Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 62
  1. #46
    Veteran Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    3,578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CentralPower View Post
    For some things, you have to squint and assume that it happened differently. In other cases (such as the Cold War references), thing may not have happened at all.

    The new sourcebooks are not like the old sourcebooks. Even putting aside outright mistakes (which I have noticed), they are not longer comprehensive. Large chunks of long-running character histories are ignored or omitted. Modern sourcebooks are meant to be quick and easy reference immediately before or after events, nothing more.
    Exactly. Errors aside, and there are a few, the new way of looking at things is effectively a return to the Golden Age type of thinking. Keep the characters simple, refer primarily only to the key important ideas that make the characters iconic and if you need to use continuity go ahead because they are all available but not as important.

    The point being, nothing can be said to have not happened. We just are not focusing on it. If a writer really likes something from the seventies they can tie it in, and if it really takes ahold as an idea it could easily become important enough to end up one of the key points for the character, and so end up in the next handbook.


    I know this isn't a popular thing to do based on the way fans think, but imagine you were a writer. Let's say you know everything about Spider-Man but Marvel ask you to pitch a Dr Strange story. You are not going to turn that down, you could do a great job and end up on Spider-Man but you don't know everything about Dr Stange. You make a pitch and the editor likes it but he points out some inconsistencies, you acknowledge you are not an expert so he hands you the three key storylines he thinks you should need. That should be enough, the core idea is right there and the editor is ok with a bit of interpretation. You are free and able to write the way you want, and not feel constrained by something that happened in the seventies you don't know about. You have time to write your first arc and in the meantime you can do some more background reading.
    Last edited by JKtheMac; 03-10-2017 at 06:22 AM.

  2. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    670

    Default

    I discarded all my old classic books after 9/11. I only had a driving hunger for the political intrigue the attacks had made the governments around the world do in response. So to my mind, anything before 9/11 was unimportant anymore, as though the world had changed, super heroes had changed, the only narrative of worth is in dealing with the crisis aftermath.
    If you want to understand the events and circumstances leading up to the age of terror, then understanding the Cold War (and the Age of Empire for that matter) is critical. Modern comics are not likely to deliver that. Even the writers did the research, it will not necessarily come through in the comics.

    I do frequent purges of my collection. But, "ripped from today's headlines" is not a fair metric.



    How so? I am unaware we have got to a point in the world where countries are trying to absorb other countries into their sphere of influence. Could you elaborate a little? That would certainly breathe life into super hero relevance again.
    Modern imperialism is typically described in economic terms. Money keeps countries well behaved because it makes little sense to attack one's lenders and less sense to attack one's debtors.

    And, the scale of modern weapons makes conflict untenable, leading to hostility without fighting (the basic idea of a cold war). For example, countries like North Korea have the capacity to destroy infrastructure and cause global financial disruption (while killing lots of civilized people in Japan or Australia), but little to lose from the response. Nobody wants to be the one to light the match that sets North Korea off.


    Exactly. Errors aside, and there are a few, the new way of looking at things is effectively a return to the Golden Age type of thinking. Keep the characters simple, refer primarily only to the key important ideas that make the characters iconic and if you need to use continuity go ahead because they are all available but not as important.
    The difference though is that modern runs need to stand on there own. Modern standards are higher than Golden Age standards. For the last 40 or so years, runs have gotten more distinctive, while Golden Age runs sort of blur together. Thinking about it in this way, frequent renumbering makes sense as a signal that a series is getting a new creative team or direction.

    You make a pitch and the editor likes it but he points out some inconsistencies, you acknowledge you are not an expert so he hands you the three key storylines he thinks you should need. That should be enough, the core idea is right there and the editor is ok with a bit of interpretation.
    An editor may also steer a writer away from certain runs. For example, Marvel would likely steer writers away from references to the Spider-marriage.


    Bottom line: Continuity is much less important. Marvel is happier that way.
    Current pull-file:
    -
    -
    -Fall and Rise of Captain Atom
    -
    -the Ultimates^2
    -Venom
    -the Vision (Director's Cut)
    -WWE

    -----------------------------
    - http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

  3. #48
    Elder Member jackolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,691

    Default

    ^
    I lost interest in all my Cold War library of super hero books and it was vast. I have since gone back to the Essentials and reread what I had done in my childhood, and was surprised at how lethal some of those encounters were. Thor destroyed most popular world city iconic landmarks while mind controlled, and, a guy named Dr Strange (Not Stephen, another one with a daughter),almost succeeded in taking over the world, but decided to disappear into obscurity. If anybody wants to revisit that guy, he is one bad ass. The Cold War was the Age of Empire, which led to repurcussions from disgruntled allies, so there is a price to pay with Cold War.

