|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 5, 2016 11:56:44 GMT -5
Roger Stern (What is it with this guy?) What do you mean? He just seems to have bad luck with this kind of stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 5, 2016 11:59:20 GMT -5
He just seems to have bad luck with this kind of stuff. Crossovers? He did left ASM around the time Secret Wars kicked in... |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 5, 2016 13:30:10 GMT -5
I don't mind making allowances for a stretched or compressed timeline in comics that tell stories covering several months... but with stories like Sins Past, what kills my suspension of disbelief is that we had access to several of Gwen's thought bubbles when she was supposed to be pregnant with Osborn's kids. Not one mention of what is arguably the single most important thing happening to the character at the time. That's just too much for me. Isn't this one of the inherent problems with retcons of this nature though? Myself, I always reconcile it by just assuming that Gwen (or whichever might be involved in a given retcon) thought about it off-panel. We readers aren't privy to every single thought that these characters have, obviously. I agree, it is a problem inherent to this kind of retcon... and it is why I can't stand this kind of retcon. Swamp Thing discovering that he was not Alec Holland didn't contradict anything, except the character's (and our) beliefs. That's a retcon I can live with, especially since it was also a great story. The numerous heroes who all travelled to Rama-Tut's days and never met each other also works for me, because we are given a plausible explanation : they all tiptoed around each other to avoid hurting the space time whatchamacallit. Many dead heroes coming back from the dead because the ones who died were actually sleeper Skrull replacements? Yeah, why not... it's even an elegant way of correcting deaths that were probably ill-advised in the first place. Even Spider-man being transformed not by the bite of a mutated spider as we originally thought but by the action of a mystical "spider totem" using said spider as its agent I can accept. (I think it stinks to high heaven as an idea, but it doesn't contradict anything). But Gwen being pregnant by Osborn and the writer from back then deciding to skip all the thoughts balloons that mentioned such an important fact? Eeeeeeh... I just can't get my willing suspension of disbelief to go that far. Yes, we may just have missed the moments she thought about it, but I'd expect that her thinking about Peter would be pretty impossible to separate from thinking about her pregnancy and her affair with Osborn. I didn't read that, but I did accept how MJ guessed early on that Peter was Spider-Man (as she revealed in the regular mag, sometimes in the mid-80s). It was even tied with MJ deciding not to pursue her relationship with Peter, as the thought of his risking his life all the time was becoming something more frightening than exciting. It didn't feel forced at all. Was it a retcon? Oh yes, sure. But it was one that did add something cool to the character and that didn't contradict past events. (Another amorous retcon I can't stand is the "Jean Grey has the hots for Wolverine" one, even if it was introduced by Chris Claremont himself in the pages of Classic X-Men. There was no hint of an attraction between the two in the regular X-Men mag right up to her death). |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 5, 2016 14:15:34 GMT -5
Isn't this one of the inherent problems with retcons of this nature though? Myself, I always reconcile it by just assuming that Gwen (or whichever might be involved in a given retcon) thought about it off-panel. We readers aren't privy to every single thought that these characters have, obviously. I agree, it is a problem inherent to this kind of retcon... and it is why I can't stand this kind of retcon. Swamp Thing discovering that he was not Alec Holland didn't contradict anything, except the character's (and our) beliefs. That's a retcon I can live with, especially since it was also a great story. The numerous heroes who all travelled to Rama-Tut's days and never met each other also works for me, because we are given a plausible