Ok these thoughts have been percolating in my head and i though this would be a good forum for a little exchange/debate.

I am 29 years old so my first real exposure to comics was in the mid 80s...the era where grim and gritty started to manifest. Dark knight was my first Batman tale followed by year one, the death of robin,Killing joke,etc..Punisher, Xmen, Wolverine,etc..

I think this predisposed me to tales like Identity crisis...which although i find shocking I do not feel the outrage that certain other posters here do (im not talking about good/bad storyspecifics on Icrisis..just an example)...and it made me wonder is it because certain readers grew up reading more silver age tales or inncoent superhero storytelling and that these tales are too much of a break with that period..?

Again Im not talking in absolutes...Spiderman for instance is a character that I have an innocent attachment to due to the cartoon from when I was a toddler..so I haet gritty stories featuring spidey...but when it comes to Batman...he's always been the dark knight to me..not that smiley faced guy who fought aline and imps...!

So do you think its a generational thing??

Discuss...

I think it's less generational than developmental. These days people in their 20s are less likely to have children of comics reading age -- that comes in the 30s and 40s. When your kids can't read comics with Superman and the Flash in them because the books contain graphic sex and violence and foul language, you become more angry about the end of the innocence.

There is a generational aspect to comics. For instance, "comics" fall into an innocent role for me, altogether, where certain characters are apparently more innocent to you. Certain BOOKS are allowed to be "mature", like Watchmen, Swamp Thing, Miracleman and Astro City, but dragging the icons I knew of as pieces of my youth, kicking and screaming into so-called "maturity" isn't right.

Mah opinion

James - i agree with you - thats the way i feel about Spidey because the spidey I was exposed to as a youth was always a wise cracking kid with troubles art home...the spidey comics of the 90s made me want to puke..(he actually hit Mary Jane in one issue...i kid you not) .

I also beleive that certain icons should remain for kids...Superman, Flash, etc...maybe a separate vertigo line for more mature takes...there should be a plethora of "clean" comics for all ages...

But I also like new concepts that are more mature and appeal to 20somethings like me: Bloodhound, Losers, human target, swamp thing, etc...

But say someone who started reading comics..in say the 90s...I dont think he/she would have any sentimental attachment to silver age/innocent stories...or is it universal..?

Peter....hit.....Mary Jane.......

It was in a 90s comic...part of the clone mess...it was when the powers at be wanted to get rid of Peter and make him a jerk so readers would love Ben Reilly...

he backhands her....! It was sick....(even though it was played as an accident)...

if you go to the spiderfan website...its #1 in the top 20 worst spidey moments EVER!

I think it would behoove the comic book industry to take a que from the tobacco industry: target kids. Get 'em while they're young.

They are making strives toward this with the establishment of the Marvel Age and Johnny DC lines, but that may be going to an extreme, I think. At this rate, you will either have "mature" comics or really, really juvenile comics and no middle-ground (which is what the regular MU should be, IMO).

Good point Darren - its hard to find middle ground comics (in the 80s i was mostly middle ground comics)...most of the books I enjoy are not for kids...

Lets see: ultimate Spidey, Amazing spidey, Captain Ameirca, Iron Man, Superman, JSA, JLA...thats about it...even the Bat titles are pretty brutal...and most marvel titles are getting racy...

But maybe younger kids today are less sensitive...I mean in teen titans (penned by Johns) the Ravager gouges out her own eye...Youch...thats pretty brutal..not for kids in my opinion...or are kids more desenstized that we think???

I felt like The Authority was just WRONG when I first read it, and it does flirt very closely with some fairly identifiable archetypes. However, upon reflection, I realised I'd rather have whomever do what they will with those guys than to have them destroy, say, Spiderman, or Wonder Woman.
Oh, and "Darren" does not equal "Darin".

Darren (and I thought John was a common name:) - see I thought the initial 12 issues of the AUTHORITY was brilliant because it used new characters...which is the opposite of what DC is doing now with garbage like JLElite...

I find that mature/violent themes are ok as long as we dont use majorly recognizable characters...and again I beleive its because growing up in the 80s I was exposed to this type of storytelling and I connect comics to that...as opposed to someone who grew up a decade before me...

or is it just me...??

No, I agree with that entirely! If I come along and want to do porn comics, thats great! But if I want to do porn comics with...uhh...The Blonde Phantom, thats different. When I went back to The Authority, and read it with that in mind...that they hadn't abominomalized any characters, it was cool!

I basically agree with you John (although not about ID Crisis). I'm only 3 years older than you, so I guess we're in the same generation. But I've been busy going back & forth between here & 3 other boards today, so I haven't had time to give this topic as much thought as it needs. I'll try to give a more detailed response here before the weekends over. I am interested in seeing how this turns out, since we do have some "older" members here, so I can guess that we'll have some varied opinons by next week. And Melissa's several years younger than us, I believe, so I wonder how her views differ from ours.

