|
Post by spiderwasp on Nov 15, 2007 20:10:52 GMT -5
Here's one -- why does anyone care about the Sentry? Are you kidding? He's been a favorite of mine since I was knee high to a grasshopper. I just didn't remember him until Bendis showed me the light. Remember that time he and Squirrel Girl almost got married but she caught him with the White Rabbit? Now that was a story! ;D
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Nov 14, 2007 22:45:34 GMT -5
I know we question each and every leap of logic or inconsistency that we see in Marvel. I'm not saying we shouldn't because that's simply how you critique a work. On the other hand, if we are unable to enjoy the books because they lack the logic and consistency that we used to enjoy, we are kidding ourselves. Marvel (As well as DC) has always been filled with plaguing questions that, if released to us today, would make us rant and rave about the stupidity.
Examples: *If the Hulk travelled by leaping, how could he change directions in mid-flight or unexpectedly land early if he saw something of interest below him. Wouldn't the momentum have just carried him on? The same is true of Thor who threw his hammer, caught it, and was pulled along. *Why does Bruce Banner own so many pairs of purple pants? For that matter, why did he own one? Why doesn't he bursts out of those like he does the shirts? *What is Spidey swinging on when there isn't a building in sight (Such as on the great cover for Avengers vol. III, #1)? *When the Wasp was captured under items such as a glass, why didn't she just grow and shatter it or lift it off? *How could Daredevil possibly read the print of a book by feeling the letters, especially when he sometimes did it with gloves? *Why did Magneto call his group the "Brotherhood of Evil Mutants" when he clearly thought he was justified in his stance against non mutants? *How can Sub-mariner fly with just tiny wings on his feet? *Why do some characters wear bulkly costumes that fully cover them (Black Knight, Spider-man, Black Panther) while others, right alongside them wear skimpy ones (Hercules, Sersi, Ms. Marvel, Wasp)? Shouldn't some of them be cold or hot? I've even seen scantily clad women in the snow and they don't seem to mind at all. *How can anyone who knew Bucky Barnes not have recognized him only the little Robin masks? Especially since his super-hero name was Bucky and his real name was Bucky? Duh. *How can Alicia Masters sculpt so many heroes accurately? Obviously she has felt up (Nothing dirty implied) Ben and even the rest of the FF but have all those other heroes just dropped by her apartment so she can see what they "look" like? Did the villains drop by too? *Since Wanda and the Vision obviously had a "physical" relationship, what was Ultron's motivation in giving him the necessary parts? Ultron's never appeared to have them himself. *If everyone on Howard the Duck's planet is a duck and they all talk rather than quack, why do they call their martial arts "Quack Fu?"
Most of these questions have been asked many times, but how many more do you have? If we're going to criticize Numarvel for it's flaws (And I think we are perfectly justified when do so) let's not ignore that the medium's always been full of them.
What other strange leaps of logic do any of you have?
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Nov 12, 2007 14:28:30 GMT -5
I voted 7 for pretty much the same reasons I gave the Wasp an 8. Both are personal favorite characters to me who make great Avengers but both have been handled badly by certain writers to the point that I can't quite see them at the very top.
|
|
|
Traffic
Nov 2, 2007 19:12:16 GMT -5
Post by spiderwasp on Nov 2, 2007 19:12:16 GMT -5
Actually I´m wondering why you came back.. with another screen name... and many "suggestions"... and why many reasonable folks seem to think that´s ok... while many others forum members (I could name at least 8 of them) left and never came back... I'm not sure if you are implying that we shouldn't welcome someone back, that we wouldn't have welcomed the others who have left back, or if we should have been offended by the suggestions. At any rate, I personally, felt that things might run smoother without some of the knee-jerk reactions that were there before, but if the returning party is willing to work on that - I'm certainly willing to give him a chance. As far as the suggestions go, I wasn't offended because the rest of also have things we can work on and he included himself as a person who has shown bad judgement sometimes and even offered apologies. The general suggestions were no different, basically, than what many of us have been suggesting and many of us can recognize that we too have been guilty of bad behavior. Friends get mad sometimes, and when one walks away from the friendship the other is often glad to see them go. That doesn't mean that, when both parties have cooled down and are seeing things different they won't make up. I know that we on this board are an unusual set of friends since we don't actually even know each other's real names and have never met but I think it's a friendship all the same. How else do you explain the amount of time we spend talking to each other? I enjoy this board way too much to want it filled with grudges and resentments. If we can all use this whole incident as a stepping stone toward learning to make our wars more "Civil", I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Traffic
Nov 2, 2007 16:44:02 GMT -5
Post by spiderwasp on Nov 2, 2007 16:44:02 GMT -5
Welcome Woodside. You seem familiar. Would you mind removing your glasses and putting a little spitcurl in the front of your hair? Maybe then I can place you. At any rate, I know that you and I (I'm imagining your someone else for the moment) haven't always seen eye to eye, though I don't think we ever quite reached the Jerry Springer level, I do again say that it's nice to have folks around who have a different perspective because as boring as a "Let's praise Marvel all the time" board would be, a "Let's bash Marvel all the time" board is no more interesting. Hope you took notice of my experiment thread. I realized the irony of starting it after you left, since I knew you would have enjoyed seeing that we could find positive things to say if we tried. Hope you enjoy it.
