Network: 
Of course, not all of those things were good, and there's plenty of stuff in the world of comics that we're willing to say goodbye to as a new beginning approaches. Whether it's tropes that have been run into the ground, convenient plot tricks that won't stay out of otherwise good stories, or just the stuff we're plain sick of, we've gotten ComicsAlliance contributor and noted haterologist Chris Sims to offer up his five picks for the trends in comics from the past decade we're hoping we don't see in 2010! But before we go on, a quick Spoiler Warning! Some of what we talk about references recent events, so read at your own risk!
Forced Overcharacterization
Even more than their powers, every super-hero needs to have something in their character that defines them. Superman's not just a guy who can fly and shoot death rays out of his eyes, he's a guy who wants nothing other than to use those powers to help his fellow man, and Spider-Man's wall-crawling, web-swinging action wouldn't draw as many readers as it has without the sense of responsibility that comes along with them. And that's as it should be, characters need... well, character if they're going to succeed.
The problem comes when creators decide it's a good idea to hammer completely unnecessary elements onto their characters that come out of nowhere. Specifically, we're thinking of recent events like the Blackest Night tie-ins of "Green Lantern Corps," where Kyle Rayner and Soranik Natu love each other so hard that it literally brings Kyle back to life.
The problem comes when creators decide it's a good idea to hammer completely unnecessary elements onto their characters that come out of nowhere. Specifically, we're thinking of recent events like the Blackest Night tie-ins of "Green Lantern Corps," where Kyle Rayner and Soranik Natu love each other so hard that it literally brings Kyle back to life.
On the surface, that's not much weirder than the idea of a team of aliens with magic green wishing rings battling zombies in outer spaaaaaaaace, and if it was just a matter of Soranik (who is already a gifted surgeon) using the famous willpower of the Green Lanterns to do it, it'd be a great moment, but when the power of the rings is mixed in with the power of love and the Care Bear Stare or whatever else is going on in "Blackest Night," it rings a little false.
Is the love of Kyle Rayner and Soranik Natu really the love that can conquer death itself? Of all the people in the universe, they've got the strongest love of all time? And by the same token, what was it about Spider-Man's marriage that Mephisto wanted so badly? Was the goodness and purity of the union between a model/actress who spent most of her time wondering if she should break it off and a hard-luck hero who kept wishing his college girlfriend hadn't taken a header off a bridge really that much of an affront to the Devil? Heck, you'd think he'd want Peter and MJ to be miserable.
Look at it this way: Every member of the G.I. Joe team has the same basic skills, but Snow Job doesn't need to be an expert scuba diver, and Torpedo doesn't need to strap on the skis for Arctic adventure. Everyone fills a role, and while it's good to branch out, it's a lot better when it happens as an organic development of the character rather than the fickle whim of a plothammer.
Everything Must Be Explained
Rifle through any given Siver Age Superman or Batman comic, and chances are you're going to find a story that explains, in exact, excruciating detail, the tiniest detail of those characters, from who makes Batman's shoes to why Clark Kent wears a wristwatch, and while we love Silver Age stories, they're great in spite of the slavish devotion and attention to minutiae.
And yet, the same thing's coming back around and happening again: Power Girl can't just wear her costume because either she likes it (or because Wally Wood liked it, if you want to get all meta about it), she has to have lengthy, often tear-filled explanations of why that serves the same function as a fifty foot-tall neon sign reading "IGNORE THIS." Barry Allen can't just be a nerd who wears a bow-tie, he's got to have some sort of character-defining sentimental reason to wear the bow-tie, as though there are aspects of his character that can only be explained by what he wears when he's not doing the things that actually do reveal his character. And Hal Jordan, of course, had gray hair because of a giant yellow space bug made of scary thoughts.
There's nothing wrong with detail, and in fact, making sure characters have reasons for the things they do is a step that can lead to some pretty awful comics if it's overlooked, but when you're attaching false significance to things that were never meant to have them, then it's just another example of overcompensating for the inherent strangeness of super-heroes with an overbearing, ham-handed seriousness. Did Spider-Man really need to have totemic spider-powers? Was the idea of a radioactive spider giving someone the power to stick to walls really too silly for the Core Marvel Universe? No, and thankfully, that was done away with. Now if only we could get the rest of that stuff out of the way.
And for the record, Superman's wristwatch contains a chunk of Kryptonite that he can expose himself to if anyone ever asks him if he has super-powers, so that he can tell them he doesn't without lying, as the Kryptonite will have temporarily removed them. Saying "no" would've been too dishonest, unless it was to Lois Lane.
And yet, the same thing's coming back around and happening again: Power Girl can't just wear her costume because either she likes it (or because Wally Wood liked it, if you want to get all meta about it), she has to have lengthy, often tear-filled explanations of why that serves the same function as a fifty foot-tall neon sign reading "IGNORE THIS." Barry Allen can't just be a nerd who wears a bow-tie, he's got to have some sort of character-defining sentimental reason to wear the bow-tie, as though there are aspects of his character that can only be explained by what he wears when he's not doing the things that actually do reveal his character. And Hal Jordan, of course, had gray hair because of a giant yellow space bug made of scary thoughts.