    But that all felt antiquated in the face of the actual changed political landscape that Cold War led to in 9/11. Still, it is an interesting legacy subject. How many more Vietnams and Cubas are going to crawl out of the woodwork and seek havok around the world? Chechen seems to have been one of them.

    The Cold War reference. (I got chills when you mentioned Australia in North Koreas sights. Why would they?)

    So you're saying the modern Cold War is being run with economic blackmail to make countries obey a despotic country? Extrapolating that concept, the classical super hero isn't going to come up against a super villain taking over the world in a political sense, but, on a manipulative sense setup America as their puppet, dependant on the despot super villain? I have trouble seeing anybody besides Iron Man being relevant in that circumstance. Street level heroes would always have a job against the super thieves, but Captain America and the Avengers wouldn't have super scientists to deal with, more so than hackers. The super villain becomes an invisible back room computer whizz like Rick Jones in Standoff.

    But I suppose the creators will portray super villains in a symbolic way as they always have, and just convert the Doctor Dooms, Zemo's, and Red Skulls into more tech savvy villains instead of outright loony world dominators.
    Last edited by jackolover; 03-11-2017 at 02:38 AM.

  4. #49
    Rookie Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    Exactly. Errors aside, and there are a few, the new way of looking at things is effectively a return to the Golden Age type of thinking. Keep the characters simple, refer primarily only to the key important ideas that make the characters iconic and if you need to use continuity go ahead because they are all available but not as important.

    The point being, nothing can be said to have not happened. We just are not focusing on it. If a writer really likes something from the seventies they can tie it in, and if it really takes ahold as an idea it could easily become important enough to end up one of the key points for the character, and so end up in the next handbook.


    I know this isn't a popular thing to do based on the way fans think, but imagine you were a writer. Let's say you know everything about Spider-Man but Marvel ask you to pitch a Dr Strange story. You are not going to turn that down, you could do a great job and end up on Spider-Man but you don't know everything about Dr Stange. You make a pitch and the editor likes it but he points out some inconsistencies, you acknowledge you are not an expert so he hands you the three key storylines he thinks you should need. That should be enough, the core idea is right there and the editor is ok with a bit of interpretation. You are free and able to write the way you want, and not feel constrained by something that happened in the seventies you don't know about. You have time to write your first arc and in the meantime you can do some more background reading.
    Sounds as though you could just pick up one of the "Definitive" TPBs.

  5. #50
    Junior Member Grim Ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    341

    Default

    Simple answer: Anything that doesn't add up just blame it on Franklin Richards.

    You might enjoy looking through this guy's stuff if you are interested in that sort of thing. It's pretty out there and I don't even really agree with it but it's a fun read.

    http://zak-site.com/Great-American-N...rvel_time.html

  6. #51
    Rookie Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    77

    Default

    Yeah, the sliding timescale is really starting to become a serious problem.

  7. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElliotJA View Post
    Yeah, the sliding timescale is really starting to become a serious problem.
    If you stretch a rubber band beyond its limits it eventually breaks. Same thing happened with superhero continuity. It really doesn't matter anymore.

  8. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    670

    Default

    The Cold War reference. (I got chills when you mentioned Australia in North Koreas sights. Why would they?)
    Because North Korea is run by a damned lunatic. He has missiles that can hit Japan and Australia. (Politically, Japan would make more sense, as the country is very unpopular with Korea's neighbors.) They may be able to hit Hawaii, and will realistically be able to his the continental US by the end of the decade.

    There is no cheap/easy way to dispose of North Korea (as much as the civilized world may want there to be), and nobody wants to own the costs of doing so (the loss of a major city in a significant country). The result is a Cold War that nobody wants to see heat up.


    So you're saying the modern Cold War is being run with economic blackmail to make countries obey a despotic country?
    If anything, economics can keep wars from heating up. We do not much like China, and they are not terrible fond of us. But, neither of us can afford to attack the other, or even let the other fail, because there is too much money on the table. It is not blackmail (which implies deliberate action) and more a distasteful necessity.


    Simple answer: Anything that doesn't add up just blame it on Franklin Richards.