Jr -looking forward to your reply - and to some feedback from Linda, melissa and the others...

Anotehr point I wanted to bring up: some iconic characters to people who startede reading in the 80s vary wildly from their silver age versions: ie: batmna and Batgirl...

I never read about Batgirl...I always knew her as Oracle...and the Batman I know was always pretty grim...so these versions to me (which are horrible to others) are the "normal" versions...as an aside I like the babs Gordon batgirl more than the new version...but I got to "know" her in the Dini/Timm cartoon and the excellent Dixon year one mini...

Its funny how the default mode for a character may change depending on your first impression of him/her...to some readers Tim drake has always been Robin!!

"abominomalized"?

The Lexicon grows....

To illustrate the generation gap somewhat (and I'm only a few years older than you, John), to me the origin of Superman can be found in Action Comics #500 and the origin of Batman is best portrayed in The Untold Legend of the Batman. Not Man of Steel or Year One, both of which, while excellent in some respects (Year One, in particular), made far too many arbitrary and unnecessary changes to the characters.

I'm with you on BATMAN: YEAR ONE, but what "arbitrary and unnecessary changes" do you feel were made in MAN OF STEEL?

That one was created JUST for this usage.

IMO, one of the things MOS did (and I'm not saying that this is a good or a bad thing) was that it changed the nature of Superman's relationship with Clark Kent. Before MOS, Superman was who he was and Clark was the disguise... even in terms of personality. After MOS, the Clark identity seemed to be more "who he was." Superman even "said" something to this effect in the last issue of MOS, as I recall.

Personally, I like both versions. As long as Superman isn't corrupted and/or doesn't lose his good, heroic qualities...

Edited to add: The thing I liked most about the MOS Superman was that he wasn't as strong/powerful as the Pre-Crisis version. The idea that there were guys and gals out there who could match him was kinda cool to me.

Scot & Frank - interesting..see for me Batman Year one is THE origin..in fact my first bat book was just a few months before..issue 400...so anything else just dosent click with me...

Now imagine some kid who picked up his first bat book in the 90s...to him someone like Azrael was Batman, bane is a major leaugue villain and there is no batgirl just oracle...now were these changes unecessary..? hard to say if new readers accepted them as gospel...even though it contradicts our own memories/nostalgia...

"I'm with you on BATMAN: YEAR ONE, but what 'arbitrary and unnecessary changes' do you feel were made in MAN OF STEEL?"

Several. First, there was the needless change that eliminated Superboy from the mythos. For fans of the Superboy character and especially of the Legion of Super-Heroes, like myself, this had the effect of invalidating hundreds if not thousands of previous stories. The explanation Byrne invented to explain this away was far too contrived to work. Even Byrne himself later stated that he wished he had kept Superboy, and he should have.

Also, I disagreed with some elements of the philosophy underpinning the re-boot. The notion that Superman would disdain his Kryptonian heritage never sat well with me. It just doesn't work. According to Byrne, every time Superman said "Great Krypton!" and "Rao!" he was spitting in the Kents's eye. Nonsense. The character had never been written that way; even in the afore-mentioned Action #500, Superman grows quite emotional when he reminisces about his years in Smallville and his love for the Kents. I can think of multiple other stories that center on Superman's feelings for his adoptive parents. Moreover, it's perfectly natural for Superman to embrace his Kryptonian background, and this helped to enrich the character. Besides, why eliminate when you can just de-emphasize it? That's exactly what Byrne did in Fantastic Four when he took out all references to Reed and Ben serving in World War II and it worked perfectly.

There's other points to be made, but I think you get the gist of it. I love Byrne's artwork on Superman, by the way; I think it's some of the best of his career. But his take on the character struck me as a bit too heavy-handed.

"Scot & Frank - interesting..see for me Batman Year one is THE origin..in fact my first bat book was just a few months before..issue 400...so anything else just dosent click with me... "

As I alluded to earlier, I think YEAR ONE is brilliant in many ways, but I disliked making Catwoman a prostitute, and I never understood how Barbara Gordon could exist given that Commissioner Gordon's child was a son and no mention of an older daughter was ever made.

Scot, they did a retcon for Batgirl in Secret Origins soon after Year One was published. She became Gordon's niece, adopted by him after her parents died in an accident. After he divorced, Barbara remained with him. This has rarely been referred to since, but I believe it's still the "official" explanation. I don't care for it myself, and felt it wasn't necessary for Miller to omit the existence of Barbara from Year One in the first place.