There's nothing wrong with detail, and in fact, making sure characters have reasons for the things they do is a step that can lead to some pretty awful comics if it's overlooked, but when you're attaching false significance to things that were never meant to have them, then it's just another example of overcompensating for the inherent strangeness of super-heroes with an overbearing, ham-handed seriousness. Did Spider-Man really need to have totemic spider-powers? Was the idea of a radioactive spider giving someone the power to stick to walls really too silly for the Core Marvel Universe? No, and thankfully, that was done away with. Now if only we could get the rest of that stuff out of the way.
And for the record, Superman's wristwatch contains a chunk of Kryptonite that he can expose himself to if anyone ever asks him if he has super-powers, so that he can tell them he doesn't without lying, as the Kryptonite will have temporarily removed them. Saying "no" would've been too dishonest, unless it was to Lois Lane.
Whose Comic Is It, Anyway?
We realize that we make a lot of generalities here on ComicsAlliance that might reflect the opinions of our writers rather than the comics-reading public at large, but we really don't think it's a stretch to say that a book called "Superman" should probably have Superman in it.
Admittedly, it's possible to do a good comics where the title character doesn't appear--though we're having an awful lot of difficulty trying to think of one that was focused on secondary characters for months at a time -- and we're not saying that changing up an established cast is itself a bad thing. Two of our favorite comics of the year, "Detective Comics" and "Incredible Hercules," started out by replacing the books' previous headliners, swapping out Batman for Batwoman in 'Tec and switching out the otherwise-occupied Hulk for Marvel's other strong-man. The key difference with those, however, is that when you pick them up in the store, the person whose name is on the cover is still actually who the book's about.
"Superman," however... Well, there's no other way to say it: Superman isn't in "Superman." Instead, "Superman" currently stars Mon-El, who looks kind of like Superman and has most of Superman's powers and just got a new costume that has Superman's logo on it but, despite what appears to be an amazing effort to convince us of the contrary, is not Superman. And we're pretty sure that's way more complicated than it needs to be.
Admittedly, it's possible to do a good comics where the title character doesn't appear--though we're having an awful lot of difficulty trying to think of one that was focused on secondary characters for months at a time -- and we're not saying that changing up an established cast is itself a bad thing. Two of our favorite comics of the year, "Detective Comics" and "Incredible Hercules," started out by replacing the books' previous headliners, swapping out Batman for Batwoman in 'Tec and switching out the otherwise-occupied Hulk for Marvel's other strong-man. The key difference with those, however, is that when you pick them up in the store, the person whose name is on the cover is still actually who the book's about.
"Superman," however... Well, there's no other way to say it: Superman isn't in "Superman." Instead, "Superman" currently stars Mon-El, who looks kind of like Superman and has most of Superman's powers and just got a new costume that has Superman's logo on it but, despite what appears to be an amazing effort to convince us of the contrary, is not Superman. And we're pretty sure that's way more complicated than it needs to be.
"Damaged Women"
All right, look: We know you're just as tired of us writing about it as we are of having to write about it, so we'll just let Gail Simone's twitter feed say it for us:
If I could have any present from comics this year, it'd be the end of the idea that a female character has to be damaged to be "strong."
It isn't that no female characters can be damaged,it's the idea that that's the only way to make them interesting that is goofy and cliche.
So seriously, knock that off, if for no other reason than Gail deserves a present.
Magog
Originally, this was going to be a plea to stop giving ongoing series to characters that nobody likes in hopes that they'll catch on, but the more we think about it, the more we realize that going out on a limb to give characters a shot is better than the alternative of just doing the same things over and over. Sure, a lot of 'em are bad, but for every Gunfire, there's a Hitman, for every Vigilante there's an Aztek, and for every Red Tornado (a character that would have all the appeal of a seasick crocodile even if William Shakespeare and Michelangelo were working on his comic), there's a Nomad: Girl Without a World (this year's surprisingly fun mini-series that did the impossible and took Bucky from "Heroes Reborn" and did a good story).
Seriously though, Magog, the character created by Mark Waid Alex Ross to be "everything we hate in modern superhero design," who is now the grandson of FDR (making him a legacy character for an actual person) and managed to get in both a team book and an ongoing series while books like "Catwoman" and "Blue Beetle" got the axe?
Yeah, that guy is terrible.
Comments:
(33)Add a comment
Wednesday 30 December
By adrian
God Bless you, Chris!
You hit the nail on the head with this one. I would've added in Marvel's overuse of the "meta plot big event" (Dark Reign, Secret Invasion, etc.) but since they're scheduled for another one of these, there's no avoidiong it.