|
|
|
Traffic
Nov 1, 2007 16:28:52 GMT -5
Post by spiderwasp on Nov 1, 2007 16:28:52 GMT -5
Unfortunately we do have some major personality clashes between certain people. I'm sure the domination of that has led to a few people not posting here but I don't think that's the main reason things have slacked up lately. For one thing, I have tried posting on other boards and have found myself attacked quickly. I haven't had tons of experience with those boards, but based on my limited experience, there is plenty of hostility and lack of acceptance of differing ideas there too. That's not something exclusive to Avengers Assemble!
The more likely reason for the recent decline in posts, IMO, is that there isn't enough to get really excited or angry about happening with Avengers right now, and, unlike those other boards, this one is specific. It is a board dedicated to the Avengers. Sure, we branch out to Thunderbolts, Spider-man, etc. but Avengers is the heart of the board. Currently, we have NA which many of us have given up on. At any rate, those of us who don't like it have pretty much said everything there is to say about why we don't like it and nothing has changed or seems to be changing any time soon. MA gets us talking a little more, but the issues and the storyline are so spread out that there's only so much you can say. The Initiative carries the Avengers logo, but doesn't have any real feel of being an Avengers book so it still prompts limited discussion here. When I first started posting here, things were even slower than they are now. Then came Disassembled, House of M, New Avengers, and Civil War, which, like them or hate them, all got us talking. I don't think anybody really cares enough about World War Hulk to maintain that energy. It's not that we've stopped caring or stopped wanting to post, we just aren't riled up. That does leave it to those of that are still here to keep things rolling with our discussion of past issues and such until such a time comes that everyone can get hyped up again. The only change I'd like to see us work on is to focus on that kind of posting rather than keeping the ball rolling by talking constantly about who likes who and who speaks in angry tones. There comes a time to get over it and move on.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 28, 2007 13:01:50 GMT -5
: Still reading, so can't tell you how things turn out -- but in this case -- I'd say the Illuminati fits pretty darn well into continuity. Contrary to my past opinions about it. I appreciate the attempt to justify the presence of the Illuminati but I'm afraid I have to burst your bubble with one detail. According to the first Illuminati special, the group organized as a direct result of the Kree/Skrull War which didn't end until Avengers #97, so although there is evidence of Reed, Charles, and Tony working together in #88, that is prior to the formation of the Illuminati.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Nov 3, 2007 9:55:52 GMT -5
Now now, we're getting off track. This is supposed to be for POSITIVE comments about Nu-Marvel. Actually, no. It's supposed to be looking at the opposite point of view from the one you usually express. Woodside is doing exactly that.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 21, 2007 20:55:47 GMT -5
Here's the issue I have with this thought exercise: In the example of pro- and anti-death penalty positions, it is possible for each side to easily discover and expound upon the other side's rationale, even if they don't agree with it. The different factors are obvious and easily verifiable on the face of it. However, in the case of "QuesadaMarvel" vs. "anti-QuesadaMarvel," the factors can be misleading, obscure, or downright false. Marvel is a business and we the fans are not privy to the behind-the-scenes business imperatives. Marvel personnel are under no obligation to be fully or even partly truthful about what they're doing and why they're doing it. Quite often situations which are portrayed one way publically by Marvel personnel are revealed to be completely untrue later. For example, I recall reading that publically everything was being portrayed as 100% A.O.K under Harras when in reality the sh*t was hitting the fan behind the scenes. This is not just me using sarcasm as you mention in the first post. How can one have a serious debate using highly incomplete, and often totally invalid information? RSC Wow! That's really out there. You couldn't have missed the point more if you tried (Which it actually seems like you're doing.) The debate example was simply to explain what made think of looking at the other side. Trying to see what other people like in a book has absolutely nothing to do with information handed down by anyone. You simply look at the books that you buy and say "I like this" or "This is a positive that I see." It was never my intention that we reverse the debate to try to convince anyone that Marvel was at its best right now but that we simply step outside of ourselves and look at things in a little different light. As far as what Marvel personnel reveal or what Harrass or Quesada or anyone has to say, I couldn't possibly care less. These are clearly opinions that we are dealing with and I personally don't need the bigwigs at Marvel to give me mine one way or the other.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 21, 2007 9:23:31 GMT -5
