|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 9, 2007 10:49:58 GMT -5
This spins out of the "Is Magneto Evil?" thread.
The end of Captain America and Bucky, featuring Baron Zemo.
The telling of the "origin" of Peter Parker's parents.
Magneto's involvement in the Holocaust.
Different retcons that have enriched or torn down characterization through the years. What's your opinion on retcons in general, and/or do you have particular favorites or ones that you just hate? Should authors have the ability to just take carte blanche with history?
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 9, 2007 11:09:41 GMT -5
Boon *AND* Bane.
You mention having particular favourites?
In general, I like retcons which slot perfectly into a character's history, even clarifying some details. Allow me to give some examples.
-Doctor Doom's *entire* history was a retcon started by Stan Lee himself. Well, most of it. In his first appearance, Ben Grimm had no idea who Doom was and Doom displayed few to none of what would later be his defining character traits. Ruling Latveria? Retcon! In his first appearance his castle was mere miles from New York and he had a pet tiger- as well as being obsessed with riches. I don't think anyone believes Doom would be a more interesting character without his relationship with his mother, his ruling of Latveria, his monumental ego, etc.
-Magneto's holocaust background. It *perfectly* explains how someone like him could realistically house the feelings they do (when written properly). I mean, if I was put through what Magneto was, I could see myself turning out like him. And it's FAR more interesting than the 2 dimensional ranting madman he once was.
-Pietro and Wanda as Magneto's children- The example of a perfect retcon to my mind. It not only makes total sense, but works out so well for all characters involved that you'd think it was planned from the beginning.
Those are some majors that spring to mind. There are some more recent ones too. McDuffie did what I consider to be an excellent one in FF542. Mere issues before, JMS had provided a rather rubbishy and out of character idea that Reed Richards felt you ALWAYS must obey the law because it's the law and basically defended McCarthyism. Within issues, McDuffie not only showed much better reasons for him to be doing what he was doing, but actually provided a complete explanation for why he was acting the way he had been before, all of which was solidly in character. Smooth work. The idea of a Reed/Hank/Tony brain trust had never really been hit upon that much until Millar's Wolverine run, but in retrospect that makes perfect sense as well and seems only natural.
Plus you have your damage control retcons. Magneto spent twenty years being the poster boy for "grey area" characters (with a few spots here and there) and suddenly he goes crazy, kills millions, marches people into ovens and effectively blows up New York. Leaving aside that it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place, retconning it so that it was not Magneto at all was the smartest move, and definitely welcomed.
Then you have your poor retcons, and I'm sure we can all think of a few. (Sins Past comes to mind). Definite huge disadvanatges to retconning.
Then there's the ones that are okay. The Illuminati, for instance, I'm apathetic about. Does it make a degree of sense? Sure. Am I that interested or enthused by it? Not really. On another note, do I feel it makes things worse? Not really. So I'm okay with that.
That's my opinion anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 10, 2007 8:43:03 GMT -5
Used like a surgeon's scalpel, they can enhance characterization. Used like a bludgeon, they can invalidate literally decades of work to no end. Sometimes a writer makes a bad mistake that isn't seen as such until years later, and it takes a retcon to get rid of it. It's my hope that this is the eventual fate of the SHRA and Tony's behavior during and since the Civil War. Other times, a subsequent writer just doesn't "like" certain stories and feels he wants to take the character in a different direction that his predecessors, which I guess is what happened with Magneto.
The problem with retcons is they're *easy*. Mark Waid developed one of the dumbest ideas in the long history of dumb ideas when he devised "hypertime." Its core message was "nothing we do, ever, has any impact on continuity. Don't bother following any book because any writer, at any time, can decide to use hypertime to invalidate it." Even DC soon realized what a terrible plan that was. That represents the worst thing a retcon can be: an easy out, a deus ex machina for a lazy writer.
I think before a large scale retcon is considered a writer and his editors must ask, repeatedly, whether they can devise a better approach to reaching the same destination - an approach that fits within established continuity. Good writers and editors can usually do this if they work at it. Hacks cannot, and the excessive use of retcons and other poor storytelling techniques (like stunt murders) is a clear sign that a writer is a hack. Judd Winnick, are you listening? 'Cause you just joined the hack club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 10, 2007 12:55:01 GMT -5
Judd Winnick, are you listening? 'Cause you just joined the hack club. Judd Winich joined my mental hack club some time ago, when he brought back Jason Todd in an awful, awful and nonsensical way. It looked even worse when put alongside Brubaker's masterful return of Bucky. |
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 11, 2007 11:12:18 GMT -5
For me is was murdering Green Arrow as a sales stunt. Typical of what the modern comic reader seems to want, and typical of how creators pander to base desires.
