Quote:
Originally Posted by Northcott
My feeling is that the iconic nature of a character has little to do with exposure: a character can be created in very iconic format and be little known. Utilizing the hidden language that creates that type of character, however, can result in a much stronger presence.
People need to see the character to recognize him. Take the TV shows of Icon, America Icon and their ilk...they're trying to make someone a superstar, in a recognizable, celebrity way. There is the Icon of the strong brave hero who can fly above the masses. Throw a flag on their costume, and the iconic stature on sight increases.
Quote:
It's my contention that it is precisely that, the utilization of that unspoken language, that allowed for Alpha's initial explosion of popularity. They had the combination of archetypical personalities and abilities, combined with the more iconic elements of visual design, to automatically launch the characters into icon status. I believe this holds true for every member (or nearly every member) of the original team.
That's pretty much a mirror to my thoughts. Characters that serve as a focal point, a solid lynchpin for a story, often pale in comparisson to other characters in the story: a character that transcends heroic to become larger than life may inspire others, but invariably leaves the audience somewhat distant. Secondary characters are the perfect solution to this: you can get more milage in exploring a story with them, play with more flaws, and take more risks in having them likeable -- which automatically means they'll be hated by some.
The visual is a major part of iconic status, not only in comics, but in other media. But the characters must be presented storywise to be iconic. You consider Batman iconic by the mold of being the strong smart brave central hero, and I think the visual and story of him having a smaller helper does add to that. Spider-Man and Wolverine are often considered iconic in a popular sense, but in broader traditional standards that transcend the comic genre of icon standards, they are not, because they are not also archetypes. They are icons because of exposure. If Heather was clearly seen as team leader in the Guardian battlesuit in most other outlets such as the 'Repo Man' cartoon, she would reach the iconic standard. The character seems not allowed to fill that role by Marvel's Powers That Be.
We cite Wonder Woman as iconic. She is, in the warrior woman archetype. By the archtype, Shanna the She-Devil and Red Sonja are also archetype...but they lack the popularity and instant recognition as a character to be ICONIC to the general population.
If you think she cannot do that, blame goes to the writer for not writing her in the strong smart brave mold. She usually has been written in that way, and without crossing the line to make her seem threatening to insecure males.
If she has the visual depiction and the proper writing and the exposure that leads to recognition, there is no reason she cannot be ICONIC. But because she is a warrior woman whose power stems from technological means, she is far less archetypical.
Quote:
I think that there's a reason for that. As you've pointed out, Heather's had more face time in the comics. By the logic of exposure, as you've pointed out above, she should undoubtedly be perceived as the more iconic, and so more used, if these theories hold true. Yet every time Alpha merchandise or guest appearances pop up...
Yes, also by the powers that be. There have been merchandise and appearances of Heather as Guardian from time to time. But the powers that be at Marvel seem to dictate Alpha Fliht in OTHER appearances and forms (YET NEVER IN THEIR OWN SERIES!!) be the team from V1#1 (usually minus Marinna), and most other merchandise seems stemmed from this single source. That's laziness or being cheap with the research time, all corporate decisions that do more to detract from Heather by her typical absence than to truly boost Mac.
Quote:
Superheroes find a way to circumvent the two choices, finding a better, third path that a normal hero cannot achieve. Spiderman doesn't let MJ or the cable trolley drop -- he saves them both. Superman doesn't surrender the alien refugee, nor does he allow the earth to be destroyed.
Unlike Alpha, Spider-Man and Superman never had Bill Mantlo writing them with the agenda of specifically tearing down the original version and creating something of his own in its place. Snowbird did not die as part of her characterization, and Heather was not the killer as part of Heather's characterization. Snowbird died strictly as a plot device to eliminate one of the Byrne characters and as means of bringing back Alpha's most recognizatble and generally most popular character--A Sasquatch, but this one white, so it would be known NOT to be the same Byrne character.
