|
Ronin
Jul 21, 2009 10:06:30 GMT -5
Post by spiderwasp on Jul 21, 2009 10:06:30 GMT -5
Spoiler alert (Even though I have no idea what it means)
Okay, I was in Borders and they were getting ready to close. I picked up the latest NA just to thumb through but only had a few seconds. It didn't look too interesting but I flipped to the last page. There was Ronin/Hawkeye/Clint telling Mockingbird "We're going to have to kill him." I don't even know who he was talking about but for the life of me I can't imagine who or what could prompt Clint Barton to say this. I know people change through time and as a result of events but the "Avengers don't kill" philosophy was such a fundamental part of his character that he even left the wife he loved over for an extended length of time because of it. I'm as big a Hawkeye fan as anybody but seeing this sort of thing just makes me wish they had left him dead. Can anyone tell me anything that can make this make sense?
Speaking of Hawkeye and making sense, have they ever said anything to explain why he's not dead?
|
|
|
Ronin
Jul 24, 2009 14:19:28 GMT -5
Post by bobc on Jul 24, 2009 14:19:28 GMT -5
I'm going to be good...
|
|
|
Ronin
Aug 2, 2009 6:08:46 GMT -5
Post by humanbelly on Aug 2, 2009 6:08:46 GMT -5
Spoiler alert (Even though I have no idea what it means) Okay, I was in Borders and they were getting ready to close. I picked up the latest NA just to thumb through but only had a few seconds. It didn't look too interesting but I flipped to the last page. There was Ronin/Hawkeye/Clint telling Mockingbird "We're going to have to kill him." I don't even know who he was talking about but for the life of me I can't imagine who or what could prompt Clint Barton to say this. I know people change through time and as a result of events but the "Avengers don't kill" philosophy was such a fundamental part of his character that he even left the wife he loved over for an extended length of time because of it. I'm as big a Hawkeye fan as anybody but seeing this sort of thing just makes me wish they had left him dead. Can anyone tell me anything that can make this make sense? Speaking of Hawkeye and making sense, have they ever said anything to explain why he's not dead? *Whew*-- Bobc, this kind of stuff is really tough on you, isn't it? Be strong. But yes, that was exactly my response to Clint's comment, as well. Possibly, the idea that's trying to be gotten across is that the situation w/ Norman Osborn is so unprecedentedly "serious" that it's driven a long-established "No Killing Under Any Circumstances" character over the edge to this final extreme. But, considering how stupidly and clumsily Clint's been handled by Bendis, I kinda doubt that's the case. Or if it is, it's an awfully bad- and cheap- direction to take. Good grief, he'd kill this particular well-entrenched badguy, but he wouldn't excuse his own wife for letting the man that effectively raped her fall to his death?? It's stupid, just stupid--- substituting melodramatic convention for actual plotting and scripting. HB (Been gone for a vacation week to Upper Michigan-- looks like I caught the tale end of the 50 Previous Posts just in time!)
|
|
|
Ronin
May 17, 2012 13:51:33 GMT -5
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 17, 2012 13:51:33 GMT -5
Hi, I appreciate that I'm picking up on a very old thread here but I'm currently reading through the 'New Avengers/Mighty Avengers' era for the first time.
I haven't actually got to the Dark Reign bit yet (though I know a bit about it because I read through Brubaker's, actually really great, Captain Americas around the turn of the year) so I don't know the precise circumstances.
What is worth commenting on is the continuity though. The problem for writers is if someone handles a character badly and later writers have to deal with it. Now, whilst something of an exception on this forum, I happen to largely really dislike Steve Englehart's writing and I thought his handling of Hawkeye during his WCA stint was dreadful making the character rather wimpy and lacking the tough edge of his best portrayals IMO.
In an ideal world a writer takes on board all previous portrayals and fashions something consistent out of them (in an ongoing serial this becomes increasiingly difficult, especially once you've got to forty + years of continuity). Now, from what I've seen so far Bendis tends to play fast and loose with characters twisting them in order to force them to fit into his plots when necessary. OTOH he does actually take on board the 'no killing' aspect of Clint Barton in his first few appearances as Ronin showing him to be disturbed by the approach of the likes of Wolverine. So, I don't think Bendis was ignorant of Hawkeye's history in this instance.
Just what exactly are you trying to say, I hear you ask. It's not very clear is it. Essentially I'm conflicted about this kind of thing. Yes, ideally I'd like writers to be consistent with past portrayals but when some of those depictions aren't very good (and in many respects contrast with more general renditions as Engelhart's versions of Hawkeye in WCA or of the Scarlet Witch in his original Avengers run do) I don't always have a problem with them being 'fixed'. Doing so without contradicting past material is unfortunately not always possible.
Now I think this is an instance where Bendis is at least partially aware of the character's history in this respect so I'm not actually accusing him of being deliberately contradictory. What I am saying is that in a case like this where a portayal I think was poor is being overturned and a tougher edge being restored to the character -well I'm not shedding any tears.
