|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 29, 2007 13:16:24 GMT -5
Cap appeared little if at all in #22-23. Cap appeared substantially in #24. Therefore the point stands. Actually, it's just a minor note but he was in about half of 22. I don't believe this is the case. I think it would be simple to find a logical place to explain it in 27 onwards, hopefully. No it doesn't, it just means he has a different vision than you do and has his OWN plan. And incidentally, I'm afraid I'm not up to scratch on my latin but ahem... the culpa thing again... (Yes, yes, I know what it means but I don't know how to say the reverse ) I still think it's the type of thing that tends to crop up in conversation. "You being a hero again?" "Yup." Actually I'd say Iron Man could probably give Clint a run for his money in that department but the answer is simple: Brubaker's book has, from issue one, been about SHIELD almost as much as Cap. That has been a MASSIVE factor. So of COURSE Tony's going to come into it. Cage's reaction IS for New Avengers, but we see him used here not really for his reaction but more as an expostiroy tool and to show people in general reacting. Listen, I'm not saying we don't deserve to see Clint's reaction. I'm just questioning how it could have been fit into that scene and I think that cene works better than a scene with just Clint and Sam would. Well I agree, but I'd say the book is as centred on Cap now as it ever was. He didn't rule it out so a cameo wouldn't be surprising. But on CBR you claimed that she would have MORE of a reaction than Sharon which is, no offence intended, complete lunacy. But of course, could not be used as he was for fear of spoiling the surprise, however much you may snicker at that thought. Absolutely! Of course! As I challenged Balok, exactly where in Marvel's party line is dislike of the entire previous run on Fantastic Four and almost hatred of two of the major marvel lines as they are at present? Again, you continue to twist what I said. So you demand to see the reactions of characters and then insult and refuse to buy the mini which does so. Okay. I would say the same to you but I can't imagine anyone actually paying for the bile that you can spew forth. Okay, but I beg to differ, especially on the issues of supporting cast. I don't believe that Gruenwald could have written issues with only the supporting cast to carry the book, and I certainly don't believe Brubaker relies on shocks and gimmicks. Pardon me for knowing it still is. If Ed Brubaker uses a clone, believe me I'll complain as much as you. Well, almost anyway. So one moment it has no purpose existing, the next it has very important content. Actually, I did. He found plans for the air attack himself, and he knew Cap was in London. How hard is it to put two and two together? First, Bucky was more concerned for Cap than killing Lukin, econd he knew Cap was in London as he encountered the others in the sewers without them knowing and third plans for the air attack were found and even if they HADN't been, Bucky knew something was going down and knew Cap was in the city, it dosn't TAKE a spectacular leap in logic. No, it's just that you seem to refuse to believe anyone would not think with a cold, logical and stretgic mind. Bucky knows cap is there for obvious story reasons and immediately goes to save him because emotion is ruling him and he does not pause to deduce more LOGICAL courses etc.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on May 30, 2007 0:00:03 GMT -5
I still think it's the type of thing that tends to crop up in conversation. "You being a hero again?" "Yup." A non-committal answer is perfectly feasible and spoils nothing. So is the book about Cap as you claim elsewhere, or about SHIELD? And if Cage could have been "an expository tool to show people in general reacting," then Clint would have done at least as well in that role. Let me know the next time you see a living appearance by the title character. Actually my exact quote was "she would be at least as affected." That means either equal, or greater. And I can make a strong argument for greater. After all, Sharon is Sharon with or without Cap. Rachael, on the other hand, was turned to the light side by Cap. One could even engage in a little hyperbole and say that Cap saved her soul. So yeah, his death could potentially be far more affecting for her than for Sharon. Actually, it's more that you continue to try to wriggle out of owning up to the meaning of what you said. The only meaningful reaction thus far has been the presence of Clint, and that was poorly executed at any rate. The funeral, when and if it comes, should definitely have been in the main title. Even Clint's reaction should have been in the main title. If I cause a few fans out there to detach from the herd and consider what they're buying, I believe I've done a service for the comic community whether you like it or not. Maybe that's because Gruenwald understood that the Captain America title was about Captain America. And please -- Mark Gruenwald's work on Cap's supporting cast dwarfs Ed Brubaker's. Yeah...let me know again when there's a living appearance by the title character.