When I was in high school, I remember debating in an English class. The subject of the debate was capital punishment. Now, I've always supported the idea of capital punishment but was placed on the side that had to be against it. As a matter of fact, everyone on both sides was for it (I do live in the South) so my team thought we would lose the debate hands down. What actually happened was that we ended up putting far more research and thought into our arguments than the other team because they just sat back and relied on their personal beliefs. We had to really dig. We clobbered them. Now, at the end of the day, I did not change my mind. I still believe that capital punishment is a viable means to deal with violent crime (Though the purpose of this thread is NOT to open up that can of worms) but I did come to a great UNDERSTANDING of where the other side was coming from.
That brings me to my experiment. We all tend to get a little stuck on the idea that our side of every argument is the right one and the others are all wrong. Let's try seeing the other point of view. If you are anti-Bendis/JoeQ/Millar/NA/MA/current Marvel, really give it some thought and use this thread to say as many positive things about those things as you can. The same goes for any of those of you that like those elements; point out something that is bad about them. We will all understand that you still have your own general feelings but that you are simply responding to my challenge so you don't have to worry about looking like a hypocrite or flip-flopper.
Please don't use this thread as a chance to sarcastically compliment them. Example: "Bendis is great at making suckers think they are reading a good book." If you give it great thought and still can't think of anything positive to say, I'm asking (Because I am well aware that I can't demand this) that you either don't post anything or simply post something like "Abstain". Keep in mind that if you post "Abstain" within a few hours of my opening the thread, it will prove that you have not tried to search yourself for something good to say before responding and therefore have shown that you really aren't trying to have an open mind. If you reflect on it for a day or two and then do that, that's a different story.
I'll start. Bendis is great at taking risks. Many writers have a tendency to write many stories that seem like they should have lasting effects on the characters, teams, universe, etc. but at the end of the story, nothing is actually significantly different than it was at the beginning. With Bendis, you can't just sit back and comfortably know that everything will work out in the end or that the status quo will return because it very well may not. This does take courage.
Bendis does keep characters saying humorous things during even the most dire of situations and I've always liked this in a writer. I hate books that get so heavy that there is no humor to be found.
I'll try to post more after I have a chance to reflect more myself.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 20, 2007 19:50:56 GMT -5
I voted 5. Herc has really grown on me over the years. I especially like him when the writer has a sense of humor and can appreciate the more rowdy side of the character. Writers that take him too seriously tend to make him boring.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 13, 2007 19:21:23 GMT -5
I was going to go with a 1, based on the fact that I don't really think the character has ever been particularly interesting as friend or foe, but then I remembered the significance of his marriage to Mantis and he moved up just a tad. Oh, and DL, if you actually voted that 2 you mentioned, you might want to try again. When I just placed mine, it was the only one showing.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 18, 2008 23:51:43 GMT -5
But at no point was I trying to say there have been NO changes. And I never said you did. I said: Furthermore, how you can possibly stick to your guns that "One More Day" only caused a small ripple is beyond me. . That's where this discussion stemmed from. I guess it all boils down to our interpretations of a small ripple. I don't believe for one minute that something as significant in a person's life as a marriage can be erased without having major implications on pretty much everything regarding that person's life. I then went on to give you examples of the changes that I noted in just one issue. I never at any time denied that you acknowledged some changes, just that I don't think you are acknowledging nearly the amount of changes that I and many others are seeing. We'll just have to agree to disagree and you can keep those of us that are dropping the book posted on how it all turns out. As far as the issue of whether I think the handling of retcons by old Marvel or new Marvel is worse, that's an issue we'll never agree on as well. To me, if a person hits my car because they weren't paying attention to the road or were talking on a cell phone, I will be mad but I can offer forgiveness and understanding because accidents and carelessness does happen with human beings. I still won't like it but I'll get over it. If someone hits my car because they intentionally speed up when the see me crossing an intersection and then tell me it was all for the best, or that it didn't really happen the way I thought it did, I won't be so forgiving. You on the other hand may appreciate the forethought and careful justification more than the oops.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 18, 2008 15:43:58 GMT -5