    You might enjoy looking through this guy's stuff if you are interested in that sort of thing. It's pretty out there and I don't even really agree with it but it's a fun read.

    http://zak-site.com/Great-American-N...rvel_time.html
    I prefer "blame Owen Reese". But, sure, why not Franklin?

    I spent about an hour on that site last night/this morning, as the clocks jumped forward. That cost me some sleep.


    If you stretch a rubber band beyond its limits it eventually breaks. Same thing happened with superhero continuity. It really doesn't matter anymore.
    No, continuity 4-eva......

    Joking aside, I agree. But, the pushback from fans is never going away. Guys like Brevoort and Quesada are going to take heat for giving the sorts of answers that their predecessors should have been giving in the 70s, 80s at the latest.
    Current pull-file:
    -
    -
    -Fall and Rise of Captain Atom
    -
    -the Ultimates^2
    -Venom
    -the Vision (Director's Cut)
    -WWE

    -----------------------------
    - http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

  9. #54
    Elder Member jackolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CentralPower View Post
    Because North Korea is run by a damned lunatic. He has missiles that can hit Japan and Australia. (Politically, Japan would make more sense, as the country is very unpopular with Korea's neighbors.) They may be able to hit Hawaii, and will realistically be able to his the continental US by the end of the decade.

    There is no cheap/easy way to dispose of North Korea (as much as the civilized world may want there to be), and nobody wants to own the costs of doing so (the loss of a major city in a significant country). The result is a Cold War that nobody wants to see heat up.




    If anything, economics can keep wars from heating up. We do not much like China, and they are not terrible fond of us. But, neither of us can afford to attack the other, or even let the other fail, because there is too much money on the table. It is not blackmail (which implies deliberate action) and more a distasteful necessity.




    I prefer "blame Owen Reese". But, sure, why not Franklin?

    I spent about an hour on that site last night/this morning, as the clocks jumped forward. That cost me some sleep.




    No, continuity 4-eva......

    Joking aside, I agree. But, the pushback from fans is never going away. Guys like Brevoort and Quesada are going to take heat for giving the sorts of answers that their predecessors should have been giving in the 70s, 80s at the latest.
    On the matter of the distasteful neccesity in the USA dealings with China, is there tension there in the US about how heavily indebted the US is to China loans? (I don't know. Maybe Australia has as much debt to China?). But I find the Chinese a more friendly country to deal with, and have them visit Australia, because of their capitalistic approach is similar to ours. I wouldn't expect we are on the verge of a Cold War with China or in one.

  10. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    670

    Default

    The loans are definitely a sore spot. The trade dynamics are also an issue. (We want cheap products. But, we also want jobs in the US.) Contests for influence in the Pacific region do not much help.
    Current pull-file:
    -
    -
    -Fall and Rise of Captain Atom
    -
    -the Ultimates^2
    -Venom
    -the Vision (Director's Cut)
    -WWE

    -----------------------------
    - http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

  11. #56
    Senior Member Biclopcicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    901

    Default

    I tried to find the merit in the loss of sliding timescale but I just can't.

    I probably started collecting comics just before the age of 2. Obviously I didn't absorb much of the content; they were just pacifiers. But somewhere along the line, maybe by age 6, I was reading Transformers. Then around 10 or so I started collecting X-Men regularly. I kind of ran out of steam by 13...

    I think that was too short a timeframe to really appreciate how time works in Marvel (never really got into DC stuff). Because when I started getting back into comics about 4 years ago, I couldn't believe Aunt May was still alive, that Cyclops wasn't 40+ years old, or that Peter Parker was still relatively recently out of grad school. I then read about the sliding timescale, and it pretty much worked for me. 4:1 ratio fits pretty well. If a story arc lasts 5 issues and covers basically a few days of comic book time, you can argue the next arc takes place just a few weeks later. It was, more or less, and internally consistent premise. Then, as we approached Secret Wars, it became clear that editorial really had no interest in this notion. 8 months later, 1 year back, "months ago"...They really got loose with the timekeeping. After Secret Wars it became even more pronounced. The bit with Strange was the most obvious evidence. I understand the benefits of time contraction. As has been said, the author/editor team need only be true to "defining moments" of the character's story and have significantly more freedom in crafting their own. I reject this notion on these accounts:
    A) The stories are inevitably enriched when the author takes the time to read the back catalog. Back to our Strange example, it is clear (to me at least) that Aaron does not have a full grasp of the character or the supporting cast. Or the villains gallery.

