim Starlin.&quot;

Yeah but remember, that's a different Captain Marvel ;) .

Really, it's hard to do anything truly &quot;definitive&quot; these days because of the nature of the industry. Nobody is going to be allowed to change the X-Men like Chris Claremont once did. There will never be an &quot;All-new, All-different&quot; team of X-men because the current team is too profitable. Ditto Daredevil: Frank Miller rescued the character from the B-list (or worse) by redefining him in a way that made him more popular. While lots of people may have written a good Daredevil since then, the nature of the character hasn't really changed. Any changes on a popular book are almost guaranteed to be re-set.

I totally agree, and I think that's why I got tired of superhero comics. I can only read the same story so many times.

[Dylan McKay]

Originally posted by Joel Phillips

I totally agree, and I think that's why I got tired of superhero comics. I can only read the same story so many times.

Off topic, but, Common grounds #5 comes out tommorow, give it a shot...

[David Santee]

Incredible article, Jim. This was your best one yet, and you had set the bar very high with your previous work. This was some of the best analysis of the comic book art form since I read Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics. What he did for the art of a book, your article defined character development. (and I didn't have to pay $25 for the hardcopy version of this article ;))

Regardless if you agree or disagree with what defines a 'definitive run', you have to admit that with this article, Jim has given us another set of tools to analyze and define comic books. As somebody who does that as a hobby, I and every reviewer here at ComiX-Fan owe you a debt of gratitude.

Thank You, Jim.

['zel-J]

Wow, great article!

Here's a thought- as readers we also have "Defining Runs", certain storylines/ creator combinations that remind us of when we first read a comic. These might not fit the criteria of a Definitive Run, but they nonetheless shape how we as readers react to comics in years to come. There may even be folk out there who grow up regarding the present take on Iceman as the "good old days". Isn't that scary!

[Ryan Day]

Originally posted by Nalyd Psycho
I would diagree. Geoff Johns has had some definative runs at DC. I have a hard time seeing his work on the JSA not be definative. Same for Hawkman. He may even challenge Mark Waid for definative Wally West Flash.

Well, I said it was difficult to define characters now, not impossible. Obviously, the B-list characters are always going to be available. The only really successful "defining run" of a popular hero I can think of is Miller's Batman, and that's a character who should have been popular but was stuck in the doldrums. Flash is a perfect example of that: One of the most recognizable characters out there, but what the heck is a Flash story about? I certainly couldn't tell you.


Originally posted by Justice Daye

This doesn't make it any less true. If they want to disregard his run, they can, as they did much of the 90's, as they did with CC's 2nd run and as GM did with Lobdell's run. As GM, himself said, that is the nature of the beast. There really seemt that there will never be any regard to continuity anymore. Why should that cahnge or one writer when it's the same for everyone else whose ever written x-men?

Continuity is kind of irrelevant to the discussion. The details of Miller's Daredevil may be forgotten, ignored or overwritten (Elektra, anybody?), but the fact remains that Frank Miller changed the way Daredevil was written. Just about every Daredevil story of the last 20 years has been a variation on Miller's theme.

In contrast, the X-books seem to be going right back to how they were pre-Morrison. I'm not saying that Morrison is God and Marvel is Evil, or that there's a right or wrong way to do things. It just seems right now that Morrison won't have much of a lasting impact on the books. Maybe the next generation of writers will worship the ground he walks on and try to follow i his footsteps, but that remains to be seen.

Originally posted by Joel Phillips
Yeah but remember, that's a different Captain Marvel ;) .

Nit, meet Pick. Pick, Nit.



I totally agree, and I think that's why I got tired of superhero comics. I can only read the same story so many times.

I don't think it's superhero comics. There are tons of good, interesting and original stories to be told with superheroes. You've just got to move past the big sellers. Just about all the major, status quo changing runs happen on books that don't sell very well, and have nothing to lose. Claremont wrote X-Men after it had been cancelled. Swamp Thing was on the verge of cancellation when Alan Moore took over. Daredevil was a pale Spider-Man imitation before Frank Miller. Your own example of Captain Marvel fits, too: Peter David could do whatever he wanted with the character because nobody really cared.

[Troy Hickman]

Originally posted by Nalyd Psycho


Off topic, but, Common grounds #5 comes out tommorow, give it a shot...

I love ya, Psycho...:)

And yes, if you want something (hopefully) a little different in your superhero comics, check out Common Grounds #5 (and #1-4 are still available as well). End of cheap plug...

Troy

[KenB3]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned that Ennis has the definitive Punisher run. I mean, come on, the character had gotten so bad under Ennis and then he successfully made him interesting and got to the core of Frank Castle. I can't imagine changing it after this.

Morrison's run on X-Men is a tough one to call. I seriously doubt we'll see crappy characters like Beak ten years from now (hell, even ten issues from now.) Magneto is back, Jean will be back, and they already have costumes again. But on the other hand, he made them a lot more of a school, Emma and Scott will probably stay together, and he did help shake things up a little. Probably influential but not definitive is how I'd go.

[Patrick James]

Originally posted by 'zel-J
There may even be folk out there who grow up regarding the present take on Iceman as the &quot;good old days&quot;. Isn't that scary!

Ah, bite your tongue! Let us hope this atrocity never comes to pass:cross:

[Jon Hancock]

y'know Grant's X-men run isn't about new costumes, Magneto and Jean dying or new characters. I guess if you think it was I could understand you not liking it. The run is definitive because it gave a new definition to the team. It turned them from "generic super hero team with discrimination issues" into "pro-active equal rights campaigners with educational facilities." Made things a lot more realisitic and a lot more believable.

Magneto and Xorn coming back aren't Morisson's stuff being swept away. For that to happen then New X-Men:Academy X would have to drastically change things. Ideas like the X-Corporation and the place of mutants in the world would have to be removed.

If anything I think that Excalibur, Academy X and Astonishing (not sure about the other two, too early to tell) are continuing the roles that Grant placed on the X-ers. Pro-active educators who are concerned about equal rights.

['zel-J]

Originally posted by Patrick James

Ah, bite your tongue! Let us hope this atrocity never comes to pass:cross:

Oww--*%$# that hurt (spits out blood, sucks ice cube...)
Well, I think its our duty to make sure the young'uns get a proper ed-yew-kay-shun and learn what Iceman is really like. I for one have fond memories from my childhood...