|
|
Retcons
Aug 23, 2016 1:33:47 GMT -5
Post by tingramretro on Aug 23, 2016 1:33:47 GMT -5
Ma and Pa were still old in the present day stories though, they were just younger when they found Clark - meaning they were still old and grey and making apple pies and giving sage advice in the present. Personally, I think there are good and bad points to both versions of the Kents; it depends on which version of the story you want to tell. Having loving and supportive parents who are there to visit and talk to and who are also the heroes closest confidants actually strikes me as pretty unique amongst the long underwear crowd, and it's a status quo that I think has been used to good effect in other media as well, such as in Lois and Clark. I agree, it gave the character of Clark Kent (and that's another thing I liked about Byrne's version; it was a guy called Clark Kent disguising himself as Superman, not some unrelatable demigod called Superman pretending to be Clark Kent) a whole new dimension, and it's one that's now being used to great effect in the TV versions of Supergirl and the Flash, as well, both characters having parental figures to lean on when needed. |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 23, 2016 2:29:08 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by coinilius on Aug 23, 2016 2:29:08 GMT -5
Ma and Pa were still old in the present day stories though, they were just younger when they found Clark - meaning they were still old and grey and making apple pies and giving sage advice in the present. Personally, I think there are good and bad points to both versions of the Kents; it depends on which version of the story you want to tell. Having loving and supportive parents who are there to visit and talk to and who are also the heroes closest confidants actually strikes me as pretty unique amongst the long underwear crowd, and it's a status quo that I think has been used to good effect in other media as well, such as in Lois and Clark.  I was speaking about this issue from 1968 where some alien serum de-ages the Kents. Why the editors went this route I can only guess. Maybe they thought that since most Superman readers were about 14 years old, having parents that look middle aged was something they could identify with more than elderly parents. Since Superboy stories disappeared a few years down the road , replaced by the Legion, and I stopped reading Superman altogether, I have no idea how they aged for the balance of pre-crisis. After the crisis, it was no longer the same character anyway Ah yes - yeah, making them young in the Superboy stories was probably not that good an idea. Your comment coming after the other comments about the Byrne reboot, I figured you were talking about that young Ma and Pa, sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Aug 23, 2016 8:21:03 GMT -5
I maintain that the death of the Kents was necessary for Clark to learn his limitations, that no matter how powerful Superman may be there are some things--like time and death--greater than himself. It's a perspective that a mature hero sorely needs.
Cei-U!
I summon my two pfennigs' worth!
|
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 23, 2016 8:59:27 GMT -5
Post by MDG on Aug 23, 2016 8:59:27 GMT -5
I maintain that the death of the Kents was necessary for Clark to learn his limitations, that no matter how powerful Superman may be there are some things--like time and death--greater than himself. It's a perspective that a mature hero sorely needs. Cei-U! I summon my two pfennigs' worth! Yes--and probably something children of the depression would've had an easier time accepting than children (and man-children) of the 80s. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Aug 23, 2016 11:00:44 GMT -5
I maintain that the death of the Kents was necessary for Clark to learn his limitations, that no matter how powerful Superman may be there are some things--like time and death--greater than himself. It's a perspective that a mature hero sorely needs. Cei-U! I summon my two pfennigs' worth! I really don't think every hero needs a tragedy somewhere in their past to help define them. It's a lazy, cliched idea which has now become so overused that it's deeply tiresome. |
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Aug 23, 2016 11:17:55 GMT -5
I maintain that the death of the Kents was necessary for Clark to learn his limitations, that no matter how powerful Superman may be there are some things--like time and death--greater than himself. It's a perspective that a mature hero sorely needs. Cei-U! I summon my two pfennigs' worth! I really don't think every hero needs a tragedy somewhere in their past to help define them. It's a lazy, cliched idea which has now become so overused that it's deeply tiresome. I agree goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2015/04/03/50-greatest-daredevil-stories-35-31/ ((#33, bottom scan). |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Aug 23, 2016 11:19:40 GMT -5
I guess everyone's mileage varies. Of course, we all leave ourselves wide open when we argue that one comic book hero is more believable than another.  It's all in the characterization. Superman back then just never seemed to me to have any. On the other hand, Alan Moore's Marvelman, for instance, is probably as powerful as Superman, if not moreso, but he was treated as a real person, with real hopes and fears and believable motivations. Likewise Doctor Manhattan or Starlin's Adam Warlock, or even the Silver Surfer when he's done right. Pre-Crisis, I could never really engage with most of DC's "big" characters because they just seemed so thin in terms of characterization. Clark Kent, Barry Allen, Ray Palmer...basically, their entire personalities could be summed up as "he's a nice bloke and he fights crime". The more minor characters and books were always far more interesting to me. Ditko's Shade, Swamp Thing, Steel, Star Hunters, the JSA and the Freedom Fighters, then all of Roy Thomas's stuff with the Golden Age characters...my favourite member of the JLA was, and still is to this day, Red Tornado! Batman was interesting, admittedly, though I still never really felt compelled to follow his books until Doug Moench got hold of them the first time 'round. This is pretty much how I've felt for most of my comic reading life, particularly as a teen. I've come to appreciate DC's Golden and Silver Age more over the years, but I still percieve most of their top characters (save for Batman who's among my favorite characters ever) as being great concepts and power sets as apposed to being great "characters" like Peter Parker, Ben Grimm or Logan. Even Steve Rogers and Tony Stark, while handsome leads in a similar vein as most DC heroes, had their quirks and failings. DC's heroes didn't seem to evolve a second-dimension until the early 70's, well after Marvel introduced that novel concept during the Marvel Age. |
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Aug 23, 2016 11:31:52 GMT -5
I think the best use of a retcon ever is what John Byrne did with Galactus. I've always been slightly amused by readers/creators that had a problem with how Byrne expanded Galactus as a concept. It usually boiled down to a naive take on morality from my viewpoint. Those opposed can't seem to grasp the concept of humans (or human level aliens) being as far below a cosmic being as an insect is below us. I mean, literally, a planet is no more special to a being like Galactus than an ant-hill is to gardener. Not to mention that Galactus consumes worlds simply to survive (and to serve a higher purpose) while some humans simply hunt for sport. Of course humanity should fight Galactus to the death to defend itself, but judging him morally? Sorry, we don't get to do that given out history. It's a surprisingly profound retcon.