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 30, 2007 0:35:28 GMT -5
I don't see why Clint's reaction needs to be shown. He and Cap go way back on the Avengers sure, but so do so many Avengers characters. In Cap's book has Hawkeye been a significant backup character? Especially of recent, he hasn't been among the 'chosen' support cast.
The whole point of Fallen Son is to give a chance for the rest of the Marvel Universe besides Cap's supporting cast to digest his death. If it didn't exist, then the Death of a Dream saga would be too convoluted trying to show the wide impact of Cap's death and effect on the MU.
RSC I can see you disaprove of the Fallen son mini, but I think that Cap's death needs to be explored through the eyes of the whole MU, and the Mini is more practical than every MU book taking time to do their own Cap tribute arc.
That being said the Fallen Son falls short specifically in that area, showing the reach of Cap's death, it feels like we haven't seen enough of the MU outside the current MA and NA rosters.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on May 30, 2007 1:13:08 GMT -5
I don't see why Clint's reaction needs to be shown. He and Cap go way back on the Avengers sure, but so do so many Avengers characters. In Cap's book has Hawkeye been a significant backup character? Especially of recent, he hasn't been among the 'chosen' support cast. The whole point of Fallen Son is to give a chance for the rest of the Marvel Universe besides Cap's supporting cast to digest his death. If it didn't exist, then the Death of a Dream saga would be too convoluted trying to show the wide impact of Cap's death and effect on the MU. RSC I can see you disaprove of the Fallen son mini, but I think that Cap's death needs to be explored through the eyes of the whole MU, and the Mini is more practical than every MU book taking time to do their own Cap tribute arc. That being said the Fallen Son falls short specifically in that area, showing the reach of Cap's death, it feels like we haven't seen enough of the MU outside the current MA and NA rosters. Well...no. Fallen Son is not about showing the reactions of MU characters other than the usual close friends. That is what Marvel wants you to accept, but look past the usual breathless hype. Fallen Son is all about a cheap cash-in. You may be put off by the bluntness of that statement, but look at it as Marvel does. #1 -- Wolverine, a character with almost zero to do with Cap, is not here to explore his reaction. He is here because Wolverine sells books. #2 -- Avengers. Meant to pull in purchasers of Bendis' New and Mighty Avengers, a significant chunk of business unfortunately. The issue accomplishes exactly zero exploration of what Cap's death means to any of these characters. The Mighty Avengers' half of the book hardly even mentions Cap's death. #3 -- Iron Man. The only semi-significant content thus far is Clint's short stint as Captain America (VI) which is certain to be a great trivia question for Cap buffs twenty years from now. #4 -- Spider-Man, another character with little meaningful history with Cap, is not here to explore his reaction. He is here because Spider-Man sells books. #5 -- Captain America. This is (presumably) the funeral issue. The funeral will be in this issue and not in the main title for one reason -- you guessed it -- to sell books. RSC
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 30, 2007 2:08:54 GMT -5
I don't see why Clint's reaction needs to be shown. He and Cap go way back on the Avengers sure, but so do so many Avengers characters. In Cap's book has Hawkeye been a significant backup character? Especially of recent, he hasn't been among the 'chosen' support cast. The whole point of Fallen Son is to give a chance for the rest of the Marvel Universe besides Cap's supporting cast to digest his death. If it didn't exist, then the Death of a Dream saga would be too convoluted trying to show the wide impact of Cap's death and effect on the MU. RSC I can see you disaprove of the Fallen son mini, but I think that Cap's death needs to be explored through the eyes of the whole MU, and the Mini is more practical than every MU book taking time to do their own Cap tribute arc. That being said the Fallen Son falls short specifically in that area, showing the reach of Cap's death, it feels like we haven't seen enough of the MU outside the current MA and NA rosters. Well...no. Fallen Son is not about showing the reactions of MU characters other than the usual close friends. That is what Marvel wants you to accept, but look past the usual breathless hype. Fallen Son is all about a cheap cash-in. You may be put off by the bluntness of that statement, but look at it as Marvel does. #1 -- Wolverine, a character with almost zero to do with Cap, is not here to explore his reaction. He is here because Wolverine sells books. #2 -- Avengers. Meant to pull in purchasers of Bendis' New and Mighty Avengers, a significant chunk of business unfortunately. The issue accomplishes exactly zero exploration of what Cap's death means to any of these characters. The Mighty Avengers' half of the