|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2016 21:50:21 GMT -5
I agree about Batman becoming a man-child. Don't like that retcon. New here BTW. Hi! Same here and welcome to CCF! ... Happy that you are a fan of Spider-Man! |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 30, 2016 22:50:35 GMT -5
I honestly think that if you're handed Superman - a guy who can fly and has all sorts of super powers - and decide that your main objective is making him "believable", things aren't likely going to end well. I mean, believable would be me walking around downtown looking for crime, not finding any, and going home to bed.
Well, not really. What I meant is, a character has to be believable as a character in order for me to be invested in him/her, regardless of whether or not they can do unbelievable things or find themselves in incredible situations. Pre-Byrne, Superman always struck me as less a character, more a walking plot device.
Fair enough. Byrne's Superman however struck me as so bland because it seemed that Byrne was trying too hard to apply real world logic to comics and in so doing, took the fun out of Superman. Superman maintaining two distinct identities to keep people from recognizing that they were one and the same was scrapped in favour of Superman and Clark sharing the same non-existent personality. Believable sure, but dull. Yes it's hard to believe that a young man in his mid-20's would have lost both sets of adopted parents, but the fact that he did, added an element of tragedy to his story that was done away with in favour of "believability". Byrne did have Luthor learn of Superman's other identity which would have had to have lead somewhere interesting, but... it wasn't "believable" so Luthor was forced to shrug the suggestion off and move on to blander pursuits. Sure Superman's first extended meeting with Wonder Woman could have been legendary, but come on, isn't it more believable that any guy alone with Wonder Woman is just going to shove his tongue down her throat (and yes, this actually happened) than act with dignity?
I like that previous creators realized that Superman walked a life of uncharted possibilities - there was no playbook for how an alien from the sky who has decided to spend much of his time living as an ordinary human should live and act so a lot of inspired concepts were introduced whether it be past times that involved maintaining an Intergalactic Zoo or living two lives that were completely different from one another. Whatever Byrne's thought process was, I suspect it involved determining that fantastic notions such as these weren't believable and had to go.
|
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 30, 2016 22:59:48 GMT -5
Post by dupersuper on Aug 30, 2016 22:59:48 GMT -5
Exactly the same thing happened in the movies. Clark's father dies and he leaves for Metropolis, leaving his mother in Smallville. There's a brief mention of her during one scene at the Daily Planet, then we don't hear anything of her again until Superman IV, when we learn that she's just died. He doesn't even mention her in Superman III, let alone visit, despite a sizeable chunk of it being set in Smallville! Incidentally, in what way does "the American way" differ from anybody else's way? I think you're getting confused here. Clark does indeed mention Ma Kent in Superman III; During the school reunion dance he mentions that she's passed away and that he's having to sell the Kent's farm. I remember this because it's one of the main reasons why Superman Returns can only be a sequel to the first two Christopher Reeve movies, and Superman III must be a different continuity. Because Ma Kent is alive and well in Superman Returns. I'm pretty sure you're mixing in the scene in IV. |
|
|
|
Post by coinilius on Aug 30, 2016 23:18:39 GMT -5
In Superman III Lana says to Clark that it's the first time he has been back since his mother passed away. In Superman IV he is selling the farm. So yeah they did reveal that Ma had passed away sometime between the beginning of Superman the Motion Picture and Superman III.
