New Icons in comics?

You know. I might think Optimus Prime has become an icon. Though, it's hard to say. While the name Optimus Prime has become far more well known, even by those who haven't watched the original 80's cartoon, his look changes enough that it might throw people off.

His head seems to keep his distinct look, but even then it has some changes to it.

Well I think the Doc could make it if the writers put some effort into him to keep him going. I know he and other classics were revived in comic form as part of the big 70th anniversary, etc etc, and that once the hype wears down, Doc's current comic will likely have the plug pulled. But I think if the writers put enough effort in and keep the stories from going campy that the Doc could be around for awhile. Also the "First Wave" comics where he met and briefly fought Batman were an interesting read, but I think for a Doc Savage movie to really work, that it should be set in WW2. Doc was set in the 30's initially so he and his Fab Five could easily get into WW2 through the passage of time or if they decide to bump him up to that time period. Why WW2? Simple, we'd get to see the Doc take on the Nazi's and Doc is a lot like Indiana Jones in that both characters are explorers and adventurers, though I'd say Doc's motives are a bit more pure then Indy's. Doc does what he does because it is what he trained for and because he feels that it is right. Indy's motives in Raiders was about money until he began to realize the Nazi's shouldn't get the Ark, in Temple (Prequel to Raiders) he was very much money motivated until he saw all the evil of the cult and dedicated himself to stopping it, in Last Crusade all he wanted to do was find his father and not the Grail until his father warned him of the legends of the Grail's might and that if they were true that the Nazi's would be unstoppable if they got it.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

To be a true icon, yes, I think it has to transcend the originating medium - there's really no point asking comic fans about iconic comic characters - ask them about iconic opera characters and the opera fans about comics, then you'll be getting somewhere!

Batman is an icon because stuff like this never has to be explained to the audience, even if they haven't picked up a comic in their lives.

The one problem with this, and you should beable to see it just by reading these forums, is people may look at it and go..."Bleh. It's Indiana Jones sprinkled with Batman, can't they come up with anything original?"

I love the new Batman movies, but look at them, they dumbed Batman down for the movies, they dumbed down Spider-Man as well (he can't create web-shooters that's to far fetched!).

They may do the same with Doc Savage and then have the fans roaring "This isn't Doc Savage"

A minimal amount of research into the Doc Savage character and many such people might say "Wow, Indiana Jones is a Doc Savage rip off" (actually more like Indy was inspired by Doc, and Robocop was inspired by Judge Dredd but I digress)

Doc Savage is an archetype that helped inspire other characters, just as I believe both the Shadow and Zorro helped inspire the creation of Batman.

As to the Spidey movies, I believe that Rami stated that if Peter gained all the other powers of a spider, then why not the webs? Also if Peter can't afford a car, how could he buy the chemicals and parts to make the webshooters?

As to Batman being dumbed down, in Batman Begins he was just starting out and thus would be prone to rookie mistakes, plus he has to setup the batcave, figure out how to order his weapons and supplies without leaving a paper trail that leads back to him, obtain allies such as Lucias Fox, Alfred, and Gordon, and setup his Identity as both Batman and carefree billionaire Bruce Wayne.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Perhaps, but one might also receive a lot of caricatured views - more likely Wagner's Brünnhilde as the proverbial fat lady singing in a suit of fake armor than P. Craig Russell's graphic novel adaptations like The Magic Flute and The Ring of the Nibelung. And until there's a production of Die Fledermaus at the Met with Bruce Wayne in the lead, I don't care to know what opera lovers think of superheroes.

They did, back in 1975, and that movie was indeed dumb, as well as podding and charmless. It took the collective achievement of Messrs. Speilberg, Lucas, and Ford to make pulp adventure succeed on the silver screen again. There's now the chance that Shane Black will writer and direct a new movie adaptation of The Man of Bronze, so we shall see how that project works out.

The two things that killed the 1975 Doc Savage movie was that the director decided on camp humor and that funding for the film was yanked during production.

Last I read of the upcoming one is that it will be in the 30's with Doc and his Fab Five. No word on who will play the Doc. Ahnold was planning to be the Doc until he became the Govenator and I think too much time has passed for him to play the character.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

And the decidedly uniconic Ron Erly in the lead role, which along with various preceding examples of bad casting in this thread, suggests in order for an iconic character to work on screen, the right actor is essential.

I was thinking more along the lines of Batman not having the science background himself.

As for Doc Savage, you're likely right, but that's not how I think the general public would see it

I thought the explanation was something to the effect that Raimi couldn't buy that a teen invented a new chemical AND distribution unit for it, that's beyond anything established scientists can do currently, in his room (with a box of scraps).

Ron Ely had the physique for the character, but yeah he didn't do the best of jobs with the character itself.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Well should the new Doc Savage movie get into production, I'm sure many comic, movie, and news sites will give a capsule summary of the character's long history hopefully including the year he was created. Perhaps that will help pierce the inevitable fog of confusion that will grip many.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Probably that too as well as the other posted reasons.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

He also thought the general public wouldn't buy it. I disagree.