I never said it was perfect, but you seem to believe they should explain every single detail when 90% of them are incredibly easy to work out without assistance. You are demanding to be spoonfed in order to find yet another way to criticse OMD. Once again, you are putting words into my mouth. At no point did I say they should have explained more. I don't really care whether they explain or not because I don't plan to read the book anymore and just think the whole thing is stupid. The details I pulled out were not in any way intended to prove that Marvel should have offered more explanation for those changes. It was instead to illustrate that THINGS HAVE CHANGED. However,you have proven my point with your response. You say that Marvel will explain all those things in time. Unless I flunked my logic and reasoning class, if there are changes to be explained - they must have happened. I am not even going to bother to continue to argue with you concerning the merits of the storyline - you clearly hold one opinion and everyone else I've heard from holds another. That's fine. The part that I find annoying is the assurtion that hardly anything has changed. With that, you are no longer arguing opinion, you are arguing fact. The very fact that you can go through and, one by one, explain why each change that I mentioned occured or tell me that it was left purposely up in the air is evidence that I am right. You think the changes are great. I think they are ridiculous. I just can't comprehend your lack of willingness to admit that something exist while at the same time agruing its merit.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 17, 2008 22:44:48 GMT -5
I don't know how you can possibly slice it to say retcons are handled worse now than they were then. Heck, Brand New Day was clumsy but it still beats the hell out of "Oh, by the way, I just remembered..." So yeah, you're right in that they can be excused somewhat, but that doesn't mean a worse retcon becomes better... just because they weren't experienced at the time. I think you, yet again, missed my point. As I think I clearly stated throughout my posts, retcons were handled poorly in the old days. I was merely explaining why people were better able to excuse them - not that they were somehow good. I can excuse anyone their mistakes but I expect them to learn from them. All Marvel is doing now is using magic and all-powerful beings to explain away the changes. This wasn't good when the Greeks did it and it's not good now. I was also not suggesting that Joe Q. and company have to cowtow to what we, the internet junkies, want but that he should at least listen. I get the feeling that he just does what he wants because he assumes that he's always right. Was anyone upset about MJ and Peter being together other than him? Furthermore, how you can possibly stick to your guns that "One More Day" only caused a small ripple is beyond me. Have you read the first book of "Brand New Day?" Peter is living with Aunt May again because he lost his apartment and teaching job and can't sell more pictures to the Bugle. Granted some of this happened prior to "One More Day" as well but only because he revealed his identity which he now didn't do so there must have been other, different reasons. Harry Osborne is alive but not married to Liz, he is instead dating the D.A.'s daughter, Pete has brand new friends we've never seen before, Mary Jane is apparently some kind of new super hero called Jackpot, Peter hasn't been Spider-man in weeks (Even though he's supposedly still in the New Avengers), he uses web-shooters again. And this is all revealed in just one issue! Things have changed! It amazes me the amount of stock you put into the words written in #545 about how this will not change anything but the marriage, considering who speaks those words. These promises are made by Mephisto (The lord of lies) and echoed in interviews by Joe Quesada (The runner up.) I certainly hope Satan does not show up at your door making you any promises since you are so apt to take whatever he says at face value.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 16, 2008 16:37:14 GMT -5
Trying to pine for the good old days is a misnomer, because there have NEVER been days when mass retconning did not occur simply for writing convenience. Allow me to illustrate- read Fantastic Four #5, the first appearance of Doctor Doom. Now read FF: Annual #2, the origin of Doctor Doom. Same writer. Same "book". Same artist. Giant retcon. You cannot tell me when they made FF5 that Doom was ANYTHING like what he would be in FF Annual 2. I actually agree with you but my ramblings weren't really intended as pining for the good old days. I was making a statement about the way things work at Marvel but never said it happened exclusively with Joe Q. However, since you brought it up, I do think that the way it is handled now is worse than in the 60s for a few reasons: 1. Back then, the status quo was just being set up. Comic books had historically been one-shots with little or no continuity. Look at the Batman or Captain America stories from the 40s for example, the monster books, or stories about characters like Patsy Walker and friends. What happened in one issue rarely had an impact on what happened in another. This is also why the Peanuts gang or Dennis the Menace never really aged, as referred to in another thread. Marvel really established the soap-opera formula. As they sorted out the details, some things got screwed up. I even remember reading one early issue of the Hulk where Stan referred to Bruce Banner by the wrong name. Character personalities sometimes changed too abruptly, like Medusa's sudden transformation from evil Madame Medusa of the Frightful Four to nice Medusa of the Inhumans. Today, they've had a lot more experience with writing continuity and should be more adept at it. 2. Readers were not as vested in the Marvel Universe or as vocal as they are today. I know this can also be a hardship for the creators but it is a fact. If Dr. Doom's character and background changed between FF#5 and annual #2, how much vested interest did anyone have in that? They'd bought a previous issue and that's about it. With "One More Day," they are playing with 21 years of continuity. There is a difference. 