Since Jason Todd's death was a cheap sales stunt, I'll give DC a little leeway in bring him back, but since he came back he's pretty much been a pointless character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 11, 2007 11:20:54 GMT -5
If it's any comfort, it seems
*SPOILER*
Ollie's not dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 11, 2007 15:35:58 GMT -5
Good news, but I think I'll see how it plays out before I take Winick off my hack list... |
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 12, 2007 22:24:17 GMT -5
Doom’s “boon *AND* bane” reply so well expresses my thoughts (except that I’m decidedly more skeptical about McDuffie’s reinterpretation of Reed’s SHRA stance and about the Illuminati) that he has earned an exaltation from me. I’d like to reply to one specific comment: Then you have your poor retcons, and I'm sure we can all think of a few. (Sins Past comes to mind). Definite huge disadvanatges to retconning. “Sins Past”, for those who were wondering, is the J. Michael Straczynski Amazing Spider-Man story in which it was revealed that Gwen Stacy had had a mutually consensual sexual encounter with Norman Osborn that resulted in the birth of twin children. In my opinion, this is a story that should never have been published. (Apparently Straczynski’s original idea was that the twins’ biological father would have been Peter Parker, and I think that would also have been a poor story.) I feel that the revelations of “Sins Past” could be made more consistent with Gwen’s traditional characterization if yet another retcon revealed that the sexual encounter wasn’t really consensual on her part (we essentially have only her word that it was; she could have been mind-controlled in classic comic-book fashion, and even in real life sometimes the victim assumes responsibility). Still, I’m not sure I’d actually want to read such a story. |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 13, 2007 19:19:32 GMT -5
Help -- out of the Spider-loop. Was it Gwen Stacy or her clone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 15, 2007 2:17:58 GMT -5
Help -- out of the Spider-loop. Was it Gwen Stacy or her clone? The original one  That is definitely a retcon that I hope to see retconned soon, possibly with someone saying that Norman had lied and/or Mary Jane had been implanted a false memory or something, so that the intercourse between Norman and Gwen has never happened in reality. Sins Past to me is the story that puts down a generally good run by Straczynsky. As for the original question, I agree with Balor's post and with Doom's definition of good AND bane. Some retcons fit perfectly in continuity and make things clearer or fix past mistakes/inconsistencies (the explanation of Wanda's caos magic and that her powers come from Chtlon springs to mind), others just create more troubles than they are worth. |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 15, 2007 10:35:10 GMT -5
Help -- out of the Spider-loop. Was it Gwen Stacy or her clone? The original one That is so sad to me. Without having read the story, my impression is that it just destroys the purity of Gwen that exists in her memory. I thought Alex Ross captured the essence of Gwen perfectly in Marvels #4 when he shows her childlike innocence while walking through the streets. This "growing up" of her character, however it might have actually come about, just for me destroys her memory. Bane in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 15, 2007 11:37:13 GMT -5
Help -- out of the Spider-loop. Was it Gwen Stacy or her clone? The original one That is definitely a retcon that I hope to see retconned soon, possibly with someone saying that Norman had lied and/or Mary Jane had been implanted a false memory or something, so that the intercourse between Norman and Gwen has never happened in reality. Sins Past to me is the story that puts down a generally good run by Straczynsky. This story could basically serve as the very definition of bane. There was never anything in Gwen's character that would in any slight way indicate that she would have slept with Norman Osborne. What made it even worse for me was that she never slept with Peter. I'm not saying that she should have because her image fits well with virginity, but the fact that she didn't sleep with Peter but did with Norman just completely ruins the beauty of their relationship. I can't wait till some writer retcons this retcon. I don't even care how lame the explanation is (Alternate universe, alternate time line, clone, skrull impersonation) just so long as they don't use something like "It was a skrull and therefore Gwen was already dead before the Goblin grabbed her, thus it was really the Skrull that died on the bridge" which would then ruin one of the greatest tales in Marvel history. Come to think of it, that's still preferable to the idea that Gwen was a very *friendly* person. |
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 15, 2007 13:09:59 GMT -5
Indeed... I really wonder why JMS wrote that story... despite some occasional continuity errors his run had been fairly good up to those issue. Past Sins trashed it all  |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 15, 2007 13:38:36 GMT -5
It was a skrull and therefore Gwen was already dead before the Goblin grabbed her, thus it was really the Skrull that died on the bridge" which would then ruin one of the greatest tales in Marvel history. No it wouldn't. it would suck beyond belief but it would NOT ruin the story. Nothing can ever ruin that story now unless we go back in time and change it. Was it fantastic? Yes. Is it fantastic now? Yes. Then as long as it exists, it will BE fantastic, whatever may happen in the future, whatever retcons may be done. It's funny, while Sins Past did suck.... Gwen's innocence itself was a retcon. She was never so pure and virginal in life. |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 15, 2007 14:24:47 GMT -5
It was a skrull and therefore Gwen was already dead before the Goblin grabbed her, thus it was really the Skrull that died on the bridge" which would then ruin one of the greatest tales in Marvel history. No it wouldn't. it would suck beyond belief but it would NOT ruin the story. Nothing can ever ruin that story now unless we go back in time and change it. Was it fantastic? Yes. Is it fantastic now? Yes. Then as long as it exists, it will BE fantastic, whatever may happen in the future, whatever retcons may be done. It's funny, while Sins Past did suck.... Gwen's innocence itself was a retcon. She was never so pure and virginal in life. I disagree with both of your posits here. I will say that retcons can be good or bad (as I stated in my original post) and I've appreciated some of the thoughts here. But, any retcon in one of the pivotal moments in the Marvel Universe would cheapen the moment. While I am not a reader of Cap, I don't like the idea of the Winter Soldier. While Bucky's death was a retcon in and of itself, it did define Cap through his seminal Silver Age years. Bucky's death made Cap who he was and was the anchor to the "man out of time" angle that Stan and Roy took with Cap in those years. Why change it later on -- was it broken? Similarly, to mess around with the events of Amazing #121-22 would (for me) destroy the story. Could I ever read those two issues again and NOT think of the retcon (were one done)? I don't see how. Once an idea is in your head, it's in your head... As to your other point, I'm not sure what you mean about Gwen not being pure and virginal in life. What's your source? I don't think there is any basis to this in the canon as written by Stan and drawn by Steve Ditko, John Romita, John Buscema, and Gil Kane. As the Spider-universe developed, Gwen's purity served as the antithesis to Mary Jane's "party girl". |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Oct 15, 2007 15:37:38 GMT -5
I disagree with both of your posits here. I will say that retcons can be good or bad (as I stated in my original post) and I've appreciated some of the thoughts here. But, any retcon in one of the pivotal moments in the Marvel Universe would cheapen the moment. While I am not a reader of Cap, I don't like the idea of the Winter Soldier. While Bucky's death was a retcon in and of itself, it did define Cap through his seminal Silver Age years. Bucky's death made Cap who he was and was the anchor to the "man out of time" angle that Stan and Roy took with Cap in those years. Why change it later on -- was it broken? Similarly, to mess around with the events of Amazing #121-22 would (for me) destroy the story. Could I ever read those two issues again and NOT think of the retcon (were one done)? I don't see how. Once an idea is in your head, it's in your head... Maybe you think of the retcon... but I don't think that would destroy the story. Maybe for you it would, but I don't think it diminishes the impact of that story. My shining example of this is the Dark Phoenix Saga. Is it an utterly fantastic story? Yes. And just because Phoenix returned and that "wasn't the real Phoenix", to me it will always BE a fantastic story. Because when I read it first, I had no idea it wasn't the real Phoenix. And when I read it again, part of me recognizes that it's not. But most of me just reads a brilliant story. It's not that she wasn't pure and virginal, it's just that it was exageratted after her death. Also, in retrospect she seems purer when compared to MJ. But really, while pure... she wasn't as squeaky clean as people like to think now. She's been made that after her death but at the time... she could be downright unpleasant at times. Maybe that's just me reading into things after the fact, but that's the impression I always get when I re-read the Lee/Ditko issues. |
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 15, 2007 16:07:39 GMT -5
Maybe you think of the retcon... but I don't think that would destroy the story. Maybe for you it would, but I don't think it diminishes the impact of that story. My shining example of this is the Dark Phoenix Saga. Is it an utterly fantastic story? Yes. And just because Phoenix returned and that "wasn't the real Phoenix", to me it will always BE a fantastic story. Because when I read it first, I had no idea it wasn't the real Phoenix. And when I read it again, part of me recognizes that it's not. But most of me just reads a brilliant story. Actually, that particular retcon didn't bother me as much because it really was Phoenix. It just turned out that Phoenix was never Jean Grey, as we had previously thought. This still meant that the Phoenix character we had been attached to since #101 did indeed sacrifice herself on the moon. The silly part of this discusion is that we are debating whether the AMS #121 story would beruined by my HYPOTHETICAL retcon. If it turned out that the woman that who was killed on that bridge was a Skrull instead of Gwen, then Peter's whole attempt to catch her and his subsiquent cradling of her in his arms and seeking revenge on the Goblin would have meaningless. If she had been previously killed by the Skrulls or was still alive and being held by them, then it would be meaningless. It would be a lot like the Dallas season which turned out to have all been a dream of Pam's when she woke up and found Bobby still alive in the shower. I'm actually kind of amused that my story that never happened could create controversy. It's not that she wasn't pure and virginal, it's just that it was exageratted after her death. Also, in retrospect she seems purer when compared to MJ. But really, while pure... she wasn't as squeaky clean as people like to think now. She's been made that after her death but at the time... she could be downright unpleasant at times. Maybe that's just me reading into things after the fact, but that's the impression I always get when I re-read the Lee/Ditko issues. I'm confused. No one ever said that Gwen couldn't be unpleasant or that she wasn't sometimes difficult, but how does that prove that she's not pure and virginal? Sometimes virgins can be just as unpleasant as anyone else. Maybe it's all that pent up sexual frustration. |
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Oct 15, 2007 16:25:17 GMT -5
It's not that she wasn't pure and virginal, it's just that it was exageratted after her death. Also, in retrospect she seems purer when compared to MJ. But really, while pure... she wasn't as squeaky clean as people like to think now. She's been made that after her death but at the time... she could be downright unpleasant at times. Maybe that's just me reading into things after the fact, but that's the impression I always get when I re-read the Lee/Ditko issues. She was pretty unpleasant in her early appearances, true. Ditko had a certain way of seeing life, and it reflected on the Spider books, especially since, after a big argument with Stan, most of the plot was actually made by him. In his opinion, Peter had to keep being socially alone, unable to fit in with people, and therefore Harry and Gwen were both rather hostile with him. Things changed rather dramatically when Romita Sr jumped on board. He and Lee agreed to make Peter fit more in the group, so he quickly became friends with Harry, friendly with Flash and, of course, in love with Gwen, who in turn became much sweeter and likeable, despite some occasional anger outbursts. Going back in track, I agree with Dlw's previous post. It's true that a retcon doesn't alter a great story per se, but it somewhat decreases its impact and importance. The Death of Captain Marvel GN was, and still is, one of my all time faves, but the knowledge that he will be back eventually lessens the story's impact on me now |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 15, 2007 16:30:19 GMT -5
Doom -- What we've come across in this discussion is truly what I'd thought would happen -- one person's retcon boon is another's bane. The Dark Phoenix Saga stands as a wonderful story (an arc, before we knew that comics had to be written in that vein ), and that we now know that it was the Phoenix-force assimilating the goodness of Jean Grey doesn't really diminish that story because in a sense it was the essence of Jean shining through. I will give you that it was a major point in the Marvel Universe and as such perhaps shouldn't have been messed with (see my sig. line for Roy Thomas' take on character deaths). But to me (and here's the individual interpretation of any given retcon), I just don't think Gwen's death -- or her life for that matter -- should be altered. Also, I'll agree with Spiderwasp that I don't think because she copped a "female adolescent attitude" with Peter from time-to-time that it makes her impure. I think the character evolved enough through Stan's run and beyond him that that aspect of her personality many years earlier just faded away. I was referring to the time after she and Peter became a couple. That any infidelity should have occurred, or even be implied to have occurred, borders on heresy as I have seen her and that relationship through my tenure as a fan of that era. Spiderwasp -- you posed a hypothetical situation, I reacted. This is not a bad thing. And not all that implausible, as current readers of what passes for today's Avengers mags can attest to. I say "good job" for stirring this thread up a little! EDIT: general grammatical clean-up. |
|
|
|
Post by balok on Oct 16, 2007 10:57:00 GMT -5
Sins Past stands as proof that not all retcons are good, and that even otherwise talented creators can blunder. I shudder to think what a hack like Bendis will do to the Avengers legacy as his tenure grows.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 18, 2007 20:44:30 GMT -5
Similarly, to mess around with the events of Amazing #121-22 would (for me) destroy the story. Could I ever read those two issues again and NOT think of the retcon (were one done)? I don't see how. Once an idea is in your head, it's in your head... Maybe you think of the retcon... but I don't think that would destroy the story. Maybe for you it would, but I don't think it diminishes the impact of that story. Our hypothetical Gwen-never-died story presumably appears in some future issue— ASM #600 or something. But, Doom, what if it were published in #123? Let’s imagine that a new editor and a new writer came in and retconned the original story immediately. Would it have diminished the impact of the original story? How about if it were the same editor and writer?
I thought Alex Ross captured the essence of Gwen perfectly in Marvels #4 when he shows her childlike innocence while walking through the streets. Gwen's innocence itself was a retcon. She was never so pure and virginal in life. It's not that she wasn't pure and virginal, it's just that it was exageratted after her death. Doom, I can see how you would get confused, considering that Doug had just described her as a streetwalker.  |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 18, 2007 22:15:43 GMT -5
"Hey, there, sailor" never crossed my lips (or came off of my keyboard, in this case)... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 18, 2007 22:24:01 GMT -5
As we’ve previously observed, the forum software tries (tries!) to target ads to the content on the page. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that, as I was rereading these posts about Gwen’s relationship with Norman Osborn, I saw an ad for ProBoards itself that contained these words: “Fast. Reliable. Easy to Use. FREE!” |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 19, 2007 7:38:52 GMT -5
Ah, Gwen's reputation continues to slide further into the gutter. And I'd always, always, thought she was such a nice girl.
Now MJ on the other hand...
|
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 20, 2007 11:57:20 GMT -5
For some reason (Boredom mayhaps) I have been giving this topic, the retcon one, not the Gwen one, a good bit of thought. I asked myself "What does make one retcon good and another bad?" My kneejerk reaction is to say that if a bad storyline or a mistake was corrected by a retcon, it's good. If a good story was marred, it's bad. Unfortunately, this thinking completly is based on gut feeling with no measurable criteria. Therefore, I have come up with some more measurable criteria (Although I still realize that many are still measurable only through opinion, but in a more defined way at least.)
1st - Does the retcon address or fix an actual problem? If it does, I think that's good. An example would be the short backup story in an Avengers annual that addresses why Tony Stark and the Wasp returned from Heroes Reborn but didn't return in the same ways they entered it. (Teenage Tony, insect-like Wasp.) This added a new aspect to what Franklin had done by explaining that he had returned things to the way that he knew them. This was fine because this had been an unexplained event previously. In a way, it was more of an explanation than a retcon, but since it added elements previously unmentioned, I think it still counts.
2nd- Does the retcon fit in with the events of the original story? This is where the Sentry retcon failed miserably. We are led to believe that Sentry has always been there but we can thumb through thousands of books and never see him. Where was he during Infinity Wars, Secret Wars, Inferno, or all of the other major crossovers that involved the entire MU? He was supposedly at Reed and Sue's wedding, and yet I can look back at the wedding itself and he simply is not there. If he was really there in all these events, but neither his presence nor the difference it made were ever shown in the books, despite the fact that the heroes still won, maybe he really is a useless character. Hmmm, at least that part isn't inconsistent with his portrayals since he's returned. He was also supposedy involved with Crystal, but how can that fit in with her history? We know Johnny was her first love and she left him rather abruptly for Pietro. They were married soon after. The marriage had problems when she had an affair, but then she got briefly involved with Dane Whitman before returning to give Pietro another chance. There really aren't any openings in her history to allow for a relationship with Sentry.
As much as I hate to admit it, this is where the "Sins Past" retcon actually succeeded. (Don't worry, I'll get to where it failed it a minute.) If you look back at the original books, the pieces do fit together. Gwen had indeed gone to France for a while and had just returned shortly before her death. The events of "Sins Past" could have fit into that timeline.
3rd- Is the retcon consistent with the characters? - Ahh, I told you I'd get to the fault of "Sins Past." In this story, the EVENTS could have happend but based on everything we previously knew about the CHARACTERS they make no sense at all. This is also where the recent depiction of Captain Americal being so tough on his fellow Avengers in the early days failed as well. Yes, it is possible that Cap could have had this scene based on how it fits in with early lineups, but it is inconsistent with his character that he would be this harsh, especially with two founding Avengers (Hank and Jan) since it was always indicated that he had the utmost respect for them.
4th- Does the retcon truly open up future possibilities for stories or just a one-time shock moment? The return of Jean Grey opened up the whole possibility of reuniting the original X-Men to form X-Force. Okay, there was a point. (Also, as I stated before, it didn't negate anything that happened on the moon or the fact that Phoenix emerged from the water. It only negated the fact that Jean was actually Phoenix and the cocoon in the water did fit in with this as a possibility.) On the other hand, having established that in the early days of the Avengers, Tony Stark took DNA samples from all of them secretly in case he ever wanted to use them for something like a clone, only led to a brief shock moment of seeing Clor kill Goliath and then have it revealed that it wasn't Thor. Yes, this also led to the recent confrontation between Ironman and Thor, but I still don't see where it opened a miriad of storyline possibilities. IMO - not worth the effort. Plus, it established Tony as having been duplicitous from the start, which may have been part of the point, but still doesn't fit with his early characterization.
Does anyone have any other criterea they would apply?
|
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Oct 20, 2007 13:50:03 GMT -5
4th- Does the retcon truly open up future possibilities for stories or just a one-time shock moment? The return of Jean Grey opened up the whole possibility of reuniting the original X-Men to form X-Force. Okay, there was a point. (Also, as I stated before, it didn't negate anything that happened on the moon or the fact that Phoenix emerged from the water. It only negated the fact that Jean was actually Phoenix and the cocoon in the water did fit in with this as a possibility.) On the other hand, having established that in the early days of the Avengers, Tony Stark took DNA samples from all of them secretly in case he ever wanted to use them for something like a clone, only led to a brief shock moment of seeing Clor kill Goliath and then have it revealed that it wasn't Thor. Yes, this also led to the recent confrontation between Ironman and Thor, but I still don't see where it opened a miriad of storyline possibilities. IMO - not worth the effort. Plus, it established Tony as having been duplicitous from the start, which may have been part of the point, but still doesn't fit with his early characterization. Does anyone have any other criterea they would apply? While I agree with 3/4 of your list this last one got me thinking. What if the retcon does open up future possibilities for stories, but bad ones? For example, that young Tony Stark from an altenate dimension storyline after The Crossing did open many possibilities for stories and plots, but I would rather have the real original adult Tony back (what happened in Heroes Return, thanks Kurt Busiek). Cap as a jerk also opens a lot of possibilities for future storylines, but I don´t think I really want to read them. I could give many other examples, but I think with those you already got my point... |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Oct 20, 2007 19:51:48 GMT -5
Spiderwasp -- excellent food for thought. But, I need to "chew" on this for awhile before responding...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Oct 25, 2007 17:18:37 GMT -5
Ah, Gwen's reputation continues to slide further into the gutter. And I'd always, always, thought she was such a nice girl. Now MJ on the other hand... anytime—double-starch!!
Spiderwasp, an exaltation for your analysis on retcons. Von Bek, I agree that the point on opening up story possibilities should, of course, be weighed according to the value those possibilities afford. |
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Dec 29, 2007 9:56:53 GMT -5
I'd like to reopen this discussion.
My son received a copy of "The Death of Captain America" hardcover for Christmas. I had not previously read the issues compiled in this edition. One might imagine my surprise (consternation, even) when I thumbed through the pages of what was issue #27 when Bucky confronts the Black Widow. Their secret history is then revealed. After viewing that, I hustled over to these very boards to see what our Cap fans had then-written about that issue. And it was not much...
I am just floored by this retcon, and again I'll ask "Why??" Why was it necessary to mess with 45 years of Marvel continuity? I am on record as saying I'm opposed to Bucky's return anyway (on principal, as I've not read any of the Winter Soldier material -- I know some of you heartily recommend it). I guess this opens up the potential for us to discuss retcons which breed other retcons, and when does/should it stop?
Having read the posts also in the "One More Day" thread, I'm again disappointed in the events that have just taken place in the Spider-universe. When is a death a death, and a watershed event left alone??
|
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Dec 31, 2007 9:59:07 GMT -5
What's the secret history of Bucky and the Black Widow?
And didn't they make a mini-series about Wolverine and Cap teaming up in WWII?
|
|