|
|
|
Ronin
May 17, 2012 21:06:06 GMT -5
Post by humanbelly on May 17, 2012 21:06:06 GMT -5
Hi, I appreciate that I'm picking up on a very old thread here but I'm currently reading through the 'New Avengers/Mighty Avengers' era for the first time. I haven't actually got to the Dark Reign bit yet (though I know a bit about it because I read through Brubaker's, actually really great, Captain Americas around the turn of the year) so I don't know the precise circumstances. What is worth commenting on is the continuity though. The problem for writers is if someone handles a character badly and later writers have to deal with it. Now, whilst something of an exception on this forum, I happen to largely really dislike Steve Englehart's writing and I thought his handling of Hawkeye during his WCA stint was dreadful making the character rather wimpy and lacking the tough edge of his best portrayals IMO. In an ideal world a writer takes on board all previous portrayals and fashions something consistent out of them (in an ongoing serial this becomes increasiingly difficult, especially once you've got to forty + years of continuity). Now, from what I've seen so far Bendis tends to play fast and loose with characters twisting them in order to force them to fit into his plots when necessary. OTOH he does actually take on board the 'no killing' aspect of Clint Barton in his first few appearances as Ronin showing him to be disturbed by the approach of the likes of Wolverine. So, I don't think Bendis was ignorant of Hawkeye's history in this instance. Just what exactly are you trying to say, I hear you ask. It's not very clear is it. Essentially I'm conflicted about this kind of thing. Yes, ideally I'd like writers to be consistent with past portrayals but when some of those depictions aren't very good (and in many respects contrast with more general renditions as Engelhart's versions of Hawkeye in WCA or of the Scarlet Witch in his original Avengers run do) I don't always have a problem with them being 'fixed'. Doing so without contradicting past material is unfortunately not always possible. Now I think this is an instance where Bendis is at least partially aware of the character's history in this respect so I'm not actually accusing him of being deliberately contradictory. What I am saying is that in a case like this where a portayal I think was poor is being overturned and a tougher edge being restored to the character -well I'm not shedding any tears. In reference to Englehart's Hawkeye, I do think a strong argument could be made that this was much more in the realm of character growth, rather than inconsistent writing. At least, that's very much how it read to me starting with that first Hawkeye miniseries (which, honestly, I loved!). Getting a handle on his hot-headed nature, taking on responsibility, looking at the big picture-- I always put those developments in the plus column for our ol' Ivanhoe. And, oh daggone it-- I want to really avoid delving into a spoilerpalooza, so--- how do I put this? Bendis' heavy-handed emphasis on Clint's "No killing EVER" vow was done with pretty much only one moment in mind down the road. And, in the big picture, it didn't do anything at all to re-confirm the character one way or another. It was just. . . poorly thought-out writing, IMO. (Boy, hard to talk about this in generalizations-- read faster, brother!) HB
|
|
|
Ronin
May 18, 2012 4:35:15 GMT -5
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 18, 2012 4:35:15 GMT -5
humanbelly wrote:
Yeah, I agree that character development was intended during this period, and it was certainly down to Roger Stern and Mark Gruenwald as well. As for the miniseries, it was nice to have a Hawkeye series but I don't consider it anything special and barring his Squadron Supreme series I generally find Gruenwald's writing mediocre (having had the rueful experience of reading through his stultifying and seemingly endless run on Cap fairly recently he's far from a favourite of mine).
Anyway, I never thought the 'development' was very good or particularly well handled. It was rather sudden, smacked of wish-fulfillment in wanting to give a popular character a 'happy ending', and made the character far duller and less interesting. So I guess I don't view them as being in the 'plus column'.
As soon as Byrne took over Hawkeye immediately rang truer, trying to deck the US Agent, and generally being hot tempered and far from ideal team leader material. He was much better that way than the 'conformist' Hawkeye that sadly most writers have stuck with ever since, but Engelhart's was the worst with its soap operatic shenanigans and his bland rendition of Clint (and let's not even think about what he did with Hank Pym) that has plagued the character ever since. In many ways Engelhart actually killed the character, by making him someone of no interest.
I'm not someone who believes that character development can't be done in comics but I do think that the kind that involves draining everything that made the character interesting and fun in the first place is not such a good idea.
Bizarrely even his build seemed to change when they gave him a new costume and Hawkeye was portrayed as scrawnier and lankier than was usual before, adding to the wimpier 'new man' factor.
|
|
|
Ronin
May 18, 2012 6:02:13 GMT -5
Post by tomspasic on May 18, 2012 6:02:13 GMT -5
Spoilers I guess, if you haven't read up to the present.
See, I'm a bit Englehart fan, so I'm biased towards his writing and will tend to ignore or excuse any weak spots. For me, his development of Clint in WCA was good writing. Rather than stick with a one-note caricature of Bellicose Bowman who was an automatically over-aggressive contrarian, it seemed like Clint's growth into a more mature, and yes, mellower version was both natural and desireable. If you look at Clint throughout all his appearances you can see several distinct stages: 1. "Villain". A bit arrogant, brilliant with gizmos and fighting, but not too bright in reading people and situations. 2. Neophyte Avenger. Young, hot-headed, eager to rise to power in the team by constantly challenging and undermining Cap. 3. Baseline Hawkeye. Brash, cocky, loudmouthed but not mean-spirited. Always up for a fight, but less likely to turn on a team-mate than "neophyte Hawkeye". And this version lasted for a decade or more, going through his Goliath period right up till Englehart's first tenure as writer. 4. Who am I? Englehart has him leave the team to establish himself. He joins the Defenders, casts about a bit, tries to define himself as someone other than Hawkeye the Avenger. This only lasts a couple of years. 5. Back to Baseline. The next decade or so sees the more or less caricature Baseline Hawkeye personna in effect. 6. West Coast. Finally an attempt to do something with the character. He marries, he leads a team, he starts to have to think and act a little differently. He's still hot-headed and smart-mouthed but finally has some insight into people and consequences. This version covers his Thunderbolts period too, though often he goes back to "Baseline" when writers have no idea what to do with him. 7. Now what? Because of the static nature of modern comics, much of the "West Coast" stuff must be undone, as we cannot have any actual growth or change, merely the appearance of it. So for a decade or so we get Baseline again, with the odd nod to West Coast. 8. I'm going to kill every last $%^&ing one of them! Inexplicably the man who has been the most vocal against killing becomes a ninja who kills and tries to kill more often than he punches. He has sex with his amnesiac, mentally ill team-mate because in addition to being a murderer he's now a massive scumbag. And a moron who cannot take off his own quiver. Welcome to the Bendis Decade.
So for me, Bendis' Hawkeye is nothing like any previous version. Bendis Hawkeye is an amoral, bloodthirsty, murdering, torturing, incompetent, and boring sexual predator and borderline rapist. You may think the "borderline rapist" bit goes too far, but how else can one characterize a man who has sex with a mentally ill amnesiac woman? How is someone unable to know what is real (ie Wanda) able to give informed consent for sex? Does he prowl the corridors of mental institutions looking for confused heavily medicated young women on his off days? It's disgusting, repugnant and repellant. I know it's since been retconned to have been a Doombot Wanda, but that does nothing to change his intent to have sex with a confused vulnerable woman. Frankly, it makes my blood boil. I'd rather he were dead than this.