3. Stan Lee and company were not making changes without regard to fan opinions. The only fan opinions they even knew about were from the few letters that were being recieved at the time. They was no internet, no comic book conventions, etc. so they were sort of operating in a bubble and could only base what they knew about fan reactions from sales and, again, letters. Today, Joe Q and company are well aware of the strong feelings that fans have regarding these issues and choose to ignore or criticize fans for having them. There was no intentional slap in the face to anyone with FF annual #2. There most certainly was with "One More Day." A lot of readers especially felt this with the reprinting of the wedding that, according to the book, didn't happen, in the back of the book. 4. In the early days when something changed, it was based on the assumption that readers wouldn't even notice. The readership was primarily kids and, in truth, they were right. If they told me one issue that Hank Pym could achieve a maximum height of 10 ft., and then, two issues later had him grow to 15 ft., only to tell me two issues later that if he grew to 12 ft., he would pass out from the strain, I was a kid and never even noticed. Today's audience is primarily adults or teens. We are a little more observant. Therefore, the writers, to cover themselves, simply tell me that what I previously read either didn't happen the way I thought it did, or has now been altered. You can tell me that Sentry was at Reed and Sue's wedding all you want but until I pick up that annual see him handing Reed the ring, I don't believe you.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 16, 2008 12:28:20 GMT -5
Who decides what is canon these days? Or, is there no such thing? Is anything that has gone before sacred? I'd have to say the answer is no. That also makes things easier on the current writers. If you make a bad decision or introduce a new plot device that doesn't work out, no problem, just retcon it away with a little magic. Wouldn't it be nice if all our jobs held that kind of accountability for mistakes? You ordered two dozen cases of perishable fruit but only sold two - no problem - you never really ordered them. You hired someone who turned out to be a head case and fired them, now they're suing your company and your job is on the line - no problem - you didn't hire them in the first place. You are driving the school bus and a kid runs out in front of you. You aren't paying attention and hit him. No problem - The kid was really at home sleeping and therefore didn't run out. This all sounds ridiculous but it's exactly what Marvel does. If they write a storyline that paints them into a corner or reduces sales on a book, they just say it never happened and start all over. As to the question about whether or not there are any sacred cows. Lets see: Bucky and Captain Marvel are alive, Peter never revealed his identity to the world and isn't married to Mary Jane, Jean Grey isn't the Phoenix who killed herself on the moon, Norman Osborne didn't die after killing Gwen Stacy (Unless One More Day somehow changed that) - what's left? Maybe the Silver Surfer never was a herald for Galactus because it was actually the Watcher who fooled everyone into believing Galactus devoured planets. Maybe Dr. Doom and Sue Storm were together before she married Reed (Oh, wait - that's the movie.) Maybe Speedball wasn't even in Stamford. Maybe the Wasp created Ultron to be a living manequin to show off her latest designs and Hank Pym simply took the blame. Maybe Howard the Duck is actually the Beyonder in a duck costume who found himself trapped in a world he actually made. This all sounds silly? Maybe so, but does it sound any sillier than Sentry being best man at Reed and Sue's wedding? I personally don't think we can count on anything the writers at Marvel do or say as having long term relevance.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 2, 2008 15:35:40 GMT -5
Thanks Doom (Literally, not the way "thanks" was used in a previous post on this thread) That does clear things up for regarding Bucky's age. Did the training that he and the Widow have together take place during one of those brief unfrozen periods. I'm hoping so, or else she really should be using a Widow's Walker by now instead of a sting.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Jan 2, 2008 12:52:58 GMT -5
So is the fact that Bucky trained Madame Natasha and they had a tryst a retcon, or a revelation? I don't know if there's any official definition available for a retcon, but to me this is more of a revelation. I consider a retcon to be something that negates what another writer told us or contradicts the personality that other writers have established. Learning that Bucky didn't die at the end of WWII was a retcon. Learning that he had a tryst with Natasha was isn't. The only thing I don't understand (Because I didn't read the whole Winter Soldier story) is why is Bucky still young? I know why Cap was much younger than he should have been, but why Bucky? And just how old is the Black Widow? I understand why Wolverine was around back then since his healing factor could prevent him from aging and Nick Fury isn't a young guy so that makes some sense, but Natasha? She sure looks good for a senior citizen.