    B) Loss of continuity- while time consuming, it is definitely feasible for an author to consume 50 hours or so of reading back catalogs. Contracture negatively impacts the integrity of continuity by marginalizing stories that may have more value than the author/editor give them credit for. One of the big appeals in reading a really long run, like X-Men 100-300, was that the story was truly an ongoing serial. There was some concept of character evolution and movement of time. The current model puts an end to that notion. I think it's a miscalculation to think that new readers are intimidated by large issue #'s. To me, they are like invitations to a great mystery, especially with more access to the catalog than ever before.

    C) loss of a shared universe. Obviously Marvel can continue to write a bunch of events with every marketable hero in them. But the organic interaction between characters from different lines is stunted by the buffet line style of storytelling marvel is pushing these days. If an author just pics some random story to tell without accounting for the rich history of interactions between characters ,there really can't be any development. Again, Marvel is de-inventing itself. They were unique in writing dynamic characters, as opposed to the "static" Superman-type stories. I'm ok with characters dying, getting old, and growing up. Allowing this to happen would allow for a more internally valid means of introducing legacy characters. What happens when Peter Parker has a kid? What happens when Beast gets old? Not only is the back catalog available for new readers to enjoy, there is enough space in the timeframe to allow for "throwback" stories (e.g. "Spidey").

    It's unlikely that my wishes will come to fruition, and that's fine. Since Secret Wars, my Marvel pull list has decreased significantly. The stories just don't seem to have any sort of pull towards an overarching theme or purpose, and it has drained my interest. Independent comics are usually shorter, self contained stories that can be enjoyed in and of themselves. And I've been reading them increasingly. But Marvel has that great history of a shared universe. Instead of mutilating it so that they too can tell self-contained stories with their valuable IPs, why don't they embrace the nature of the beast and really do something creative?

  12. #57
    Elder Member jackolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CentralPower View Post
    The loans are definitely a sore spot. The trade dynamics are also an issue. (We want cheap products. But, we also want jobs in the US.) Contests for influence in the Pacific region do not much help.
    It just seems like normal healthy trade competition to me?

  13. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Biclopcicle View Post
    I tried to find the merit in the loss of sliding timescale but I just can't.

    I probably started collecting comics just before the age of 2. Obviously I didn't absorb much of the content; they were just pacifiers. But somewhere along the line, maybe by age 6, I was reading Transformers. Then around 10 or so I started collecting X-Men regularly. I kind of ran out of steam by 13...

    I think that was too short a timeframe to really appreciate how time works in Marvel (never really got into DC stuff). Because when I started getting back into comics about 4 years ago, I couldn't believe Aunt May was still alive, that Cyclops wasn't 40+ years old, or that Peter Parker was still relatively recently out of grad school. I then read about the sliding timescale, and it pretty much worked for me. 4:1 ratio fits pretty well. If a story arc lasts 5 issues and covers basically a few days of comic book time, you can argue the next arc takes place just a few weeks later. It was, more or less, and internally consistent premise. Then, as we approached Secret Wars, it became clear that editorial really had no interest in this notion. 8 months later, 1 year back, "months ago"...They really got loose with the timekeeping. After Secret Wars it became even more pronounced. The bit with Strange was the most obvious evidence. I understand the benefits of time contraction. As has been said, the author/editor team need only be true to "defining moments" of the character's story and have significantly more freedom in crafting their own. I reject this notion on these accounts:
    A) The stories are inevitably enriched when the author takes the time to read the back catalog. Back to our Strange example, it is clear (to me at least) that Aaron does not have a full grasp of the character or the supporting cast. Or the villains gallery.

    B) Loss of continuity- while time consuming, it is definitely feasible for an author to consume 50 hours or so of reading back catalogs. Contracture negatively impacts the integrity of continuity by marginalizing stories that may have more value than the author/editor give them credit for. One of the big appeals in reading a really long run, like X-Men 100-300, was that the story was truly an ongoing serial. There was some concept of character evolution and movement of time. The current model puts an end to that notion. I think it's a miscalculation to think that new readers are intimidated by large issue #'s. To me, they are like invitations to a great mystery, especially with more access to the catalog than ever before.