|
|
|
Ronin
May 18, 2012 12:39:20 GMT -5
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 18, 2012 12:39:20 GMT -5
Spoilers I guess, if you haven't read up to the present. See, I'm a bit Englehart fan, so I'm biased towards his writing and will tend to ignore or excuse any weak spots. For me, his development of Clint in WCA was good writing. Rather than stick with a one-note caricature of Bellicose Bowman who was an automatically over-aggressive contrarian, it seemed like Clint's growth into a more mature, and yes, mellower version was both natural and desireable. If you look at Clint throughout all his appearances you can see several distinct stages: 1. "Villain". A bit arrogant, brilliant with gizmos and fighting, but not too bright in reading people and situations. 2. Neophyte Avenger. Young, hot-headed, eager to rise to power in the team by constantly challenging and undermining Cap. 3. Baseline Hawkeye. Brash, cocky, loudmouthed but not mean-spirited. Always up for a fight, but less likely to turn on a team-mate than "neophyte Hawkeye". And this version lasted for a decade or more, going through his Goliath period right up till Englehart's first tenure as writer. 4. Who am I? Englehart has him leave the team to establish himself. He joins the Defenders, casts about a bit, tries to define himself as someone other than Hawkeye the Avenger. This only lasts a couple of years. 5. Back to Baseline. The next decade or so sees the more or less caricature Baseline Hawkeye personna in effect. 6. West Coast. Finally an attempt to do something with the character. He marries, he leads a team, he starts to have to think and act a little differently. He's still hot-headed and smart-mouthed but finally has some insight into people and consequences. This version covers his Thunderbolts period too, though often he goes back to "Baseline" when writers have no idea what to do with him. Well that's undoubtedly the interpretation that Stern, Gruenwald and Engelhart were going for, and its a perfectly reasonable one, but it is an interpretation nonetheless. You talk as if this were all some very sophisticated piece of novelized writing conforming to some grand plan or natural progression, but it's not. Apart from Engelhart getting two stabs at the character (perhaps not coincidentally, my two least favourite portrayals up to that point) these are actually just different writers takes on the characters, not some grand plan for the character's progress. The reversions to 'baseline' that you dismiss are actually an indication of this and the expression of other writers' dissatisfaction with the direction the character is taking in others' hands. Some of these dissenting writers are hardly minnows either: Jim Shooter, David Micheline and John Byrne spring to mind. Most importantly to my mind is the fact that the development produced a very boring character. If development had created something good there wouldn't have been a problem, but there is. Writers don't know what to do with the 'developed' Hawkeye because there isn't anything to do with him -he's a nonentity. Well, this is a concern that is raised on the 'Enter the Story' website's material about Marvel Comics. There is undoubtedly a conundrum regarding comics characters and development. I don't hold with the wholly novelized approach they advocate there -comics aren't novels and they don't work the same way. OTOH I do agree that the 'appearance of change in place of actual change' isn't acceptable and that some progress is necessary. The difficulty lies in having the foresight to make the right choices. That's the crucial thing that you need to do. I don't think they did here. They pleased a lot of fans at the time by making Clint a 'success' after a fairly long time absent from the Avengers but they left him bland, boring and a more of a whinger than a butt kicker. The malign effects that bad changes can have are all too obvious if you compare Marvel's movies over the last dozen years with the comics -they bear almost no comparison and the 'classic' version is clearly viewed as vastly preferable and more marketable to the moviegoing public. Well I'm certainly not trying to justify Bendis handling of him, I was merely pointing out that the ignorance that earlier posters were accusing him of about the character's history did not appear to be accurate in this instance. Regarding making him a ninja I totally agree with you. For one thing it was demeaning to the Hand. They're supposed to be deadly. Now Clint might be tough enough to take on one or two of them hand to hand but he certainly shouldn't be cutting a swathe through them in the way that DD or Cap would (and even DD used to be shown to only be able to take on several of them at a time). You utterly devalue the Hand if you just treat them as 'goons'. Anyway, even the 'mellower' Hawkeye only first became anti-killing during one of Engelhart's turgid WCA melodramas. Here's a different take on it (and a fairly Engelhartian one actually); Hawk isn't really anti-killing. Rather it is merely something that enables him to express his anger and jealousy with his wife as he is unable to see past his own issues and really sympathise with the abuse she has suffered. Is is not an uncommon response for husbands to blame their wives for being raped, it's a natural part of jealousy. It can easily be read that way, rather than really being an expression of a high moral tone it is really him using his position as Chairman to get on his high horse and take a measure of retribution on his wife. I'm not entirely sure that's not what Engelhart actually intended here anyway. Certainly using the idea of him being completely against killing to turn Hawkeye into the poster boy for the Avengers Charter was something that contributed to making the character insipid and directionless IMO. He was always a tougher and more hard nosed character than that - making him house trained so that he doesn't get in people's faces anymore left him with nothing to do but mope about his current girlfriend and throw out the occasional zinger. As nothing more than a clown with a bow he should probably have gone back to the carnival. I do think you're overreacting here. I find comics approach to sex fairly reprehensible in general these days and they sometimes read like soft porn. I probably object to Chuck Austin's portrayal of Hawkeye and the Wasp more actually, which came across more as entirely superfluous titillation. My view would be that Wanda isn't amnesiac or mentally disturbed at this point, but rather Clint finds her living a completely different life in a new reality her powers have created. The Wanda he meets is a normal well adjusted girl whose life has had nothing to do with superheroes,demons, mutants etc. Considering that Engelhart portrayed him as having been in love with her in one of his endless bleeding love triangles (shortly followed by the even worse quadrangle with Wanda, Vision, Mantis and the Swordsman!) its not so surprising that he'd respond to her. I read it more as a 'what might have been' interlude. IMO they're all dead. I completely agree with Enter the Story on this; the Marvel Universe ended long ago. What is left is various plots, ideas and attitudes from (primarily) British comics of the 80s being regurgitated and populated by the various 'brands' of the Marvel (and DC) rosters. My advice: if any good stories turn up then by all means adopt them into the mythology in your own mind but ignore the rest -it's got precious little to do with what Marvel once was. That way you'll keep your blood pressure down too!
|
|
|
Ronin
May 18, 2012 15:24:39 GMT -5
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on May 18, 2012 15:24:39 GMT -5
I find this exchange highly interesting for, as it happens, the only character I didn´t like from the movie was Hawkeye. I understand why he would be portrayed that way, having been introduced as a Shield agent in the Thor movie but, still, I find HIM rather boring and two dimensional when I compare him with the smart-mouthed, free-spirited archer I know from comics... . The Hawkeye from the movie is a tough guy, and a phenomenal archer and marksman, but little else... . Of course, there´s always the chance that he will experience a character growth in future movies. I also find interesting that none of you mentioned Busiek´s handling of Clint, which is probably my favorite: he´s more mature, grown-up and, yes, a little more tolerant. However, he´s not above loudly disagreeing with Cap when he feels strongly about something. Until, seemingly, he came to realize that he needed his own space away from Cap´s influence in order to pratice his own style of leadership. At any rate I think Busiek near perfectly nailed Clint right from the get-go, during his first issue, when the "voice over" stated that it is at such times, when Clint responds to the Avengers´ call, that he feels more (truly) alive. In other words, character growth is important but, at the same time, to stay true to his basic psychological make-up, he should always be a fun, life-embracing kind of guy. On the subject of his anti-killing stance, it seems to me that it´s a natural and in-character stance for Clint to have since, of all the Avengers, he´s quite possibly the one who identifies the most with Cap, and Cap himself has held this point of view in the vast majority of his post-World War Two adventures. For instance, during Operation: Galactic Storm, Cap opposed the killing of the Supreme Intelligence and, of course, Clint agreed with him.