|
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 30, 2016 23:24:30 GMT -5
Post by dupersuper on Aug 30, 2016 23:24:30 GMT -5
Unless he wanted to drive back to Smallville. There are city-dwellers who have cars, but don't usually use them to get around town, opting instead for public transportation. Not that everyone is aware of this, but lots has been written about the need for Superman to be Clark, that having a "human" side helps to keep him grounded (no pun originally intended, but it works now that I'm typing it!). Some of his writers over the years have tried to show how necessary Clark is to Superman's balance. His use of a secret identity is different from virtually every other superhero's; Bruce Wayne (at least in the pre-psychotic era) assumes the identity of Batman, as Barry Allen does with the Flash, Ray Palmer with the Atom, and so on. Superman is Superman. He puts on the identity of Clark. Once he left the bosom of the Kents and Smallville, it can be argued, he did not need to continue "being" Clark. And yet he did. Tht's partly why I never found him very interesting or relatable, and why that changed after Byrne took over. His Superman was very definitely Clark, a man who thought of himself as just a normal guy, playing the part of a superhero. I much preferred that approach. To me Clark has always been a combination of the actual Clark (Clark with the Kents, Clark with Lois, etc.), disguise Clark (more bumbling/mild-mannered city Clark), Kal-el (last survivor of an advanced alien race) and Superman (puffing his chest out a bit and putting on a brave face trying to inspire people). Different sides get played up depending on the era and writer. People who fight about whether Clark or Supes should be the "real" person miss the fact that they all are. Like Peter getting sarcastic and quippy when he has the freedom of the Spider-Man mask: it's always there. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 31, 2016 0:04:28 GMT -5
Here's a retcon that I still have trouble believing is a retcon:
Though he first appeared in Fantastic Four 5, it took awhile for Stan Lee and Jack Kirby to decide that Dr Doom had met Reed Richards prior to becoming Doom. That means in his initial appearances, Reed Richards wasn't the "Cursed Richards who has always been jealous of my superior intellect!" to Victor Von Doom but simply "That guy who stretches in the Fantastic Four". Meaning that to Doom, fighting Reed Richards in those early issues would have held as much significance to him as if he were battling say, Henry Pym or Tony Stark. |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 31, 2016 1:49:14 GMT -5
Post by tingramretro on Aug 31, 2016 1:49:14 GMT -5
Well, not really. What I meant is, a character has to be believable as a character in order for me to be invested in him/her, regardless of whether or not they can do unbelievable things or find themselves in incredible situations. Pre-Byrne, Superman always struck me as less a character, more a walking plot device.
Fair enough. Byrne's Superman however struck me as so bland because it seemed that Byrne was trying too hard to apply real world logic to comics and in so doing, took the fun out of Superman. Superman maintaining two distinct identities to keep people from recognizing that they were one and the same was scrapped in favour of Superman and Clark sharing the same non-existent personality. Believable sure, but dull. Yes it's hard to believe that a young man in his mid-20's would have lost both sets of adopted parents, but the fact that he did, added an element of tragedy to his story that was done away with in favour of "believability". Byrne did have Luthor learn of Superman's other identity which would have had to have lead somewhere interesting, but... it wasn't "believable" so Luthor was forced to shrug the suggestion off and move on to blander pursuits. Sure Superman's first extended meeting with Wonder Woman could have been legendary, but come on, isn't it more believable that any guy alone with Wonder Woman is just going to shove his tongue down her throat (and yes, this actually happened) than act with dignity?
I like that previous creators realized that Superman walked a life of uncharted possibilities - there was no playbook for how an alien from the sky who has decided to spend much of his time living as an ordinary human should live and act so a lot of inspired concepts were introduced whether it be past times that involved maintaining an Intergalactic Zoo or living two lives that were completely different from one another. Whatever Byrne's thought process was, I suspect it involved determining that fantastic notions such as these weren't believable and had to go.
And I agreed with him. I didn't find it dull. Generally, I find DC's unbelievable Silver Age concepts dull, because I can't become emotionally invested in them. I also didn't get any sense of tragedy over the pre-Byrne Supes having lost two sets of parents, because he never seemed to express any genuine emotions. |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 31, 2016 7:47:26 GMT -5
Post by Cei-U! on Aug 31, 2016 7:47:26 GMT -5
Here's a retcon that I still have trouble believing is a retcon:
Though he first appeared in Fantastic Four 5, it took awhile for Stan Lee and Jack Kirby to decide that Dr Doom had met Reed Richards prior to becoming Doom. That means in his initial appearances, Reed Richards wasn't the "Cursed Richards who has always been jealous of my superior intellect!" to Victor Von Doom but simply "That guy who stretches in the Fantastic Four". Meaning that to Doom, fighting Reed Richards in those early issues would have held as much significance to him as if he were battling say, Henry Pym or Tony Stark. Sorry, but that's wrong. While Doom's specific grudge against Reed isn't revealed until Annual #2, it's quite clear in #5 that the two have a history. When Doom first addresses the FF over his helicopter's loudspeaker, Reed says "That voice! I recognize it! But-- I thought he was dead!" then tells the others how his fellow college student destroyed his own face while conducting "forbidden experiments." Cei-U! I summon the alumni animosity! |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 31, 2016 8:31:06 GMT -5