book hardly even mentions Cap's death. #3 -- Iron Man. The only semi-significant content thus far is Clint's short stint as Captain America (VI) which is certain to be a great trivia question for Cap buffs twenty years from now. #4 -- Spider-Man, another character with little meaningful history with Cap, is not here to explore his reaction. He is here because Spider-Man sells books. #5 -- Captain America. This is (presumably) the funeral issue. The funeral will be in this issue and not in the main title for one reason -- you guessed it -- to sell books. RSC Well....no Marvel would cheapen and trivialize the death of Captain America if the only reaction to it was in his own book. Does Captain America mean nothing to anyone outside his own cast? And even it it was soley devoted to the Funeral, could 9 issues really cover every character in the MU that Cap has interacted in a meaninful way AND manage to progress any kind of plot? And then how do you choose who has the privelege of grieving for Cap? Is Hawkeye more deserving than Falcon? Or is having Hawkeye return in Cap just a weak publicity stun because Hawkeye's return is going to drive up sales?Would BP be more deserving than Spider-man? Spidey fans would through a fit if the Wall crawler never acknowledged Caps death. Wolverine and Cap go back to the WW2 days, I would think a lot of people would wonder what Wolverine thinks about a Soldier that spanned the decade's demise. Not to mention the rest of the Avengers, The FF and the X-men, is there room for them to grieve too? Maybe it would work in a 12 issue story Arc.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 30, 2007 9:09:13 GMT -5
And then how do you choose who has the privelege of grieving for Cap? Is Hawkeye more deserving than Falcon? I know your questions are probably retorical, but I would say Falcon is much more important to Captain America (The Comic Book) than Hawkeye. Falcon debuted in the pages of CA and his relationship with Steve (re)defined both characters for the years to come. Hawkeye´s relationship with Steve Rogers has always been in the context of the Avengers. Would BP be more deserving than Spider-man? Yes he would. BP relationship to Cap was pivotal to his inclusion in the Avengers and to the further development of the character. Spidey fans would through a fit if the Wall crawler never acknowledged Caps death. Spidey could have acknowledged it in one of his own books, in a few panels. Wolverine and Cap go back to the WW2 days, I would think a lot of people would wonder what Wolverine thinks about a Soldier that spanned the decade's demise. Wolverine and Cap going back to WWII days was a retcon, originally (in the 70´s and 80´s) those two characters couldn´t stand each other, Wolverine was everything Captain America opposed in a (anti)hero and vice-versa.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on May 30, 2007 11:30:23 GMT -5
Unfortunately I'm pretty limited for time now but for the record, Spidey has always idolised Captain America, I'm absolutely certain I remember that from waay back. I'm also pretty sure I remember Aunt May used to always talk about her. Add that to their comradeship in the New Avenger... now throw in that Spidey is ALWAYS seekign f ather figure and at the end of the war, like it or not, Cap became that figure.
I'd say at this point Spidey is more deserving than a lot of folk think at first.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on May 30, 2007 11:42:33 GMT -5
Marvel would cheapen and trivialize the death of Captain America if the only reaction to it was in his own book. That's a valid argument. The response is simply that writers, where appropriate, should include the reaction in their own titles. Obviously not the case. However, you should question why some of the characters that were picked for Fallen Son were picked. It's not because they had any meaningful relationship with Cap that needed to be explored for story purposes. I assume you mean 5 issues, not 9 issues. But by your own criteria the mini falls short in that it can't include the kind of Marvel-wide reflection that the story deserves. What can do that is my suggestion to merely include it in the various titles as appropriate. As to who I would choose, that's a great question. Here's a list in some semblance of order of importance: 1) Cap's supporting cast in his own title, in particular the Falcon. (Obviously!) 2) Hawkeye. Easily Cap's closest friend outside the Falcon. 3) Spitfire and Namor. The two real surviving Invaders, their reactions to (I would probably say "rejections of," since they've been through this before.) Cap's death should be an absolute must. Spitfire I believe we will see within the Cap title. 4) The Avengers as a whole. OK, you will point out that they did this in FS #2. I will then point out that while in theory it was supposed to happen, in fact there was absolutely zero exploration of Cap's death regarding any Avenger in FS #2. He wasn't even mentioned in the "Mighty" half of the issue. There is easily enough material within the Avengers family alone to fill an entire mini and more. So much in fact that the only way to do it justice is to make it a running theme in the main Avengers titles. 