    C) loss of a shared universe. Obviously Marvel can continue to write a bunch of events with every marketable hero in them. But the organic interaction between characters from different lines is stunted by the buffet line style of storytelling marvel is pushing these days. If an author just pics some random story to tell without accounting for the rich history of interactions between characters ,there really can't be any development. Again, Marvel is de-inventing itself. They were unique in writing dynamic characters, as opposed to the "static" Superman-type stories. I'm ok with characters dying, getting old, and growing up. Allowing this to happen would allow for a more internally valid means of introducing legacy characters. What happens when Peter Parker has a kid? What happens when Beast gets old? Not only is the back catalog available for new readers to enjoy, there is enough space in the timeframe to allow for "throwback" stories (e.g. "Spidey").

    It's unlikely that my wishes will come to fruition, and that's fine. Since Secret Wars, my Marvel pull list has decreased significantly. The stories just don't seem to have any sort of pull towards an overarching theme or purpose, and it has drained my interest. Independent comics are usually shorter, self contained stories that can be enjoyed in and of themselves. And I've been reading them increasingly. But Marvel has that great history of a shared universe. Instead of mutilating it so that they too can tell self-contained stories with their valuable IPs, why don't they embrace the nature of the beast and really do something creative?
    I agree with a lot of this and it's probably the reason why I stopped collecting long ago and I barely read many superhero stories anymore. Marvel made the decision a LONG time ago (right around the 70s) to subtly slow down aging in their characters since they had decided to treat them primarily as LP's. Of course, many people will argue when "continuity" really died. I happen to think that once Shooter was fired the old-school, shared Marvel universe started unraveling.

    It is what it is. I happen to think continuous storytelling is excellent and gives the characters a chance to evolve, allowing for new characters to emerge. But obviously there's little incentive for creators to create new properties for Marvel or DC since they wont retain sole ownership. I've just learned to accept that the "Marvel method" of storytelling died some 30 years ago or so, and then superhero storytelling was turned on its head in the early 2000s with the grim-n-gritty, "ultra realistic" type of stories that deconstructed the characters and the genre itself.

  14. #59
    Elder Member jackolover's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Biclopcicle View Post
    I tried to find the merit in the loss of sliding timescale but I just can't.

    I probably started collecting comics just before the age of 2. Obviously I didn't absorb much of the content; they were just pacifiers. But somewhere along the line, maybe by age 6, I was reading Transformers. Then around 10 or so I started collecting X-Men regularly. I kind of ran out of steam by 13...

    I think that was too short a timeframe to really appreciate how time works in Marvel (never really got into DC stuff). Because when I started getting back into comics about 4 years ago, I couldn't believe Aunt May was still alive, that Cyclops wasn't 40+ years old, or that Peter Parker was still relatively recently out of grad school. I then read about the sliding timescale, and it pretty much worked for me. 4:1 ratio fits pretty well. If a story arc lasts 5 issues and covers basically a few days of comic book time, you can argue the next arc takes place just a few weeks later. It was, more or less, and internally consistent premise. Then, as we approached Secret Wars, it became clear that editorial really had no interest in this notion. 8 months later, 1 year back, "months ago"...They really got loose with the timekeeping. After Secret Wars it became even more pronounced. The bit with Strange was the most obvious evidence. I understand the benefits of time contraction. As has been said, the author/editor team need only be true to "defining moments" of the character's story and have significantly more freedom in crafting their own. I reject this notion on these accounts:
    A) The stories are inevitably enriched when the author takes the time to read the back catalog. Back to our Strange example, it is clear (to me at least) that Aaron does not have a full grasp of the character or the supporting cast. Or the villains gallery.

    B) Loss of continuity- while time consuming, it is definitely feasible for an author to consume 50 hours or so of reading back catalogs. Contracture negatively impacts the integrity of continuity by marginalizing stories that may have more value than the author/editor give them credit for. One of the big appeals in reading a really long run, like X-Men 100-300, was that the story was truly an ongoing serial. There was some concept of character evolution and movement of time. The current model puts an end to that notion. I think it's a miscalculation to think that new readers are intimidated by large issue #'s. To me, they are like invitations to a great mystery, especially with more access to the catalog than ever before.