This bit of the general public wouldn't! As much as I love Spider-man, I've always hated the idea of web-shooters. If Peter had invented that stuff, he should license it to Stark and buy his aunt a nice house.

I approved of the move to organic web shooters in the movies, as it solved a lot of what I consider clutter, but even then I had a little voice in the back of the had telling me 'yeah, but silk doesn't come out of a spider's leg it comes out of its...' (remembering Kevin O'Neil's take on a Spider-man character in the Marshall Law comics didn't help with that of course!)

Yep. Spot on.

He's slowly morphing into Mickey Mouse.

Or rather, Pikachu is filling the space left by Mickey Mouse's absence.

Mickey Mouse stopped appearing in cartoon shorts in the mid-50s. These days, apart from assorted cameos, he's relegated to direct-to-video fare, usually holiday-themed animated specials. His iconic status still means Disney can plaster his imagine on all manner of merchandise, even if it means rewriting copyright laws to extend his protection. Ever since Uncle Walt was put into the deep freeze, however, they have been unable to preserve the character in his original medium. It's telling that the biggest recent breakthrough with the character was in video games, e.g. the Kingdom Hearts series and, of course, Epic Mickey.

That's the dark side of icon status: to be so well-known that nothing interesting can be said about them. (Consider the ongoing problems with the Superman reboot since Christopher Reeves's last film or how the last Sherlock Holmes movie jettisoned virtually every recognizable physical aspect of the character.)

What recognizable aspect of Sherlock? The hat? Wasn't in the books last I recall.

Mickey Mouse did have a new show on the Disney Channel, featuring the other Disney Characters, Mickey Mouse's Playhouse, I think it was.

I don't know if it's that nothing interresting can be said about the icons, however. I think it's more that nerd rage happens.

I mean look at Superman Returns. It made lots of money! It was 6th highest grossing film in the US, 9th in the world, made a profit...and now...REBOOT!

Admittedly, I would have prefered a reboot to begin with, than a sequal that said 2 of the last 4 films never happened. But I think internet rage (which the movie was rated pretty positively) gets so much fare behind it.

Look at Snakes on a Plane. Internet people wanted the movie...it bombed. vs the World...big hoopla...bomb.

Bringing out the icons can net the money and still be done to rather favorable reviews, but crap keeps happening

For starters, "In height [Holmes] was rather over six feet,and so excessively lean that he seemed to be considerably taller. His eyes were sharp and piercing, save during those intervals of torpor to which I have alluded; and his thin, hawk-like nose gave his whole expression an air of alertness and decision. His chin, too, had the prominence and squareness which mark the man of determination." Does that sound remotely like Robert Downey Junior?

Mickey Mouse Clubhouse? Wasn't that Disney's attempt to mimick Seasame Street? At any rate, it's not a showcase for the character of Mickey Mouse himself, although it certainly sounds designed to promote recognition.

If there was one common complaint about Superman Returns among geeks and ordinary moviegoers, it was that the film didn't capture anyone's imagination, certainly not in the way Action Comics #1 did or the 1978 movie ("You will believe a man can fly"). And an icon absolutely must capture the imagination.

Well for the look...I won't lie...I've given hope on the looks of a character in the written/drawn medium to match up to the visual medium.

Wolverine is not 6ft. Hugh Jackman still did a great job though. But to be fair, even in the comics, Wolverine isn't always drawn to look like he's 5ft 3in tall. Nor the cartoons for that matter.

And I'm curious as to who you think fits that description of Holmes in the books. As while I've only watched a few other Holmes movies, none of them seemed to match that description.

On Mickey Mouse, no idea. My daughter loved to watch it. So I just happened to know Mickey Mouse seemed active in it. I'd rather have watched Dora again, myself.

As for Superman...:O When ever they did the action seens I was all \o/ Yay! Lifting the boat, the island, saving the plane, destroying shards of glass, flying through buildings, TAKING A BULLET TO THE EYE! Eh, I loved it! I just wish some changes were made to the other parts of the script myself.

Basil Rathbone, despite being in some very silly Sherlock Holmes movies, did quite a good job (besides being tall and having the right profile). Jeremy Brett, although slightly less of a physical resemblance, embodies the role.

Robert Downey, Jr., however, is playing only a slightly sharper, slightly more pompous variation of his movie star persona, this time in Victorian costume. It must also be said that since he's of only average height, he simply cannot physically dominate his scenes the way taller actors can*. His Sherlock Holmes movie is entertaining enough but doesn't even resemble Solar Pons. In this case, movie audiences were very much going to see a RDJr production, which is a different sort of iconography.


* Similarly, Hugh Jackman, standing 6' 2", cannot physically get across the "runt" aspect of Wolverine's character, which is a significant part of his appeal.