5) Diamondback. Probably best done in the Cap title, but unlikely for reasons I'm already mentioned. 6) Pietro. He's apparently a villain within the X-titles now; hitting that angle together with flashbacks to his "Kooky Quartet" days with Cap is a great way to introduce the issue into the X-books. I would also say the Scarlet Witch, but her current status makes that highly problematic. 7) Beast. Another way to introduce the issue into the X-titles. Beast has a long history with Cap on the Avengers. You could do a lot with the contrast of their (Beast & Cap) personalities. 8) Scott Summers. Compare their positions as bedrock team leaders of their respective families of titles. 9) Spider-Man. OK, I don't really think there is a lot here to explore, but following up JMS' New Avengers crossover stories of a couple years back is probably the best avenue. These are all merely suggestions off the top of my head of relationships that I believe are appropriate to explore further -- in their own respective titles. It also allows the people interested in the character to read about that character's reaction in a depth not possible in a mini that tries to do everything. You couldn't even hit the high spots in a well-written five-issue mini, let alone the poorly-written junk that Fallen Son actually is. I would say that Hawkeye as a character is as important to Cap as Sam is. Some would differ. Now, I would not argue that Clint is as important as Sam, historically, to the Cap title. But as a character, Clint is Cap's son, and Sam is Cap's brother. Which relationship is closer? A bit of trivia for you, back in the 60s Jack Kirby considered revealing that Cap married towards the end of WWII, and that Clint literally was Cap's son. Stan Lee nixed the idea for reasons I can't remember right now. Yes, as one example, Black Panther is a far more appropriate character to explore the reactions of, than Spider-Man is. His relationship with Cap goes back to the 60s, and has always been very good, if not as tight as say Sam or Clint. Spider-Man is here for the sales. Any reaction on his part could easily and appropriately be shown in any or all of his own titles. Wolverine's WWII service is a recent retcon, and the two characters, as Von Beck points out, have never been able to stand each other. This goes back at least to "Secret Wars I," and has been seen as recently as New Avengers and MTU. The idea that Wolverine's reaction to Cap's death needs to be explored more than any of a large number of other characters is just ludicrous. Wolverine is here for the sales, period. Yes there is, within their own titles. If as you say, there is story reason for a particular character's reaction to be explored, the writer of that book can do it and can devote as much or as little space to doing it as he wants to. RSC
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 30, 2007 14:37:37 GMT -5
I assume you mean 5 issues, not 9 issues. Probably Alchemistx is talking about the current storyarc in Captain America, that´ll be 9 issues long. I would say that Hawkeye as a character is as important to Cap as Sam is. Some would differ. I would. Hawkeye´s relationship to Cap is very important in the Avengers (both the book and the group), but not so much for Cap himself. But as a character, Clint is Cap's son, and Sam is Cap's brother. Well, I always saw Clint as Steve´s younger, impulsive brother, a role that now belongs to Winter Soldier (who filled the role of Cap´s "son" in the GA). Which relationship is closer? Depends of the fanily. Yes, as one example, Black Panther is a far more appropriate character to explore the reactions of, than Spider-Man is. His relationship with Cap goes back to the 60s, and has always been very good, if not as tight as say Sam or Clint. Spider-Man is here for the sales. Any reaction on his part could easily and appropriately be shown in any or all of his own titles. Couldn´t agree more. T´Challa was the black Captain America, most clearly in the late 60´s Avengers. The idea that Wolverine's reaction to Cap's death needs to be explored more than any of a large number of other characters is just ludicrous. Wolverine is here for the sales, period. RSC Again, couldn´t agree more. I didn´t read FS #1, but I know it was the "Denial" issue, so why Wolverine would be in denial over Cap´s death is beyond me...
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 30, 2007 17:00:37 GMT -5
I meant 9 issues of death of a dream would have to cover the whole MU if FS didn't exist.
As for BP over Spidey, longer chronological history gives BP the edge I concede.
But on Wolverine, sure their relationship is a retcon, but that doesn't make it any less relevant in the current Marvel continuity.
If Marvel opted the individual book tribute route, the problem I would forsee would be even worse coordination of current MU continuity in Cap's death. That route could also open us up to a lot of unwanted Cap retrospect accross too many titles taking up too much time and over milking hte event.