explanation : they all tiptoed around each other to avoid hurting the space time whatchamacallit. Many dead heroes coming back from the dead because the ones who died were actually sleeper Skrull replacements? Yeah, why not... it's even an elegant way of correcting deaths that were probably ill-advised in the first place. Even Spider-man being transformed not by the bite of a mutated spider as we originally thought but by the action of a mystical "spider totem" using said spider as its agent I can accept. (I think it stinks to high heaven as an idea, but it doesn't contradict anything). But Gwen being pregnant by Osborn and the writer from back then deciding to skip all the thoughts balloons that mentioned such an important fact? Eeeeeeh... I just can't get my willing suspension of disbelief to go that far. Yes, we may just have missed the moments she thought about it, but I'd expect that her thinking about Peter would be pretty impossible to separate from thinking about her pregnancy and her affair with Osborn. I didn't read that, but I did accept how MJ guessed early on that Peter was Spider-Man (as she revealed in the regular mag, sometimes in the mid-80s). It was even tied with MJ deciding not to pursue her relationship with Peter, as the thought of his risking his life all the time was becoming something more frightening than exciting. It didn't feel forced at all. Was it a retcon? Oh yes, sure. But it was one that did add something cool to the character and that didn't contradict past events. (Another amorous retcon I can't stand is the "Jean Grey has the hots for Wolverine" one, even if it was introduced by Chris Claremont himself in the pages of Classic X-Men. There was no hint of an attraction between the two in the regular X-Men mag right up to her death). I agree with everything you said. I will only expand your commentary on MJ's retcon, by saying that the cool thing DeFalco did, was to leave the precise moment, at which she had supposedly guessed Peter's secret, a mystery. This avoided any potential conflict with stablished continuity. Of course, Conway had to take things further, in order to pursue his own agenda, therefore messing it up. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jun 6, 2016 12:05:46 GMT -5
An example of Great Editorial Sabotage has to be Whitney Ellsworth's decision to insist that The Joker survive his stabbing at the end of his second appearance in Batman 1. Still it is shocking that Finger and Robinson hadn't realized what a hit they had on their hands until it was pointed out to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by String on Jun 7, 2016 9:30:54 GMT -5
It's all a twisted tale of tragedy.
Avengers Annual #10, one of my favorite comics ever and not only because it introduces Rogue, not only because it features Claremont's famous 'F-you' over what was done to Carol, not only because of Golden's art, but also because it's the first appearance of Madelyn Pryor (Claremont plays the long game).
Maddie Pryor, a clone of Jean Grey, who, thanks to a scheme by Mastermind, impersonates Dark Phoenix, causing Scott Summers to finally declare his love for her, marries her, has a kid with her, retires, then dumps her and his kid to return to costumes alongside his newly reborn Love-of-His-Life, Jean Grey in X-Factor.
Reading Clarmont's views on this particular subject is indeed enlightening. Say what you will about his style, his turning the X-franchise into a soap opera helped launched the franchise into the stratosphere but he's right about the need for characters to grow, mature, leave, retire, or even die. The return of Jean Grey marked the beginning of the decline and ultimate demise of the concept of death as a meaningful dramatic tool in a writer's arsenal and instead turning it into a lowly sales gimmick.
My only regret and shame over this is that, at the time, Jean brought back to life was so new, that you couldn't help but get exicted over it. The Original X-Men were back together. And honestly, the issues where this occurs (I think under Stern in Avengers but I could be mistaken), it was handled so well that you couldn't fault it, it only increased your excitement. It was only in hindsight that you realized the damage that had been done.