|
|
|
Ronin
May 19, 2012 5:55:27 GMT -5
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 19, 2012 5:55:27 GMT -5
I find this exchange highly interesting for, as it happens, the only character I didn´t like from the movie was Hawkeye. I understand why he would be portrayed that way, having been introduced as a Shield agent in the Thor movie but, still, I find HIM rather boring and two dimensional when I compare him with the smart-mouthed, free-spirited archer I know from comics... . The Hawkeye from the movie is a tough guy, and a phenomenal archer and marksman, but little else... . Of course, there´s always the chance that he will experience a character growth in future movies. Yeah, agreed, he received by far the least attention in the movie and having not had his own flick that meant that he remains a very thin character (he only really gets one good line too). I wouldn't say that I didn't like the character in the movie, he just lacked any development or depth which by contrast I think they've done remarkably well with the Black Widow. Between IM2 and Avengers I think you know exactly who Natasha Romanov is whereas Hawkeye is just a generic special forces guy with a bow. OTOH the Special Forces sniper who just happens to favour the bow was a convincing take for the avenging archer. I tend to think that the ex-carnival archer turned superhero origin in the comics could do with being updated and it wouldn't be too difficult or a stretch to slot a period in the special forces and perhaps as a mercenary into his past between leaving the carnival and donning a costume. Indeed a background as a mercenary would make sense in the light of his subsequent recruitment by the Black Widow. In fairness we were talking about earlier versions than that and their subsequent influence so I don't think it should be seen as an omission in that way. I don't remember his Hawkeye that well as I've only read most of those the once (aside from Avengers Forever I'm not that big a fan) and its been a while. My impression was that Busiek's take was okay but a bit too 'nice' for my liking. I like to see a more abrasive Hawkeye, not just the team mascot. ...and that is the influence of Engelhart's portrayal. In the early days Hawk and Cap were really antagonistic but they grew to respect each other over time. However that's increasingly turned into Hawkeye being portrayed as Cap's mini-me. It's really not a development I'm happy with. It's taken the edge off Clint's character and left nothing more than being a bit of a class clown, as sort of second rate Spider Man. There was a time when I'd have said he was the closest character the Avengers had to Wolverine - I don't think anyone'd say that nowadays. Regarding Cap and killing I tend to think that the portrayal is misleading too. Obviously he's been portrayed many different ways over the years and some of them are barely recognizable as the same character. Personally I don't think that, as a soldier, Cap should be anti-killing. He's certainly anti-murder (such as the Superme Intelligence incident) but anti-killing is something different. Whilst I'd say that he would naturally be intent upon avoiding killing during peacetime when at all possible I think that with his background he should be one of the characters who most understands that it is sometimes necessary when fighting for your life (I'm speaking fairly abstractly about the character here since I'm fairly confident that some portrayals have firmly placed him in the strictly no killing category - I just think that, whilst not endorsing the meaningless carnage of many modern comics, the 'no killing' thing as a general rule for Marvel superheroes is rather dated and doesn't ring true). IIRC even Hank Pym's tribunal came about because he killed someone who had already surrendered, not just because he accidentally killed someone in action.
|
|
|
Ronin
May 21, 2012 6:39:42 GMT -5
Post by tomspasic on May 21, 2012 6:39:42 GMT -5
Crimson, you make some interesting points, but I still disagree with you on a few things. For one thing I don't "dismiss" the reversions to 'baseline hawkeye'. I just list them as phases in his history, as I list all the others. I actually like baseline hawkeye, but believe that it should be what it's name suggests, the core of the character upon which other developments are built, rather than a simplistic caricature he is returned to whenever a writer cannot be bothered or is not capable of doing anything with the character. It is who he is, and should always show through to some extent, but it is not all he is, or could be.
My view is that I do not want to read the same thing over and over. So either the material must change the characters, or I must stop reading it. Whether you like Englehart or not, he never had the Avengers stay still. Every character developed, and those developments largely stuck within his run, and made it interesting to see those characters change and grow, like real people. One of the many reasons I loathe Bendis is that there is much apparent change with no substance whatsoever. Take Daredevil. All the self-satisfied chest beating about how "nothing would be the same" because Bendis had Matt "outed", but at the end of Bendis run it's all forgotten and the status quo is back, and the character is exactly as before. Now we are looking at the same thing in the Avengers, 8 years later. It's taken 8 years for essentially nothing to happen. The same characters doing the same things. What is the point of that?
To go back to Hawkeye and Wanda. Yes, he had been portrayed as either loving her, or being strongly attracted to her. And she had turned him down, again and again. And then he finds her amnesiac, knowing as he does that she has had a breakdown, knowing that in her right mind she would not sleep with him, and he takes advantage of her. He abuses her. That cannot possibly be right, or be excused. It is, in fact, exactly what the Phantom rider did to Mocking Bird. Your claim that "Wanda isn't amnesiac or mentally disturbed at this point" is breathtakingly wrong on every possible level of meaning of the word "wrong". Of course she is amnesiac. Does she remember who she is or the events of her life? No. Ergo, amnesiac. Of course she is mentally disturbed. Has she recently killed several friends and teammates during a massive psychotic break, gone catatonic, resurfaced as amnesiac? Yes. Ergo, mentally disturbed. If, as you assert it was "new reality her powers have created. The Wanda he meets is a normal well adjusted girl whose life has had nothing to do with superheroes,demons, mutants etc. " then Clint would not be looking for her since they never would have met in that new reality. Your rationalizations for his rape of her fall apart very quickly. Yes, I said rape. To have sex with a woman against her will, who you know does not want to have sex with you, is rape. Whether by force, or by drugging, or mind control, or hypnosis, or jumping them whilst they are drunk, or amnesiac. It's all rape. I apologize, but this makes me angry. Probably too angry to be discussing a fictional story with somebody who is fine with what I see as rape, even if you do not. So it's probably best if I just leave it at that, and not discuss this any further. I would not be being fair if I requested that you not reply on this subject, that is your right. But it's going to be best all round if I don't respond to that. I hope you understand, it's nothing personal. For various reasons the subject evokes in me an anger beyond that reasonable to feel about a comic book.