The real point I'd like to make is that the cap story arc, plus funeral mini is a good format to cover Cap's death. A certain ammount of space is needed to tell the story well enough, and the mini helps collect all of the story in one area better than individual grieving panels throughout all the MU.
How such a mini can be executed (How it is being done, vs many other different ways it could have been done) is entirely another argument, and certainly there is considerable room for Improvement in Fallen Son, particularily a lack of Certain important characters (More BP, More Falcon, maybe some Patriot and his Grand-Dad, USAgent, and Cyclops(The leader paralell would make for an interesting story) just to name a few)
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on May 30, 2007 21:02:24 GMT -5
I meant 9 issues of death of a dream would have to cover the whole MU if FS didn't exist. Again, Marvel-wide reaction need not be shoved into the Cap title. It should be done in the relevant books to the extent a writer feels it appropriate. Editorial (if that is, editorial were doing its job) should be responsible for coordinating when, where, and how much. What relationship? They can't stand each other and they've hardly done anything more than work together grudgingly. Cap was written as calling Wolverine a murderer to his face as recently as New Avengers. And on retcon characters, you have to take them with a large grain of salt. For example, let's say that Sentry is "revealed" to have been Cap's good buddy going back to 1964, even before Clint, Sam, or T'Challa. Therefore it is decided that instead of spending any panel time on Clint, Sam, or T'Challa's reactions, that Sentry's long history with Cap needs to be honored. Thing is, no. There is no history. Everyone knows there is no history, even if Jenkins or Bendis waves his magic continuity wand and says there is. Wait, first you wanted to see a lot of Marvel-wide retrospection in tribute, and now you think it will be a problem. And "milking the event?" What has Marvel been doing with Civil War and its aftermath if not milking it for all it's worth? What is Fallen Son for if not to milk it for all it's worth? Except this mini has had nothing of the kind. It is not a well-told story. It does not even live up to its own "5 phases of grief" premise. If you can discern where and how #2 relates to "Anger," or how #3 relates to "bargaining," I'm interested to hear it. The Avengers, closer to Cap than anyone as a group, did exactly ZERO introspection in #2. I honestly don't understand how you can reconcile what you are saying, and what Marvel is saying, with what is actually appearing in the comic. Better execution ( much better execution!!!) could make this mini better. No doubt about it. But it won't overcome the inherent weaknesses. The funeral should have been in the Cap title, which leaves little reason to buy the mini. There isn't enough space in 5 issues to even do justice to the Avengers' reactions, let alone other characters across the Marvel Universe. RSC
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on May 30, 2007 21:15:35 GMT -5
Well, I always saw Clint as Steve´s younger, impulsive brother, a role that now belongs to Winter Soldier (who filled the role of Cap´s "son" in the GA). You're entitled to that opinion, but it was always pretty clear Cap and Clint's relationship was father-son, even more so because Kirby wanted it to actually be father-son. Yes, there is no arguing that Sam is more important as a supporting cast member of the Cap title. However, whether you call Cap and Hawkeye's relationship paternal or fraternal, it doesn't end at the junction between the Avengers and Captain America titles. Gruenwald for example did a good job with it in Cap #401. The Cap we've read about in the Avengers who sees Hawkeye as his rebellious surrogate son is the same Cap we read about in Captain America, or he should be at least. RSC
|
|
|
Post by Alchemist-X on May 30, 2007 22:08:17 GMT -5
I meant 9 issues of death of a dream would have to cover the whole MU if FS didn't exist. Again, Marvel-wide reaction need not be shoved into the Cap title. It should be done in the relevant books to the extent a writer feels it appropriate. Editorial (if that is, editorial were doing its job) should be responsible for coordinating when, where, and how much. What relationship? They can't stand each other and they've hardly done anything more than work together grudgingly. Cap was written as calling Wolverine a murderer to his face as recently as New Avengers. And on retcon characters, you have to take them with a large grain of salt. For example, let's say that Sentry is "revealed" to have been Cap's good buddy going back to 1964, even before Clint, Sam, or T'Challa. Therefore it is decided that instead of spending any panel time on Clint, Sam, or T'Challa's reactions, that Sentry's long history with Cap needs to be honored. Thing is, no. There is no history. Everyone knows there