    C) loss of a shared universe. Obviously Marvel can continue to write a bunch of events with every marketable hero in them. But the organic interaction between characters from different lines is stunted by the buffet line style of storytelling marvel is pushing these days. If an author just pics some random story to tell without accounting for the rich history of interactions between characters ,there really can't be any development. Again, Marvel is de-inventing itself. They were unique in writing dynamic characters, as opposed to the "static" Superman-type stories. I'm ok with characters dying, getting old, and growing up. Allowing this to happen would allow for a more internally valid means of introducing legacy characters. What happens when Peter Parker has a kid? What happens when Beast gets old? Not only is the back catalog available for new readers to enjoy, there is enough space in the timeframe to allow for "throwback" stories (e.g. "Spidey").

    It's unlikely that my wishes will come to fruition, and that's fine. Since Secret Wars, my Marvel pull list has decreased significantly. The stories just don't seem to have any sort of pull towards an overarching theme or purpose, and it has drained my interest. Independent comics are usually shorter, self contained stories that can be enjoyed in and of themselves. And I've been reading them increasingly. But Marvel has that great history of a shared universe. Instead of mutilating it so that they too can tell self-contained stories with their valuable IPs, why don't they embrace the nature of the beast and really do something creative?
    Nice post Biclopcicle.

    A. I think Aaron devolved Dr Strange back to his earliest days where he had less powers. He might as well not have the cape of levitation or the eye of Aggamotto because they have less influence these days than they had before. It looks like Aaron is following the movie Dr Strange.

    B. ANAD certainly confuses the hell out of me, in that this new integration of reality contraction of time is so synthetic, anybody looking for a road map to continuity is frustrated no end. And I'm not sure new readers necessarily appreciate continuity and richness of history in the past. It's all about get the fix on this new thing. But I understand your nostalgia for finding or knowing what came before. I'm surprised Peter Parker is still unmarried, and MJ hasn't found a new husband in this reality. And who would care except us stalwarts.

    C. Certainly the "buffet style writing" as you call it, has contributed to isolation of the new characters in their own stories as more and more of them started tumbling out of creator heaven onto an already formed landscape, to start a new narrative that doesn't connect to the narrative that made the classic characters.

    Secret Wars certainly has a lot to answer for now. I don't know whether to hate it, or just be patient until September when we find out what Marvel mean by a return to classic characters. To me it sounds like Marvel are being forced to hurry a new direction because of the incomprehensible nature of your "buffet style writing" as you describe it. Something was off about it. Marvel may have miscalculated how much their fountain of value lies in the richness of their continuity. As one commentator has said, no other art form is able to deliver such a vast dimension of richness as the continuity in a Marvel comic story. No other art form, TV, cinema, stage, or novel. There is so much history in the MU that you are able to tell a story like Civil War because of the interactions of the characters, that no other form has that ability to tell.

  15. #60
    Senior Member Biclopcicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jackolover View Post
    Nice post Biclopcicle.

    A. I think Aaron devolved Dr Strange back to his earliest days where he had less powers. He might as well not have the cape of levitation or the eye of Aggamotto because they have less influence these days than they had before. It looks like Aaron is following the movie Dr Strange.

    B. ANAD certainly confuses the hell out of me, in that this new integration of reality contraction of time is so synthetic, anybody looking for a road map to continuity is frustrated no end. And I'm not sure new readers necessarily appreciate continuity and richness of history in the past. It's all about get the fix on this new thing. But I understand your nostalgia for finding or knowing what came before. I'm surprised Peter Parker is still unmarried, and MJ hasn't found a new husband in this reality. And who would care except us stalwarts.

    C. Certainly the "buffet style writing" as you call it, has contributed to isolation of the new characters in their own stories as more and more of them started tumbling out of creator heaven onto an already formed landscape, to start a new narrative that doesn't connect to the narrative that made the classic characters.

    Secret Wars certainly has a lot to answer for now. I don't know whether to hate it, or just be patient until September when we find out what Marvel mean by a return to classic characters. To me it sounds like Marvel are being forced to hurry a new direction because of the incomprehensible nature of your "buffet style writing" as you describe it. Something was off about it. Marvel may have miscalculated how much their fountain of value lies in the richness of their continuity. As one commentator has said, no other art form is able to deliver such a vast dimension of richness as the continuity in a Marvel comic story. No other art form, TV, cinema, stage, or novel. There is so much history in the MU that you are able to tell a story like Civil War because of the interactions of the characters, that no other form has that ability to tell.
    I love the whole FF/Avenger/New Avengers/Secret War story that Hickman told. It's just that Brevoort chose to use it for his own purposes. I can't fault Hickman for that

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •