The heroes are timeless?
Real Time is not a threat to the timeless heroes. Marvel publishes several distinct universes: classic, Ultimates, Marvel Adventures, and many others. I am simply asking for one to be in real time. Only one. Give us a choice.
"These are timeless, legendary characters, time is unimportant"
Read the legends of Heracles or Odysseus or Thor, the archetypal heroes. They grow, they change, they get old and they die. The gods will die at Ragnarok. Oddyseus died at the hands of Telegonus, his son with Circe. Heracles dies from the hydra's blood on Nessa's tunic. Genuine timeless legendary characters change, grow old, and even die! Also, the Greek legends are tied to specific dates and places (in particular the sacking of Troy in 1184 BC)
"Heroes would grow old!"
No they would not. This has been well established in the comics. Except for a minority of characters (e.g. Dr Strange) who can age without dying.
"It is selfish to stop young readers discovering our favorites."
It is selfish to deny them a choice. New readers should be offered BOTH Marvel Time and real time.
"Marvel's legal guys will not allow changes to their properties."
They allowed the Zombie universe, the 2099 universe, the 1602 universe, the various "last X story" and "the end" stories about their deaths or retirements, and various stories set in the future. A real time comic would be no different. The regular books would be untouched.
Nobody wants Real Time?
Some of the most popular and best selling comics of all embrace real time. Clearly somebody wants it.
"Many people don't want this!"
Real time comics would not replace other comics. The 'Ultimates' line has proven that two different versions of a title can run in parallel.
"It would destroy the status quo!"
Marvel Time destroys the status quo of successful comics, which is character development, realism, and danger. Marvel Time created a new status quo of stagnant characters, irrelevance, and safety. Real Time would return the original status quo - dynamism!
"TV series (etc.) succeed by giving only the illusion of change"
TV series have real change. Soap opera characters age. Other shows only last a few years at most.
“I don’t want realism, I want escapism.”
The most successful escapist fiction has a strong connection with the real world. That makes the escapist parts even more exciting.
“The fans want nostalgia”
Most fans grew bored with comics long ago and left. The only ones left are those who don't like change.
"Timeless superheroes outsell other kinds of comics."
No, manga outsells superheroes, and superheroes have been in terminal decline for thirty years, despite huge brand recognition and high profile movies.
"Apart from manga, superheroes outsell real time stuff."
Real Time superheroes sold even better. But I agree that there will always be a market for timeless hero comics. We need both kinds.
Real Time creates problems?
"The characters would become unrecognizable"
As we saw in the 1998 Fantastic Four annual, or "Fantastic Four: The End", the characters do not become unrecognizable, even after many decades.
"The real time stories would be too serious"
The opposite is true: compare the 1960s Real Time comics with their present versions.
"We cannot generate good new characters at this rate"
Comics have no trouble generating great new characters when they inject real time.
"A real time universe would still repeat stories"
All media repeat story ideas, but individual characters develop. That's a big difference.
It would create a mess of continuity?
The opposite is true. Messy continuity is caused by Marvel Time's retcons and the inability to tie events to years. Nobody ever gets confused by real time. Do you get the real 1960s confused with the real 1990s? No, because major events only happen once, there is logical causality, and every event has a clear date.
"Modern uncompressed stories need more time to tell a story"
The old, more detailed stories sold more. But if you want uncompressed stories then just have more pages. It works for manga.
"Real time can be too constricting"
The opposite is true: Marvel Time prevents any stories that involve real change. Real Time has no such restrictions.
"Real time forces one month per month"
Not true. Real time simply means events can be dated, but the stories can be told at any pace. Sherlock Holmes is a perfect example of this: the stories often refer to real dates, but are not told in any strict order.
“Let the independents try it, why should Marvel take risks?”
Independents and other companies have already proven that real time comics work. But Marvel has a bigger opportunity because of its huge stable of characters who are going nowhere
Real Time is irrelevant to good stories?
"You just don't like comics. You outgrew them."
Why should people grow out of comics? They don't grow out of movies or TV or books or other forms of entertainment. Only comics insist on repeating the same youthful formula, and only comics lose most of their readers when the readers get older. Why throw away half your readers? It does not have to be that way.
"We don't need real time, we just need better writing"
And how do you guarantee good writing? The best stories have more real-time elements
"Poor sales have little to do with the stories, it's the fault of video and the Internet"
Manga thrives in the same environment.
"Manga thrives without Real Time."
The typical manga is far closer to Real Time than the typical western comic. Here's a quote I used elsewhere on this site, from 'An Introduction to Manga:'
"Manga stay fresh and vibrant because they have to keep on finding new authors and winning over readers. Unlike in America, where Spider-Man or Superman are still wearing their underpants outside their trousers after forty, or sixty, years, in Japan not every successful series has to last forever. Manga engage you because they chart the lives and growth of characters and do actually come to a conclusion. It may take thousands of pages, but you can see genuine change going on, not just the 'illusion of change' found in most superhero soap operas."
"James Bond doesn't need real time"
James Bond has more real time than modern Marvel. You can watch any Bond movie and identify the exact period when it was made. That's half the enjoyment of watching the old DVDs! You can read the books and see references to real world places, dates, and people (David Niven appears twice!) But real time is less important for Bond because there are several years between each instalment so we can view each one as a new start. That is not true with a monthly comicbook serial.
"Tarzan doesn't need real time"
Tarzan is the exception that proves the rule. He is an idealized archetype, a black and white hero in a world of serpents, monsters and evil priests. He only works because he is entirely separate from mundane reality. Pallavi Mogre explained that Tarzan'a Africa is nothing like the real Africa, his world is nothing like the real world, it is a distant dream world:
"The basic appeal of Tarzan lies in the fact that Burroughs, a ‘master dreamer’, provides an alternative Utopia that we can inhabit. Tarzan’s world is an Eden that no serpent can invade (and if it is indeed invaded, Tarzan always overcomes), an Elysium that is idyllic and tranquil in spite of the action. To cut a long story short, an environment that one can dominate completely."
The only characters who can avoid time are the gods and archetypes who exist outside any world that we might recognize.
"The Simpsons don't need real time."
The Simpsons is a comedy, not a drama. Drama has serious consequences, comedy does not. That's the whole point.
Yet even the Simpsons has more real time than modern Marvel. Each episode is full of familiar mundane landscapes and ordinary people. The stories are nearly all based on real world events or movies. And when someone important dies they stay dead.
"Some stories succeed without any real time elements."
Can you name any? Any highly successful continuing stories that lack real time references?
"If you want change then keep changing comics."
That destroys the reader's relationship with the characters.
Marvel was never Real Time in the 1960s?
“Stan Lee was the one who invented Real Time"
This is quite true. He invented Marvel Time precisely because Real Time stories were moving so fast. The evidence speaks for itself. The quality of stories then began to decline and sales stopped rising, but the slow death has been stretched out for forty (mostly profitable) years, so I guess Marvel Time did its job.
“Marvel characters did not change much in the 1960s"
Read the comics. What happened to the High School kid Human Torch? Or the skinny high school Peter Parker who never dated? Or the gentle, animal loving Hulk? Or the angry Thing? Or Sergeant Fury and his howling Commandos? Grown up and changed. And readers loved it!
“Superheroes were never supposed to make sense”
Then why did those early Marvels publish pages on how powers work? And cutaway diagrams of the Baxter Building? Why did the heroes have weaknesses? Because it added to the realism. Realism matters.
Modern comics still have references to current events
Yes, but not very many, and they are shallow. In the 1960s (and sometimes as far as the mid 1970s) the references were more frequent and more direct. Take this panel from Hulk 159 (below). Can you imagine a modern Marvel comic being so relevant and up to date?
Comics and reality don't mix?
"How could 9/11 fit into a comic world where cities are destroyed every week?" ... "How could human governments operate when superheroes can defeat their armies?"
Stan Lee and Jack Kirby showed how comics and reality can mix.
"Superheroes use violence as entertainment. It is very bad taste to mix real news of real violence."
Is it bad taste to ever make a World War II movie? Is it bad taste to ever write a western? Violence exists, and it can be presented without it being in bad taste.
"Comics turn real people into two dimensional parodies"
Yes, comics simplify matters. So do books. So do news reports. Simplification does not have to be a bad thing. We can have good comics as well as bad comics. Should we ban all books because most books are shallow?
"Superheroes would risk changing history - e.g. defeating Hitler early"
Comics include parallel worlds and "what if" stories, so there is plenty of room for a quickly defeated Hitler, a never defeated Hitler, a reformed Hitler, and many other interesting stories.
"What if" stories can make us think. Imagine a story printed at the start of the 1991 Gulf War, where a modestly powered hero killed Saddam Hussein. The story might go on to show Iraq as a flowering democracy. Or it might show Iraq descending into chaos. Those could be very interesting stories.
"We tried it and it didn't work."
After all the successes, some people point to a small number of apparent failures:
The 'New Universe' 1986
The 'New Universe' was not a real time series, though it was intended to be:
1. It didn't last long enough for time passing to matter.
2. It was unrealistic right from the start.
The whole premise was an unrealistic event: The White Event. The premise of "the world outside your window" was entirely destroyed, literally in a great blinding flash.
In contrast, early Marvel heroes has completely realistic origins for the time: like radiation and transistors. Marvel heroes gradually appeared over several years, each with their believable back story - far more believable than the New Universe's big deus ex machina.
The White Event set the tone for the unreality that followed: Justice had a fairy tale-like dimension of origin. Starbrand's had aliens. yes, so did early Marvel, but these were froma tradition of aliens that were (in the 1950s and early 1960s) written to be entirely believable. Spitfire had much better than state of the art technology. In contrast, Iron Man's early armor was slow, clunky, and believable, then gradually evolved. Even the Kickers football team was imaginery.
Some of these unrealities (e.g. Justice and Starbrand) were later explained away, but wrre then replaced with even worse unreality - like blowing up Pittsburgh and having the president be an alien!
Great comics are believable. The New Universe never was.
And Valiant?
A similar suicidal tendency was seen in Valiant comics. At first they appear to be the perfect real time comics:
"It was the first company to attempt to follow a real-world timeline, where events in the comics occurred at the pace similar to their publication schedule. The company writers adhered to real-world science as much as they possibly could." (Wikipedia,"Valiant")
Sounds perfect! yet the brilliant concept is fatally undermined in almost the next sentence:
"The Valiant Universe was created by Solar as the result of his attempt to recreate his universe after he accidentally destroyed it. As a result, a universe similar to his own emerged." (Wikipedia,"Valiant")
All that effort to create realism, then they destroy it by saying "it's not your world." What were they thinking? Still, the limited realism resulted in good sales. Until Valiant was bought by Acclaim in 1994. They moved away from real science to science fiction. Sales suffered, and by 1999 most of the line had been cancelled. (Wikipedia, "Valiant")
And Defiant? And Broadway?
After being forced from Valiant, Shooter tried two more attempts at real time comics companies, Defiant and Broadway, both "taking place in real time and the characters were most likely not to wear a superhero uniform." (Wikipedia, "Broadway_comics"). Both companies were quickly destroyed by circumstances beyond their control.
Defiant collapsed because it was sued by Marvel. Defiant's flagship title was called "Plasm." Marvel claimed that this was too close to a British Marvel title called "Plasmer." Clearly this was nonsense. Almost nobody in America had geard of Plasmer. I live in Britain and I had never heard of it. The courts agreed, and ruled in favor of Defiant. But by then it had cost $300,000 in legal fees and so Defiant went bankrupt.
"Broadway Comics was started by Jim Shooter in 1995, right after his last company, Defiant, had folded. The company was a division of Broadway Video Entertainment with Jim Shooter as co-owner of the characters. In 1996 Broadway Video Entertainment was sold to Golden Books, which then promptly went bankrupt. The year 1996 being one of the worst years for the comic book industry, the company was closed before it had a chance to start, just like a number of other new comic book companies." - http://www.shooterswork.com/broadway.htm
And Spider-Girl?
Sometimes Tom Brevoort (one of the top gues at Marvel) is asked why they don't do more real time comics. He usually points to Spider-girl as evidence that real time doesn't sell.
Spider-Girl is not a real time comic in any meaningful way.
Spider-girl lasted for 100 issues, just over seven years, and the teenage Spider-girl did not noticably age. Spider-girl is set in the future and barely references time at all. How is that realistic? The whole purpose of real time is to anchor a character in the reader's world, not to go far away "what if" then ignore it.
More often, Spider-Girl is used as evidence that fans do not want to see "what happens next." This is disingenuous, as Spider-Girl is specifically stated to be not in continuity, so is specifically not "what happens next."
The case against Real Time comics
"Heroes would get old?"
Some of the greatest stories in history involve people who get old: Sherlock Holmes, Les Miserables, War and Peace, the Bible...
Some of the most popular comic heroes are very old: Wolverine, Magneto, Nick Fury, Thor, etc.
Real time superheroes would not look old:
Real time heroes are realistic heroes. Be realistic: in a world of super technology every heroe would find aways to rejuvinate, because the safety of the world depends on them beng fit.
For example, in Alan Moore's "Fantastic Four: The End" Mr Fantastic invented "The Methuselah Treatment" and all the heroes are a hundred years older, but look exactly the same.
Real time superheroes would not act old:
In Real Time, death is permanent. Danger is real. Actions have consequences. It's dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. Slow and tired superheroes would not last five minutes.
You're only as old as you feel, so a superhero always feel young.
Real time superheroes would seem younger than timeless heroes.
Real Time heroes are more in touch with the real world, so they seem more alive, more relevant. Just compare Marvel and DC in the 1960s, or the X-Men and other comics in the 1970s, or manga with western comics.
The best comics have a mix of all ages
Back in the 1960s, when the comics were at their best, they were PACKED with old folks, taking today's definition of "old" - over thirty! I'm a fan of the Fantastic Four, so let's take a look at the series that started it all...
Having children does NOT make most heroes settle down
Superheroes are supposedly modelled on the Greek gods and heroes, and those people NEVER put their kids first. Zeus and Cronus regularly killed any children who may become a threat. Odysseus spent ten years having adventures while his wife was left to cope at home.
I wonder, would a superhero really let the whole world die in order to save his own one child? Would that be a moral choice?
This dilemma should really appeal to the supposed target audience for comics (15-25 year old males) . Do you stay at home and be a good member of the family, or do you find your place in the wider world? Young kids present readers with just this dilemma. Young kids are thus a good story engine, as long as they continue to develop in real time so the dilemmas never become boring.
Use old heroes to attract new young readers?
Finally, an interesting point of view (what do you mean, "for a change" ?):
"Marvel seemed to have no idea where a good sized portion of its "Next Generation" of Spidey fans was going to come from. ... the idea that your casual 6-12 year old boy is simply going to walk into a comics store and pick up Spidey out of the blue and become a lifelong fan (or at least until he discovers puberty) is getting more remote all the time - particularly with comics at $3 a pop these days. Wouldn't you think that the best chance of having a love of Spidey passed down to another generation is to keep us old fogies happy with the comic so that we loop our kids into it? Isn't part of the reason the Star Trek phenomenon has successfully migrated across the decades (attempts to kill it with Voyager and Enterprise notwithstanding) is that parents have passed a love of the show down to their offspring."