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 31, 2016 8:31:06 GMT -5
Here's a retcon that I still have trouble believing is a retcon:
Though he first appeared in Fantastic Four 5, it took awhile for Stan Lee and Jack Kirby to decide that Dr Doom had met Reed Richards prior to becoming Doom. That means in his initial appearances, Reed Richards wasn't the "Cursed Richards who has always been jealous of my superior intellect!" to Victor Von Doom but simply "That guy who stretches in the Fantastic Four". Meaning that to Doom, fighting Reed Richards in those early issues would have held as much significance to him as if he were battling say, Henry Pym or Tony Stark. Sorry, but that's wrong. While Doom's specific grudge against Reed isn't revealed until Annual #2, it's quite clear in #5 that the two have a history. When Doom first addresses the FF over his helicopter's loudspeaker, Reed says "That voice! I recognize it! But-- I thought he was dead!" then tells the others how his fellow college student destroyed his own face while conducting " forbidden experiments." Cei-U! I summon the alumni animosity! Doom, Doom, Doom... How many times have the teachers told you? Don't cross the streams! |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 31, 2016 9:22:56 GMT -5
Sorry, but that's wrong. While Doom's specific grudge against Reed isn't revealed until Annual #2, it's quite clear in #5 that the two have a history. When Doom first addresses the FF over his helicopter's loudspeaker, Reed says "That voice! I recognize it! But-- I thought he was dead!" then tells the others how his fellow college student destroyed his own face while conducting " forbidden experiments." Cei-U! I summon the alumni animosity! Doom, Doom, Doom... How many times have the teachers told you? Don't cross the streams!It would be...bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 31, 2016 20:10:24 GMT -5
Generally, I find DC's unbelievable Silver Age concepts dull, because I can't become emotionally invested in them. I also didn't get any sense of tragedy over the pre-Byrne Supes having lost two sets of parents, because he never seemed to express any genuine emotions. Gonna have to disagree with you there...       Let's end with something a little more upbeat -  |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Aug 31, 2016 20:35:30 GMT -5
OK I just used a "dirty" word in comics: retcon. Most have been terrible or unnecessary. However some were good & added something to a character.
Some examples:
Good: giving Superman a past as Superboy. Bad:OMD
List both good & bad ones.
What's funny is that Superboy was introduced in 1945 in a story by Jerry Siegel. In 1948, DC published Superman's origin in Superman #53 in a story by Bill Finger. Of note, his mom dies first in this version and there is no mention of a career as Superboy. The Kents themselves may qualify as a retcon. In Action Comics #1 (as well as the Fleischer cartoons and newspaper strips) baby Superman was picked up by a passing motorist and grew up in an orphanage. When Siegel and Shuster expanded the origin the next year in Superman #1, the Kents make their first appearance. |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 31, 2016 22:51:47 GMT -5
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 31, 2016 22:51:47 GMT -5
Here's a retcon that I still have trouble believing is a retcon:
Though he first appeared in Fantastic Four 5, it took awhile for Stan Lee and Jack Kirby to decide that Dr Doom had met Reed Richards prior to becoming Doom. That means in his initial appearances, Reed Richards wasn't the "Cursed Richards who has always been jealous of my superior intellect!" to Victor Von Doom but simply "That guy who stretches in the Fantastic Four". Meaning that to Doom, fighting Reed Richards in those early issues would have held as much significance to him as if he were battling say, Henry Pym or Tony Stark. Sorry, but that's wrong. While Doom's specific grudge against Reed isn't revealed until Annual #2, it's quite clear in #5 that the two have a history. When Doom first addresses the FF over his helicopter's loudspeaker, Reed says "That voice! I recognize it! But-- I thought he was dead!" then tells the others how his fellow college student destroyed his own face while conducting "forbidden experiments." Cei-U! I summon the alumni animosity!
Actually...
Although you're right about Richards remembering Doom and the accident (though there's no mention of his having had any involvement either directly or indirectly in the matter) and since he recognizes his voice, clearly they have met (which I was wrong about), but to Doom, there's no suggestion that there's any personal enmity towards Reed Richards driving his decision to attack their headquarters. Even upon switching bodies with Richards in his third appearance, Doom gloats about his "triumph", but makes no mention of "revenge". There's no grandiloquent speeches about "petty jealously", "tampering with his experiments", "salad days", etc. during which he assigns blame to "that infernal meddler Richards" for his past.
I suppose there's a chance that at some point Richards brought up their history to which Doom responded "Wait a minute, you're that Reed Richards", but the revelation in the second annual is a retcon as far as Doom's motivation is concerned.
|
|
|
|
Retcons
Sept 1, 2016 6:24:18 GMT -5
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 1, 2016 6:24:18 GMT -5
Paging Tolworthy...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 1, 2016 8:11:37 GMT -5
I thought of it as an elaboration rather than a retcon. Doom's origin wasn't fully formed at the time of his debut but nothing was changed when it got spelled out.
|
|