In good serial form, Mac's death drove the story for a time. Snowbird's did not drive the story, it simply allowed the immediate return of Mantlo's Sasquatch.
Quote:
Some people, irredeemable cynics imho ;) , claim that the superhero genre is nothing more than an adolescent power fantasy gone on too long. I think this is utter tripe. The genre isn't a power fantasy: the fantasy is altruism, and the dream of a better world. Power is just the fantastic vehicle by which the fantasy is lived out. (the comics of the 90's being an exception)
The superhero genre is more than one thing, and power fantasy IS a part of it. The fantastic sense of wonder is the science fictional element. A good recent example is Bruce Jones' run on the Hulk. Some of the stories were quite good, even tho I personally believes it was written too much as trade and left entire-issue gaps without seeing the hero in true action. But what hurt the title during his run is that the Hulk is the ultimate power fantasy, and when that element is removed from the Hulk, the character and title are just not the same. I respond to the cynics' highbrow disdain of power fantasies not as that they are wrong, but that the genre is so much MORE. I usually loan out AF V1#1, AF V1#7-8, a trade of Kraven's Last Hunt and X-Men #183 as examples. None are without power fantasies, but all have SOOOOOOOO much more.
Quote:
The key to superheroes is that they succeed where normal people would fail. Where they come back down to earth, become mortals again, is in their personal lives. When the two mix, they are stripped of potency.
Such as Heather crying over the death of Snowbird and her family...Heather removed the mask. She did not cry as Vindicator, she cried as Heather Hudson.
Quote:
She has the spirit, but not the ability. Mac has both. While it might be argued that Heather's had more face time in the comics, it could also be argued that Mac has had little time where he hasn't been used as a ham-fisted plot device. He's more iconic, but lacks proper development.
You seem to rely solely on the "iconic" element. We are talking role of a hero, not fixing the suit...How does Heather lack the ability, Ed?
Quote:
Which is kind of funny, 'cause I always really liked Captain America and Superman as well. :) Hell, Superman's my favourite character, and my dream job.
I've always found Superman extremely boring, even when written by top creators. Cap can be far more appealing, when he is being handled by a good writer and being presented as something other than a one-dimensional archetype. Cap is also a good lesson in some of the differences between archetype and icon status too. Can you picture Cap without his shield? The shield serves the archtype role as strong smart brave warrior. As a visual icon, the shield is as an important facet of the character as the colors. But there's some very subliminal propaganda in it to depict America as defender rather than oppressor. Cap as an icon is seen very differently outside North America, and that is based solely on visual, not literary convention.
Quote:
That's how many of the older heroes worked, and in recent attempts to bring them to television or movies, the most successful attempts have utilized the same (or similar) principles. Wolverine's the insanely popular one, but where would the story be going without Xavier's compassion and cool reasoning? Spider-Man's the hero, Parker's the perpetual hard-luck case, but we see the most dramatic character elements in Harry, MJ, and the villains.
Except for the bond between Pete and May, the failure of his powers due to his self doubt, the sacrifices he was enduring in being hard luck because he was Spider-Man...wow, and there's more, just from the second movie. Sorry Ed, I think you're wrong there, and I think it has to do with Spider-Man being an iconic character only in the popular cultural sense, but not in an archetypical sense. If you had used Superman in that example from the 1970's movies, you'd be dead-on, because Superman is iconic both senses of the term.
Quote:
So should the day come that I get a crack at this dream project, and I'm doing something that has the lot of you rolling your eyes, you'll know I'm aiming for the target that's lead to longevity and strength for other franchises. :)
No fault to the ambition, but geez Ed, that sounds DANGEROUSLY like Scott Lobdell. Aim to tell good stories for the characters on your plate and let the franchises worry about themselves. Claremont and Byrne's X-Men was not being written to support or build a franchise, a franchise was built because they concentrated on the stories they were writing and did spectacular work.