Reply
Wednesday 30 December
By Ash
Actually, even if you are a stickler for how dates work 2010 will be the start of a new decade. Decades don't work in that sense like centuries. Look it up.
Reply
Wednesday 30 December
By Laura Hudson
Yeah, we did. There was no year 0, and the first decade of the common era began in the year 1 AD/CE, which immediately followed 1 BC/BCE. So unless some decade since then somehow lost a year, all decades necessarily begin with a year ending in 1.
Wednesday 30 December
By Ash
I see what you mean, but nobody references decades in that manner. If you are calling this the 200th decade since the start of our calendar I would agree with you, but when somebody refers to decades they mean the "decade of the 80's", "decade of the 00's", or something similar. In that case, which is what everyone discusses, then 2010 is the start of a new decade. Now, with centuries when you say the 21st century because you are COUNTING centuries then the 21st century absolutely began on 2001.
BTW, I hate my first post here is to nitpick something. You have one the best, if not THE best, blogs for comics.
Wednesday 30 December
By Laura Hudson
Thanks, man! We appreciate that. Haters tend to be louder sometimes, so it's to hear from people who are enjoying what we're doing.
Also, it's cool on the nitpick, because there was another guy who said something first but hadn't pushed the comment through! The comment system can be kind of a pain, I know.
Also, Seb, a lot of people do think about decades ordinally, which is exactly why people continue to have this argument. A decade, like a century, can indeed be used to refer to any group of a certain number of years. 1937-1946 could be a decade, but that's not typically what people mean when they talk about a "new" decade. And again, if you use your system, the first decade (the 0s?) would have been a year short and could not have existed as a full decade.
Wednesday 30 December
By Seb Patrick
Heh, see, I didn't push the comment through because by the time I'd posted it, I saw Ash had replied himself anyway - and I also realised, reading it back, that I came off a little snarky, so since I had the option, I might as well leave it unpublished. Ah well, never mind!
Not that I've a massive desire to continue the argument (indeed, like Ash, I'm a regular reader who enjoys the site - it's just typical of the internet that people often only post when they've got a bone to pick, rather than politely nodding in agreement), as it's a fairly circular debate based on personal preference (hey, if your site wants to do its "end of decade" stuff at the end of 2010, that's your prerogative!), but I will just point out that you used the phrase "that's not typically what people mean when they talk about a "new" decade" - and to that I'd say, well, neither do they generally mean your system, either. I think there's a case to be made for what you're saying, but in terms of the way people typically view it, it's far less contentious than the whole 1999/2000 thing that people got worked up about ten years ago. I'd wager that in most people's view, even if they go with the whole "the millennium started in 1001" argument, "the nineties" still refers to 1990-1999 rather than 1991-2000. But I could be wrong!
Thursday 31 December
By Earlofthercs
True, there was no `year zero' but there was no year 4 BC either or 30 AD at or what-have-you at the time. It wasn't until hundreds of years later that those years (which were called something else when they happened) were given their current labels, and even then there have since been adjustments to the calendar that have seen entire weeks skipped and renamed because all those early years were reckoned a 1/4 of a day too short (roughly).
We're dealing with the ramifications of the decisions of a people who hadn't yet developed the same standards of mathematics that we now use! Zero didn't really take a hold in standard western arithmetic until, what the 1300s? So why should we be stuck with the mistakes of the past? We've tried to fix most other things like that (or learned to live with them).
All of the mathematicians I know generally apply other modern mathematical conventions and say that rather than being one misnamed continuous number line forcing us to continually treat a named year differently than we'd treat that number, the BC and AD periods are simply two separate number lines representing two time periods that overlap. I.e. if we can now deem, given our improved mathematical understanding, that 1BC is also 0AD and 1AD is also 0BC the problem is solved and common usage and scholarly understanding can co-exist in peace.
Wednesday 30 December
By Seb Patrick
... except we don't refer to decades ordinally, the way we do with centuries. We don't say "the 201st decade". The word "decade" simply means "ten years", and we tend to split those decades up by their first three digits. You can't say that 2000 was part of "the nineties", because it doesn't start with "199". "The nineties" simply refers to "the decade in which every year began with the digits 199".
As Ash said... look it up.
Reply
Wednesday 30 December
By Adam Farrar
While I agree with all of these, the first one has been bothering me for a while now. Not only was Kyle’s resurrection forced, but the entire relationship that saved him was forced. Up until Tomasi started writing the book Kyle and Soranik had very little interaction, but then a Pink Lantern walks up to them and says they’re in love so suddenly they are! They have sex and then he dies and she fights to keep him alive but fails and then the same Pink Lantern comes back to them, says they are joined at the heart and brings him back to life so they can be in love longer. If I had believed in their relationship for a minute I might have bought his resurrection for a second.
I love Patrick Gleason’s art though.
Reply
Thursday 31 December
By Evan Waters
I have a really hard time disagreeing with anything here.
Reply