I hate to make the comparision, but if you think Greek myths, it's the same deal. 1) A pantheon of gods. 2) Zeus who throws lightning, Aphrodite the goddess of love... But anything else is a little hazy and open for reinterpretation. I've heard about three seperate and mutually contradictory 'origin' stories for Aphrodite, but she's still the same god, if you get what I mean. If you need to use the ancient Greek myths, you don't substitute in a new god of love - you tweak *her* story until it works for what you're trying to do. (And if you decide to pretend that there never was a goddess of love, that lack *will* be noticed.)
Actually, this analogy works quite well for multiple versions of the Legion. Look at the Greek and Roman pantheons.
Many of the Roman gods have different names from their Greek predeccessors, and they often display personality quirks that clearly show the influence of Roman values as opposed to Greek values, but they're the same at their core. Greek or Roman in name, they're still gods.
Likewise the Legion. The exact details might vary, but the broad brushstrokes are the same. Colossal Boy's name might change to Micro Boy.
(A red herring if I ever heard one). Sun Boy might be a blond rather than a redhead. Projectra might be a snake. And Star Boy might be black, Asian, or gray. In the end, as long as the broad defining chracteristics like personality, powers, and background are evocative of what has gone before (but not necessarily the same), that's good enough for me.
As for Star Boy...
Perhaps in the preponderance of hyper-timelines and/or quantum realities Star Boy is white, but he's black in this one. Hopefully, he's still Thom Kallor at his core. That's what matters to me. As the Vulcans say, "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination." What's different about this Legion in comparison to the originals should not diminish them (bad writing, though...that's another matter).
Does the color of his skin really define him? Would we fail to accept him if his name were now spelled "Tom" instead of "Thom"? I don't think so. He's Star Boy, plain and simple. Look past the surface, and the character will (we can hope) be much the same.
I think it boils down to this:
Are we so hung up on insisting that any "new" version of a character be identical to a previous version that we can't look at him as an individual character? Doesn't "new" imply some diference? Is older necessarily better?
I, for one, am looking forward to this new series -- I have enjoyed all versions of the Legion because it's the
concept that attracts me. The interplay between these characters and their involvement in a relatively unique milieu are what set the Legion apart from, say, the JLA or the Avengers. The exact details of characterization change enough from writer to writer that I can usually look past them and see the overall character's development.
If I got bogged down in the "classic is better" argument, I would have stopped reading comics after Crisis on Infinite Earths. Or, for that matter, after any new developments on Marvel's Wolverine character contradicted what had gone before. But I didn't. I decided to give the "post-Crisis" DC Universe a chance, and it grew on me. I looked at Wolverine as an evolving character. I'm sure this new Legion will too, given enough time.
We can speculate all we want about how well Mark Waid will write these characters -- but until the issues actually hit the stands, I say we keep an open mind. Who knows? In ten years time, maybe our kids will rember getting hooked on the Legion because of Waid's version, just as many of us were by Curt Swan's stories, or the reboot version.
In the end, what matters is this:
LONG LIVE THE LEGION! Just my 2 percent of a greenback, for what it's worth. Feel free to disagree. In fact, I encourage it.
Previous Thread
