|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 12, 2007 20:34:18 GMT -5
I have a question. I thought Annihilus' face was hi actual face. In this issue, however, it shows him with his' helmet' off and it sitting on a table. He just has a horrible face.
But in the Annihilation series it is definately his face
Help in understanding please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Apr 14, 2007 6:44:55 GMT -5
I think it should be his face. Don't tell me he's wearing battle armor like everybody else! Darn it! I thought he was bug guy with dinosaur wings. Not as cool now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 14, 2007 23:14:25 GMT -5
In Annihilation it was his face. I always thought it was his face. Like you said bug-guy. But in this issue it's an armor mask. So I'm not sure now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 15, 2007 4:27:26 GMT -5
Maybe this writer was simply unaware he's supposed to be a bug-guy...? In the current Marvel, where a Spider-Man writer doesn't know Aunt May's maiden name, it would seem to be the explanation that makes most sense...
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 15, 2007 5:17:35 GMT -5
Actually Dr B. It makes more sense, in the case, for the current Marvel version of events to be correct. Hm being a bug-guy as depicted in Annihilation seems more sensible than him wearing a bug mask.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 15, 2007 5:38:05 GMT -5
Yeah, that's what I meant... Sorry I wasn't clear...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Apr 15, 2007 6:31:20 GMT -5
Was this the tie-in with the Fantastic Four. The FF part was the work of Byrne, and we all know how he sometimes approached his work with an agenda. I'm thinking of Vision's nude scene mainly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 15, 2007 15:02:04 GMT -5
Yeah, damned Byrne...!!! Why couldn't he give us a Wasp nude scene instead...  |
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 15, 2007 15:34:19 GMT -5
I don't remember which issue, but there was one. She was just too small to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 15, 2007 21:49:04 GMT -5
I assumed that Annihilus is an insectoid who wears a mask that looks insectoid, just as some humanoids wear masks that look humanoid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 16, 2007 5:32:18 GMT -5
In this issue, though, you see his face in high shadow. It really looks like a horribly difigured huminoid face, not at all insectile as we'd expect.
I think I'll write this off as one of those little inconsistancies that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Apr 16, 2007 8:37:45 GMT -5
When I dream of Annihilus, he will always have a bug face.
|
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on Apr 16, 2007 10:35:52 GMT -5
I recall an Annihilus story from way back where he is shown out of his exo-skeleton. His face is what we are used to seeing, but his body was much smaller and insectoid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bored Yesterday on Apr 16, 2007 11:04:28 GMT -5
Oh, now that's getting even more weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 16, 2007 13:18:25 GMT -5
One appearance with a humanoid face doesn't make him humanoid. The bug faced Annilihus has been the standard for many years and that's likely the way it'll stay. in the bio at Marvel.com he's described as being an evolved insectiod creature, so the human face is an error. they happen from time to time... www.marvel.com/universe/Annihilusand besides I have the action figure from the 90s with the mini Annilihus inside it and he's just a shriveled up bug and too cool to be retconned out of existence... |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 16, 2007 14:54:59 GMT -5
Maybe he's just Gregor Samsa dreaming he's an insectoid in a humanoid suit...
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 16, 2007 16:12:54 GMT -5
even at the end of Annihilation, he comes back as a little baby bug.
|
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 16, 2007 16:47:23 GMT -5
Maybe he's just Gregor Samsa dreaming he's an insectoid in a humanoid suit... Oooh somebody's been reading their existential classics... |
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 17, 2007 1:08:04 GMT -5
Man shall not live by comics alone, rex...
|
|
|
|
Post by perceval on Apr 21, 2007 14:46:07 GMT -5
It's not a continuity flub, but was just using what had happened in his most prior appearance. His face had gotten really messed up, so he was wearing a mask. IIRC, the FF part of the crossover had a footnote about where that had happened.
Since, of course, he got better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 21, 2007 18:26:27 GMT -5
thanks Perc, that is interesting to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by perceval on Apr 22, 2007 23:05:16 GMT -5
Back then, they did try to keep continuity straight, almost always explaining why a villain was in whatever situation they were in, and going into whatever had happened to them in their previous appearance, especially if they'd seeminly died.
Flash forward to the 90s, where an X-Men villain had been reduced to a smoking skeleton, and showed up later alive and well, with no explanation. Say what you will about Shooter's management style (and a lot has been said), but we used to have quality comics come out on schedule with continuity carefully maintained. And, back then, that didn't seem like major accomplishments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 25, 2007 8:57:29 GMT -5
Continuity was definitely something we took for granted back in that era. Just like we expect to wake up each next day and find out it's tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Engage on May 5, 2007 14:31:44 GMT -5
I always thought that the helmet was pretty much the same as his face. He was just a smaller version of himself under the armour, and was even more bug like. If this is no longer true that would be a shame.
|
|