|
|
|
|
Post by chaykinstevens on Jun 7, 2016 12:31:13 GMT -5
Isn't this one of the inherent problems with retcons of this nature though? Myself, I always reconcile it by just assuming that Gwen (or whichever might be involved in a given retcon) thought about it off-panel. We readers aren't privy to every single thought that these characters have, obviously. I agree, it is a problem inherent to this kind of retcon... and it is why I can't stand this kind of retcon. Swamp Thing discovering that he was not Alec Holland didn't contradict anything, except the character's (and our) beliefs. I thought Moore's version contradicted some stories written by David Anthony Kraft and Gerry Conway from the tail end of Swamp Thing volume 1 and some guest appearances in Challengers of the Unknown, in which Swampy reverted to Alec Holland. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 7, 2016 12:52:11 GMT -5
I agree, it is a problem inherent to this kind of retcon... and it is why I can't stand this kind of retcon. Swamp Thing discovering that he was not Alec Holland didn't contradict anything, except the character's (and our) beliefs. I thought Moore's version contradicted some stories written by David Anthony Kraft and Gerry Conway from the tail end of Swamp Thing volume 1 and some guest appearances in Challengers of the Unknown, in which Swampy reverted to Alec Holland. True, but that was not Alan's doing : When the saga of the swamp thing was restarted (under the pen of scribe Martin Pasko), the editorial pages warned us that the final issues of the previous volume and the Challengers of the unknown issues, all of which showed an Alec Holland who could switch back and forth from his human to his swampy form, were considered apocryphal and out-of-continuity. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 7, 2016 14:23:18 GMT -5
I thought Moore's version contradicted some stories written by David Anthony Kraft and Gerry Conway from the tail end of Swamp Thing volume 1 and some guest appearances in Challengers of the Unknown, in which Swampy reverted to Alec Holland. True, but that was not Alan's doing : When the saga of the swamp thing was restarted (under the pen of scribe Martin Pasko), the editorial pages warned us that the final issues of the previous volume and the Challengers of the unknown issues, all of which showed an Alec Holland who could switch back and forth from his human to his swampy form, were considered apocryphal and out-of-continuity. Those times (around Crisis) were crazy at DC. |
|
|
|
Post by Ozymandias on Jun 7, 2016 14:31:32 GMT -5
Avengers Annual #10, one of my favourite comics ever and not only because it introduces Rogue, not only because it features Claremont's famous 'F-you' over what was done to Carol, not only because of Golden's art, but also because it's the first appearance of Madelyn Pryor (Claremont plays the long game). From the Marvel.wikia: Isn't this information accurate? |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 7, 2016 15:27:57 GMT -5
Avengers Annual #10, one of my favourite comics ever and not only because it introduces Rogue, not only because it features Claremont's famous 'F-you' over what was done to Carol, not only because of Golden's art, but also because it's the first appearance of Madelyn Pryor (Claremont plays the long game). From the Marvel.wikia: Isn't this information accurate? The official story is indeed that the child from Avengers Annual #10 and the adult Madelyne are not the same person. Chris Claremont just liked the name. On the one hand it makes sense because according to the story that retconned Maddie into being a creature grown by Mr. Sinister, she was never a child; she was decanted as an adult from a cloning pod. On the other hand, in X-Men #238, when Madelyne is a prisoner in Genosha and is mentally striking at her gaolers, she uses an image of the little Maddie who uses the exact same words as in Avengers Annual #10. So... who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by String on Jun 7, 2016 17:41:23 GMT -5
From the Marvel.wikia: Isn't this information accurate? The official story is indeed that the child from Avengers Annual #10 and the adult Madelyne are not the same person. Chris Claremont just liked the name. On the one hand it makes sense because according to the story that retconned Maddie into being a creature grown by Mr. Sinister, she was never a child; she was decanted as an adult from a cloning pod. On the other hand, in X-Men #238, when Madelyne is a prisoner in Genosha and is mentally striking at her gaolers, she uses an image of the little Maddie who uses the exact same words as in Avengers Annual #10. So... who knows? Then let me amend my previous statement. In my own personal canon, this is the first appearance of Maddy. Till now, I've never heard the notion that it was a name favored by Claremont but seeing how important a character Maddy became, it's a helluva coincidence (which I don't initially favor). |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jun 7, 2016 18:45:57 GMT -5
I'm with you. The bit about adult Maddie using little Maddie in her mind games just seems to confirm that there's a link between the two.
Way back then, I figured the adult Maddie hadn't been grown in a tube but had had an accelerated growth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jun 7, 2016 19:39:52 GMT -5
Claremont had a tendency to reuse supporting character names. For instance, he introduced two Sharon Coles, one a Daily Bugle repOrter (Ms. Marvel #17), the other a physician (Man-Thing #5).
|
|
|
|
Post by Farrar on Jun 8, 2016 11:13:12 GMT -5
I've read in several places that Claremont was a fan of the singing group Steeleye Span...and its lead singer, one Maddy Prior.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maddy_PriorHe even included a mention of the band on the opening splash of X-Men #238:  |
|