|
|
|
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 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 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 spiderwasp on Oct 8, 2007 18:33:26 GMT -5
I went with a 5. I know Pietro has had some periods when he was really written badly but he's still been an important Avenger on quite a few occassions. He was also one of the four that held the Avengers together early on when the original members all left so I think he deserves some credit for that.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 1, 2007 17:58:53 GMT -5
I went with seven because I've always been a big fan of the witch. I actually would have gone with eight if disassembled hadn't ruined her.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 7, 2007 21:04:23 GMT -5
It's funny you should mention the titles above -- I've recently purchased The Cat #'s 3 and 4 via Ebay ( Oddly enough, I have #s 1 & 2, but not 3 or 4. It's like Monopoly. I wonder if someone will land on your property or mine first. If we put our properties together, we can build cathouses.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Oct 13, 2007 16:38:59 GMT -5
While you’re welcome to have your own personal interpretation of the numeric scale, understand that yours is not at all universal. I think your placement of “neutral” at 4 is rather strange: if the idea is to make “neutral” the middle of the scale, then the neutral score on a scale of 1 to 8 would be 4.5; since 4.5 I have no intention of opening up the civil rights can of worms again but I did want to comment on this particular point. I agree that a 4 doesn't seem like the logical way to weigh in as neutral, but a 4.5 is no better. The only real way I can see to express feeling of neutrality (Which, to me, means you don't care about the character one way or the other) is to simply not vote. Any other vote does indeed express an opinion. If one wished to, for whatever reason, make other people aware of this neutrality, logic would say to make a post explaining why they didn't vote.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 19, 2007 5:55:43 GMT -5
This is the most we've all been on the same page. I voted 7 too.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 18, 2007 15:40:16 GMT -5
Pray tell, friend spiderwasp... why is that compliment suddenly a bad thing? Sorry, that actually was a matter of my misreading that particular statement. In my mind, I processed that what he was saying was indeed from the perspetive of Marvel, rather than DC. Oops. The overall jist of the interview still seemed negative to me and all that Tana had really said in the first place was that he had made negative comments. Whether you or I think the interview was overwhelmingly positive or negative is irrelevant. He made both positive and negative comments but he did make negative ones.
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 17, 2007 22:15:42 GMT -5
Sorry Doomsie, but the proof is in the pudding. I'm sure the evidence won't sway your conviction that you are right but there are statements like "They did a better job than we did of making it a new-reader-friendly story," "What made me itchy about Civil War is that..." or "But, man, it sure was good-lookin' book" (Which in case you don't get it is the kind of statement one might make regarding the brilliant mind of, say, Jessica Simpson - "Well, she's pretty.) Perhaps you thought the reference to the Bush administration was a compliment. I don't think so. At any rate, maybe you saw a different interview than Tana and that could explain your different viewpoint but the evidence she presented certainly seems to wrap things up. However... (This is when I eagerly await your effort to convince us all that "They did a better job than us of making it a new reader-friendly book" actually means that we did a great job but they still edged us by just a fraction of a hair or that for whatever reason, this interview didn't really count.)
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on Sept 15, 2007 19:20:39 GMT -5
since we're all just generating numbers here,... the fans are 95-5 in favor of me winning the lottery and 100-0 in favor of my wife turning out to be a disguised super-model Oh come now, Nutcase. You're just making those numbers up. They aren't at all like the well-researched, clearly impartial and scientifically sound statistics people have been posting on this thread.
|
|