As for your contention that having Hawkeye adhere to the Avengers charter watered down the character or changed him, again I disagree. For one thing being an Avenger was always important to Hawkeye, so abiding by the rules would be too. Prior to Englehart he was never shown as killing anyone, or even wanting to (with the possible exception of Egghead in the story where Clint's brother dies, and he does not kill Egghead, or even try to). So nothing about him being against killing was contrary to anything previously shown. All it did was to explicitly state and show what had been implicit previously. You may state that it "watered him down" to not kill, but I don't think that can be supported, especially since he never killed previously.
I'm not saying everything Englehart did with Hawkeye worked, or was great. But he did at least try to build upon what was already there. Hawkeye wanted to lead since joining, so he made him a leader. This led to him having to tone down the attitude, and learn to think of others. Hawkeye wanted love and a woman, so he got married. This led to him having to compromise, and be more mellow and less bitter. Hawkeye had never killed, so he was made to explicitly state that he was anti-killing. This led to situations where that view put him at odds with those who do kill. These were organic, logical developments on top of what was already there. Unlike overnight becoming a kill-happy ninja who will gun down unarmed women, torture women prisoners, and rape one of his oldest friends.
Personally, although I generally liked Englehart, I sort of prefer Busiek's Hawkeye. Still a leader who has grown, but also still a bit of a hothead who can put his foot in his mouth, or lose his temper. I look forward to the post-Bendis period to see what another writer might do with or for the character. I hope the Bendis era can be as ignored as the Englehart era has been for the last 8 years, and only referenced to retcon parts of it out, or in stories which basically pretend none of it ever happened.
|
|
|
Ronin
May 28, 2012 14:21:05 GMT -5
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 28, 2012 14:21:05 GMT -5
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner but I was a little preoccupied last week. My view is that I do not want to read the same thing over and over. So either the material must change the characters, or I must stop reading it. Whether you like Englehart or not, he never had the Avengers stay still. Every character developed, and those developments largely stuck within his run, and made it interesting to see those characters change and grow, like real people. Fair enough. I agree that Engelhart always did place emphasis on that, and character development is indeed necessary. Unfortunately I've never found his characters compelling or convincing. I find his soap opera plots and melodramatic turns rather ridiculous and often misrepresentative of the characters (the Scarlet Witch is a case in point who was seemingly unrecognizable from previous portrayals). He certainly did like placing characters in difficult positions with far more sophisticated focus on the psychology than is common in comics, and that's his strength IMO. The problem with character development in comics is that if you do 'too much' of the soapy stuff it builds up over time. Look at Captain America. The paragon of male virtue, the boy scout, steady, staunchly loyal and the squarest character in the MU. Yet due to continuity over 70 years he's now become a serial womanizer who once even had a girlfriend called Lola Ferrari (!). He's turned into Tony Stark by accident... No, I disagree. The contradiction is intended and actually contributes to the bittersweetness of the situation. Yes its a paradox but that is what the Scarlet Witch's power is supposed to have created. Hawkeye is actually portrayed being able to show affection for the person who killed him and who he was hunting for revenge. Yes I'm sure that Bendis has a lot to answer for more generally but you aren't being reasonable about this. You're refusing to enter the fiction and determined to cast it in the worst possible light by applying the 'rules' as you've decided they must be in spite of the fact that they clearly aren't supposed to work that way in this instance. Shooter and Micheline get similar flak for the Ms Marvel/Marcus thing back in Avengers 200. It was certainly a bit of an off colour tale but it wasn't actually abuse or rape until Chris Claremont made it so. Claremont was unhappy with the treatment of the character (understandably IMO) and chose to turn a questionable story into a really objectionable one in order to 'save' the character. I can't agree. One does not follow the other. Following the rules to keep something you value is not the same as absolute belief in them. Yes being an Avenger was always important to him, but he was always someone who challenged the orthodoxy not the guy to tow the line - he was fundamentally 'tamed' in that respect. How many mainstream Marvel 'heroes' were shown killing or trying to cause serious injury back in the day prior to things like The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen transforming the industry (and unfortunately the pendulum swang the other way so we had far too much)? Wolverine is about the only one I can think of, maybe Daredevil. Things changed so much later that the Punisher went from being a dangerous loony to having his own book... I'm sure there are a few others but the fact remains that those aspects of violence were heavily suppressed in the era when the Comics Code ruled. That doesn't mean that people weren't supposed to get killed. I'm quite sure that many people are supposed to have died pretty much every time the Hulk went on one of his rampages but it's something that the comics of those times rarely touch on. I don't see how the lack of serious violence on Hawk's part can be taken as evidence here as the omission is essentially universal. Hawkeye was a seriously tough character and I'd suggest that real violence was implied in his character. He was not a swashbuckling Robin Hood type, but a hard bitten outsider. I'm certainly not trying to make out that he was dead keen on killing people at every opportunity but he is certainly one of the characters in the MU that I'd have expected to be willing to temper his idealism with a little pragmatism when push came to shove. When he goes undercover in the dives in search of the Black Widow (ish 43?) and ends up in a brawl would seem like a good example expressing the kind of character he was/is in my view. The subsequent presentation of him as one of the characters who mouths the official line and is actually most opposed to killing always seemed way off to me, and yes a real watering down. Yeah but in spite of his desire to 'be in charge' he'd always seemed singularly ill suited to being an Avengers leader, and was only made so by a version of the Vision that was completely insane. Fair enough, but was this change actually good for the character or has it just made him boring and difficult to write for? I'd suggest that pretty much all the worthwhile stories about Hawkeye are pre the mini-series and WCA and that no one has really known what to do with him since. Furthermore having Hawk choose to 'compromise, and be more mellow and less bitter' was a writing choice and not a necessary development for Hawkeye. They could have chosen a different path and developed him in a different direction, and in my view they should have. I feel that they were influenced by wanting to provide 'wish fulfillment' for the fans of a popular character who wanted to see him do well, but unfortunately that path came at the expense of what made him popular in the first place and has proven to be a dead end. I think some of the changes were 'organic' as you say, some were not and fundamentally changed the character (for the worse). I generally think they were all inadvisable.
|
|
|
Ronin
May 29, 2012 9:28:14 GMT -5
Post by tomspasic on May 29, 2012 9:28:14 GMT -5
@crimson, you do make some good points. Some stuff I think we probably wont agree on, so having stated our respective positions I think that there's not much to be gained re-stating or arguing further. One thread from this that is quite interesting to me is the idea of character development, re:Clint. Again, there are a few things we seem to differ on. I'll revisit the "killing" field once more. We are both aware that the comics code authority mandated against killing so this holds sway over stories and characters till the 1970's. But whatever the "meta"-reasons for it, we do not see Hawkeye kill. That is simply beyond dispute. Argue if you wish that lethal force is implied, implicit, intended to be read or would have been there if they had been allowed. My position remains that we see on the page what happens, and that is who these "people" "are", regardless of any possible off-panel actions or authorial intent. So I'm going to stick with my position that Hawkeye does not kill, because that is how every comic I read up until he kills Egghead in the 80's portrayed him. I understand that your interpretation of this point differs, but if I choose to insert a heroin habit for Hawkeye in-between panels and insist that the CCA kept Marvel from showing him as a junkie, you might rightly point out that without so much as an oblique reference to it anywhere in 20+ years worth of comics that I was just making stuff up to fit my own narrative. That is what I feel about any ret-con saying Clint killed before Egghead. That it's just people pulling stuff they wanted to have happened out of their ....errr..out of the air.
But where we can agree, I think, is that Clint begins as an arrogant, hot-headed loudmouth. He is unaccustomed to working with others or taking orders, particularly if he feels those giving the orders are no better than he is. You mention that you felt the "compromise and more mellow" direction was not for the best for him, and that they could and should have developed him in a different way. I am curious as to where you feel he might have gone. One could speculate about him having his hot-headed independence expanded upon, which Englehart did a bit when he had Clint leave the team and end up with the much looser, less organized Defenders, who lacked rules and by-laws and leaders. Do you think that this direction could have been pursued further, perhaps having Clint as a free agent for several years? Or perhaps forming his "own" team, sort of like the WCA or GLA or Thunderbolts? I think that the problem with the hot-headed contrarian side of him is that it really needs a foil to react against. An authority figure whom he questions and bridles under, which sort of requires that he be stuck in a team as a second banana. Or maybe he gets his shot at Alpha-dog in the WCA but finds that he blows it, that leadership is not as easy as he had imagined. Again, these themes were touched on in WCA and in Thunderbolts, to some extent.
I'm curious, as I say, to hear your own views as to where he might have been written as an alternative to what happened, which, though I liked generally I don't hold to be the perfect, only or even best possible route for him.
|
|
|
Ronin
May 30, 2012 3:50:13 GMT -5
Post by Crimson Cowl on May 30, 2012 3:50:13 GMT -5
@crimson, you do make some good points. Some stuff I think we probably wont agree on, so having stated our respective positions I think that there's not much to be gained re-stating or arguing further Yes I'm sure you're right that some of our disagreements would prove intractable. I don't mean to suggest that Hawkeye is supposed to have killed people 'off screen' as it were, though I might well make a case for him engaging in rather more brutal violence than was actually portrayed (prior to him actually sticking the Wrecking Crew with real arrows during Secret War anyway). My point was that essentially no characters are shown killing or engaged in strong violence so that the argument that Hawkeye's natural character development is to become the guy who's especially opposed to killing etc. doesn't hold up. Hawkeye is in no way unusual in not being shown behaving as tough as he talks. It's not really evidence when it's across the board like that and what evidence there is I'd suggest points to the contrary. What a great question -it certainly set me thinking. Can't say I have ever been much of a Defenders fan. I think that a run with a leader who fails spectacularly might have been an interesting thing to explore. Actually I think the way to go was the one they started on with Avengers 181 where Hawk gets booted out of the Avengers, with the possible subtext that it's because he's not considered Politically Correct. Here they could have explored his outsider status a bit more and let him become more of an individual in his own right rather than just part of the team. You started to see something like this in #189 and also in the one where he teams up with Scott Lang against the Taskmaster (c. #223?). For comics of the later eighties with more adult themes it might have been interesting to see Hawkeye cut adrift for a while longer and walking a line where he's in danger of being sucked back into the world of his shady past, one of criminality, espionage and even treason. The idea that without support he might have to take jobs that aren't exactly Avengers Approved could be interesting and revivify the character's questionable roots. Having him struggle through a period like that could add layers of intrigue and depth to the character that build upon the material that's always been there yet has never really been exploited (I suppose the Trick Shot story in Solo Avengers touched on it, and certainly provided a more logical 'origin', but unfortunately it wasn't very good otherwise). I think the character that returned to the Avengers from something like that could've been a real update of the original 60's character with enough meat to be a genuine engine for storytelling. A Hawkeye who wants to belong and, whilst feeling that he is a true Avenger, remains trapped as an outsider by his own nature and refusal to conform. A more tragic fate in many respects, but a more interesting one, and certainly a good deal less clownish. A bit less of the 'happy go lucky' and a bit more of the firebrand - yes please!
|
|
|
Ronin
May 30, 2012 5:47:27 GMT -5
Post by tomspasic on May 30, 2012 5:47:27 GMT -5
Interesting.. One of the reasons that I think Hawkeye is a popular character is he is easier to relate to than many of the other heroes. Cap may be the man we wish we were, Stark Richards or Parker the geniuses we envy, but Hawkeye is fallible and bad tempered, like us. He isn't a genius, or super fast or strong or able to fly. He's an amazing archer, beyond what we might hope to achieve, but aside from that he's a "man on the street" to some extent. And I think that it's this fallibility and vulnerability that should be explored. Maybe he should mess up a bit more than some of the others, not as an archer, but as a fighter, as a tactician. An early issue had him not pay attention in a briefing, then his signal ring got damaged in a nightclub, so he missed out on a mission to rescue the Wasp. He perhaps should be the guy who has to try harder than everyone else, and still comes up short, and knows that. But is confident, or arrogant enough to keep trying, to feel that he can hold his own. And mostly to do so. I don't want him to fail every mission, but to see him sometimes stumble, (metaphorically), and then have to pick himself up and push all the harder. It will be interesting to see where he goes next, what with the BIG push the movie has given him. Suddenly he seems everywhere, which, to be honest, just gets grating. But I'd rather see him too much than not at all, I guess.
|
|
|
Ronin
May 31, 2012 4:28:24 GMT -5
Post by betaraybill on May 31, 2012 4:28:24 GMT -5
IMO they're all dead. I completely agree with Enter the Story on this; the Marvel Universe ended long ago. What is left is various plots, ideas and attitudes from (primarily) British comics of the 80s being regurgitated and populated by the various 'brands' of the Marvel (and DC) rosters. My advice: if any good stories turn up then by all means adopt them into the mythology in your own mind but ignore the rest -it's got precious little to do with what Marvel once was. That way you'll keep your blood pressure down too! Well said. There used to be one universe, one reality. The storytelling's gotten so unconcerned with continuity and characterizations that if one wanted to imagine that different arcs, even within the same series, were patchwork stories brought into focus from alternate universes, they could feel justified in doing so. In my heart of hearts there's a Marvel Universe out there where the insidious retconning of the 2000's & beyond never happened.
|
|
|
Ronin
Jun 5, 2012 18:34:31 GMT -5
Post by humanbelly on Jun 5, 2012 18:34:31 GMT -5
The excellent back & forth in this thread has been particularly interesting, I think, because it’s been an ongoing debate for decades not only in comics, but pretty much in all popular media/storytelling. It represents, in my opinion, two mutually exclusive- yet individually valid- viewpoints on how serialized characters (which of course is what comic book characters are, as opposed to characters in novels, say, or single films) are “best” handled as they progress through time in their own fictional universe. Do they grow and change, as their experiences and history mold them, possibly becoming quite a different person many years down the road from the one they were at the beginning of the serial? (To which a sizable portion of their fans will say, “No! Because this is no longer the character I loved and related to when I first signed on! It’s a cop-out. Give us our character back” I think the Artemis Fowl series may be having trouble along these lines, according to HBSon). Or on the other hand, do they remain pretty much the same, dependable hero/cad/wizard/detective that we love reading about, year after year—a comfortable and consistent companion (To which an equally-sizable contingent will say, “Omigod, this fool never GROWS! He’s BOOOORING!!!” *cough* TARZAN*cough*)
There are of course excellent successful examples of both types of serialized characters. (And this is largely off the top of my head, mind you-)—
Changing/aging/growing over time: Robert E Howard’s CONAN stories and novels. . . especially w/ the expansions by L Sprague de Camp. The Harry Potter series. The Thin Man film series (particularly good, ‘cause the characters remained consistent even as they progressed through major domestic shifts). The ongoing Harry Dresden series Amazing Spiderman. . . for many, many years—until MJ apparently lost her baby. Then they were stuck. The “Alphabet” mysteries (Kinsey Milhone series), as the author early on even stated that she wanted the character to confront aging by the time she got to “Z” (hmm—wonder if she’s there yet). Pretty much any of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld “core” books, but particularly the Sam Vimes books, the Witches books, and VERY much the Tiffany Aching books.
Steadfast/dependable/consistent over the years: Okay, the absolute best example is PG Wodehouse’s JEEVES & WOOSTER books. You pretty much can’t tell the difference between the earliest (written in the early 20’s, possibly?), and the last (written in 1967). Ian Fleming’s James Bond novels. Sherlock Holmes Peanuts Oddly enough, the Pratchett novels that focus on the Wizards (resistance to change being one of their most amusing character traits. . . ) Harry Harrison’s Stainless Steel Rat Wow, most successful sitcoms—because usually when the have to make some sort of huge personal change (marriage, death, baby. . . whatever), it almost automatically becomes a shark-jump event, and the show loses a piece of its dramatic tension (along with a successful dynamic).
So both. Both are legitimate, proven ways to handle long-running, serialized characters. The simple reality is that, the longer they run, the more likely it is that one audience or the other will have to be chosen and catered to. In comics, of course, with multiple-times-multiple writers having a say in how any character behaves, there’s an unavoidable historical mish-mosh of jumping back and forth depending on creators’ whims and attempts to chase sales figures (in the short run). Personally, I am strongly and firmly in the change and growth camp (which is how I had seen the long-view developments of both Spidey and Hawkeye). But I’m not w/out sympathy for the many folks- like Crimson C- to whom many developments appear as reneging on both the character’s premise and promise. Certainly not an unfair stance.
Aaaaaand that’s used up most of the HBGirl dance class. . . thanks if you read this far, folks!
HB
|
|
|
Ronin
Jun 7, 2012 4:01:40 GMT -5
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 7, 2012 4:01:40 GMT -5
I wasn't actually adopting the 'comic book characters should never change, or should only have the illusion of change' position though I'd certainly agree that I'm far closer to it than tomspasic is.
Marvel was founded on the idea that these are 'real people' and the concept of them not undergoing real change is essentially anathema to that. The idea of 'unwriting' Spider Man's marriage was really appalling IMO. There are two main issues though that I think that can be a big problem.
If your characters don't grow old and die (something that was never a realistic possibility) then there's just the problem of time -eventually there's just too much story for it to be plausible. Captain America's girlfriends are a case in point. He's now had so many that even though no one's ever portrayed him as anything but Captain Reliable the sheer weight of narrative now suggests a very different character; he now appears to be someone incapable of maintaining a stable relationship.
The other is, as you say, changing the character into something that loses the original appeal of the character. There is a simple answer to this: don't make the wrong changes. By all means have development and better still go deeper into the character but there is no good reason to sacrifice what makes them interesting in the first place. That was my essential position. Of course that's a lot easier said than done when you're dealing with numerous writers and many editors over several decades with the legacy becoming increasingly convoluted.
Anyway, just to clarify in case it was needed, my case was not that Hawkeye shouldn't change or develop but that the 'wrong' changes had been made and the character has been left in limbo ever since as a result.
|
|
|
Ronin
Jun 7, 2012 6:32:03 GMT -5
Post by tomspasic on Jun 7, 2012 6:32:03 GMT -5
And on the "change" subject, it's worth mentioning how problematic it is in a medium whose print runs may last 70 years and run to hundreds of issues. Over a three or five year run, character development and significant events works well. Over thirty years or three hundred issues it all begins to build up into an un-manageable mess. I suppose this is in part the reason for "decompression", so that rather than 12 stories a year you only get 2, tops. Keeps continuity simpler and slows down character development to a manageable pace. Even those like myself who advocate character development have to admit that looking back over the history of any marvel character starts to look absurd unless you willfully ignore large chunks of it.
It's also worth noting that a kind of "character development" is sort of inevitable even if you try not to do it. Superman is not what Siegal and Shuster first wrote, partly because as society changes our expectations change and even the most static of imaginary figures drifts with it. If you look at persistent character myths like King Arthur you see this cultural drift over centuries as the Arthur myth is re-imagined and re-told, and our notions of Kings and warriors change and change the stories and their meanings. Films are particularly prone to this with endless "remakes", but oral histories and literature are subject to it too.
So what does all this mean? I favour a ragnarok approach. Have character development but every 10-20 years reboot the whole "universe" and start over. You can keep the stuff which works from reboot to reboot, but are no longer troubled by seemingly immortal heroes with personal histories of an improbable length. This is what DC have done and although it's not perfect it does seem better than "I got married then did a deal with the devil and now I'm single and young guys can relate to me". It also means that if you dislike the changes to Hawkeye you know that in a decade or so they could all be swept away...
|
|
|
Ronin
Jun 8, 2012 3:54:50 GMT -5
Post by Crimson Cowl on Jun 8, 2012 3:54:50 GMT -5
It's also worth noting that a kind of "character development" is sort of inevitable even if you try not to do it. Superman is not what Siegal and Shuster first wrote, partly because as society changes our expectations change and even the most static of imaginary figures drifts with it. If you look at persistent character myths like King Arthur you see this cultural drift over centuries as the Arthur myth is re-imagined and re-told, and our notions of Kings and warriors change and change the stories and their meanings. Films are particularly prone to this with endless "remakes", but oral histories and literature are subject to it too. So what does all this mean? I favour a ragnarok approach. Have character development but every 10-20 years reboot the whole "universe" and start over. You can keep the stuff which works from reboot to reboot, but are no longer troubled by seemingly immortal heroes with personal histories of an improbable length. I really enjoyed your post, I think it got to the heart of several things. I think that Marvel has reached a place where its characters are in the process of transforming from superheroes with an ongoing future into fully realised mythologies like King Arthur or Robin Hood. Of course people have long pointed out that superheroes are a kind of modern mythology but there' a difference between what they were/are and true mythologies. One of the key differences is that mythologies have an ending. As you put it, a Ragnarok (mind you I suppose you could argue that Marvel's had that in place ever since Days of Future Past, but I'm thinking more about individual's stories rather than the whole shebang). I'm not at all a fan of the reboot thing though I do agree with the advantages you observe. DC has possibly been at a point where the characters fully evolved into mythologiess long ago, but I think Marvel's different way of doing things enabled them to hold off on that for longer. Perhaps that has changed now? Here's a question for you guys. Do you view The Dark Knight Returns as being, in essence, the true ending of the Batman story or do you regard it as one of a number of possible alternate futures? BTW, I don't think that decompression is aimed at slowing progression, its just a happy accident that it does so. It's a side effect of laying far greater emphasis on mimicing reported dialogue, the demands of the TPB format etc. Basically its just the style of storytelling that's fashionable at the present.
|
|
|
Ronin
Jun 11, 2012 18:52:23 GMT -5
Post by humanbelly on Jun 11, 2012 18:52:23 GMT -5
It's also worth noting that a kind of "character development" is sort of inevitable even if you try not to do it. Superman is not what Siegal and Shuster first wrote, partly because as society changes our expectations change and even the most static of imaginary figures drifts with it. If you look at persistent character myths like King Arthur you see this cultural drift over centuries as the Arthur myth is re-imagined and re-told, and our notions of Kings and warriors change and change the stories and their meanings. Films are particularly prone to this with endless "remakes", but oral histories and literature are subject to it too. So what does all this mean? I favour a ragnarok approach. Have character development but every 10-20 years reboot the whole "universe" and start over. You can keep the stuff which works from reboot to reboot, but are no longer troubled by seemingly immortal heroes with personal histories of an improbable length. I really enjoyed your post, I think it got to the heart of several things. I think that Marvel has reached a place where its characters are in the process of transforming from superheroes with an ongoing future into fully realised mythologies like King Arthur or Robin Hood. Of course people have long pointed out that superheroes are a kind of modern mythology but there' a difference between what they were/are and true mythologies. One of the key differences is that mythologies have an ending. As you put it, a Ragnarok (mind you I suppose you could argue that Marvel's had that in place ever since Days of Future Past, but I'm thinking more about individual's stories rather than the whole shebang). I'm not at all a fan of the reboot thing though I do agree with the advantages you observe. DC has possibly been at a point where the characters fully evolved into mythologiess long ago, but I think Marvel's different way of doing things enabled them to hold off on that for longer. Perhaps that has changed now? I'm liking your point about comic books not exactly being modern mythologies-- although the comparison has been made into a cliche' by both artists and academics for a heck of a long time. I wasn't sure why it never set quite exactly right for me. And the fact that they stll to this very minute remain open-ended accounts might have something to do with it. Myths have endings. Of course. Perhaps, then, this type of popular fiction doesn't have a true analogous predecessor? Superheroes and old pulp fiction heroes and paperback novel detectives and the like. . . they're never written with an end in mind because at their core they're still a profitable commodity and a high-demand source of popular entertainment. Heck, Conan Doyle KILLED Holmes outright at mid-career. . . and simply wasn't allowed to let that status quo lay quietly in its grave. I think. . . I wonder. . . perhaps this is a unique genre'-specific problem? Well, yes, obviously it is. NONE of these characters (let alone universes: DC, Marvel, Prince Valiant, Holmes, James Bond, Nick Carter, Doc Savage, etc, etc) were ever initially created with a multiple-decade life-expectancy. Certainly in comics golden age, there were scores and scores of "a few appearances, aaaaand done" characters. Same with those pulp and paperback protagonists. A story or two, and if they spark an uptick in sales, maybe keep the ball rolling a bit longer. Expectations were always low, and boy, I can just imagine the looks a writer would get from an impaitient manager as he tried to justify maintaining a precisely thought-out character arc that would have a brilliant payoff 30 years down the road. "Yeah. Right. Deadline's still in 40 minutes, Hemingway." (Manager stomps off, grumbling about these idiot key-pounders) And you almost can't blame Marvel (as a comic producing entity) too much for brazenly, and rather naively, crowing in its Marvel Age infancy that time would PASS in their universe, that the characters would GROW and CHANGE, and not be stuck and static like they were at. . . other companies. Honestly, Marvel and Stan had absolutely nothing to lose at that point. Stan was on the verge of quitting anyhow, and Goodman wasn't that keen on what was being produced at any rate. The innovations we were about to witness have always, always come across to me much more as the result of a "what the heck, the ship's sinking anyhow, so let's do something we like, hey?" mindset, rather than a legitimate hail-mary pass to save the game and the company. In other words, while the cool idea of continuity and time-passage was sincere and honestly committed to-- it almost certainly never got much of the think-through it should have at that very early point. And why would it? What were the chances of 50th anniversaries having to be contended with? Oh brother-- it's another dance night, can you tell? A reply becomes an extemporaneous essay. . . HB
|
|