is no history, even if Jenkins or Bendis waves his magic continuity wand and says there is. Wait, first you wanted to see a lot of Marvel-wide retrospection in tribute, and now you think it will be a problem. And "milking the event?" What has Marvel been doing with Civil War and its aftermath if not milking it for all it's worth? What is Fallen Son for if not to milk it for all it's worth? Except this mini has had nothing of the kind. It is not a well-told story. It does not even live up to its own "5 phases of grief" premise. If you can discern where and how #2 relates to "Anger," or how #3 relates to "bargaining," I'm interested to hear it. The Avengers, closer to Cap than anyone as a group, did exactly ZERO introspection in #2. I honestly don't understand how you can reconcile what you are saying, and what Marvel is saying, with what is actually appearing in the comic. Better execution ( much better execution!!!) could make this mini better. No doubt about it. But it won't overcome the inherent weaknesses. The funeral should have been in the Cap title, which leaves little reason to buy the mini. There isn't enough space in 5 issues to even do justice to the Avengers' reactions, let alone other characters across the Marvel Universe. RSC On Cap and WolverineNot about Cap liking Wolverine, not about Wolverine liking Cap, but showing that perhaps there was respect there, and also Wolverine knowing just how heroic Cap has been both now and especially in the past as only few living characters have seen him. On Marvel Wide DisplayI wanna see the Marvel Universe's reaction on the whole, but I don't wanna have to buy all the titles in the Marvel Universe to do it, in a perfect world, the mini would be the ideal way to solve that problem. On The relation of Anger to FS#2Who was happy in this issue? Tempers ran thin at a card game. Nothing nice about Stark was said by the NA thats for sure. The MA were all getting out of hand on a mission because of misplaced anger. On the relation of Bargaining to FS#3Tony Stark had a plan and tried to make a deal with Clint to become the new Captain America. Trying to create a replacement seems in the realm of bargaining.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 31, 2007 9:47:24 GMT -5
And on retcon characters, you have to take them with a large grain of salt. For example, let's say that Sentry is "revealed" to have been Cap's good buddy going back to 1964, even before Clint, Sam, or T'Challa. Therefore it is decided that instead of spending any panel time on Clint, Sam, or T'Challa's reactions, that Sentry's long history with Cap needs to be honored. Thing is, no. There is no history. Everyone knows there is no history, even if Jenkins or Bendis waves his magic continuity wand and says there is. And even the Cap/Wolverine retcon itself is kinda obscure. A few stories in the X-Men and the occasional mention here and there. They still don´t get along, even BENDIS! understood that in NA.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 31, 2007 10:09:18 GMT -5
You're entitled to that opinion, but it was always pretty clear Cap and Clint's relationship was father-son, even more so because Kirby wanted it to actually be father-son. Stan Lee objected, and with good reason. Cap was a father figure to the rest of the Kooky Quartet (what makes his affair with the Scarlet Witch during A:D even more disturbing) but more in the ways of a mentor (or older brother) than a real father. Yes, there is no arguing that Sam is more important as a supporting cast member of the Cap title. However, whether you call Cap and Hawkeye's relationship paternal or fraternal, it doesn't end at the junction between the Avengers and Captain America titles. Gruenwald for example did a good job with it in Cap #401. The Cap we've read about in the Avengers who sees Hawkeye as his rebellious surrogate son is the same Cap we read about in Captain America, or he should be at least. RSC Yes, they´re the same characters, but apart from the occasional guest star (that weren´t so many) in CA, Clint had very little influence on Cap´s own book.
|
|
|
Post by Engage on May 31, 2007 14:44:38 GMT -5
The idea to make Hawkeye the actual son of Cap would have been very cool, but wouldn't have held up that well over the years. He's have to be a sixty to seventy year old man by now because his timeline would be unable to slide.
|
|
|
Post by redstatecap on May 31, 2007 19:31:46 GMT -5
Yeah, but that wasn't an issue in the 60s, or even really the 70s. Eventually they may have had to retcon something, but I doubt it would have stopped them from doing it in the first place. And sometimes stuff just gets ignored. Spitfire's son Ken was born in 1955, IIRC. His buddy Joey is about the same age, as shown in Cap #253-4. That means that Joey should be over 50. Yet Joey is still the current UJ and looks 25, with no explanation. Several characters like this are tied to WWII, and Marvel just ignores the sliding timeline for them.
RSC
|
|