|
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 23, 2016 13:29:59 GMT -5
Post by tingramretro on Aug 23, 2016 13:29:59 GMT -5
It's all in the characterization. Superman back then just never seemed to me to have any. On the other hand, Alan Moore's Marvelman, for instance, is probably as powerful as Superman, if not moreso, but he was treated as a real person, with real hopes and fears and believable motivations. Likewise Doctor Manhattan or Starlin's Adam Warlock, or even the Silver Surfer when he's done right. Pre-Crisis, I could never really engage with most of DC's "big" characters because they just seemed so thin in terms of characterization. Clark Kent, Barry Allen, Ray Palmer...basically, their entire personalities could be summed up as "he's a nice bloke and he fights crime". The more minor characters and books were always far more interesting to me. Ditko's Shade, Swamp Thing, Steel, Star Hunters, the JSA and the Freedom Fighters, then all of Roy Thomas's stuff with the Golden Age characters...my favourite member of the JLA was, and still is to this day, Red Tornado! Batman was interesting, admittedly, though I still never really felt compelled to follow his books until Doug Moench got hold of them the first time 'round. This is pretty much how I've felt for most of my comic reading life, particularly as a teen. I've come to appreciate DC's Golden and Silver Age more over the years, but I still percieve most of their top characters (save for Batman who's among my favorite characters ever) as being great concepts and power sets as apposed to being great "characters" like Peter Parker, Ben Grimm or Logan. Even Steve Rogers and Tony Stark, while handsome leads in a similar vein as most DC heroes, had their quirks and failings. DC's heroes didn't seem to evolve a second-dimension until the early 70's, well after Marvel introduced that novel concept during the Marvel Age. I agree. I don't think Barry Allen, for instance, really began to develop a personality until some time after his wife was murdered, and even then it didn't really seem to take hold very firmly. |
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 23, 2016 16:55:32 GMT -5
Prince Hal referenced this one already, but...
The murder of the Waynes was the result of Lew Moxon hiring Joe Chill to kill Thomas Wayne and not a random act of violence. It's not really a retcon since it doesn't so much change what happened but instead shed new light on details readers hadn't been privy to and there's something I really like about this one in spite of the fact that it is tampering with a classic origin (even if the one doing the tampering is Batman's own creator).
See, the origin Batman had from 1940 to 1956 didn't make Thomas Wayne look so good during his final moments on Earth. Chill wants Martha Wayne's necklace and may very well have left them alone had he gotten it. Unfortunately, Thomas decides to attack Chill and it's then that things go downhill for the Waynes. One can't help but suspect that had Thomas Wayne not interfered, both he and his wife would have been short one necklace but nothing else. With Moxon in the picture however, Thomas Wayne can't be faulted for taking a swing at Chill since Chill isn't leaving that alley without carrying out his hit.
Interestingly, this story contains two major revisions (or revelations depending on how you see it) about Batman. First; the Lew Moxon component and second; the fact that Thomas Wayne was the first Bat-Man. Either of these ideas could have been a low point for the Caped Crusader's career, but Finger made them classics. |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 23, 2016 17:43:40 GMT -5
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 23, 2016 17:43:40 GMT -5
tin, don't blame the imitators; they see only the surface and nothing beneath it. The deaths of the Kents did not define Superman's character. They deepened it. The murders of the Waynes defined Batman's character. Events like the adoption of Dick Grayson humanized it. |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 23, 2016 17:51:16 GMT -5
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 23, 2016 17:51:16 GMT -5
Prince Hal referenced this one already, but...
The murder of the Waynes was the result of Lew Moxon hiring Joe Chill to kill Thomas Wayne and not a random act of violence. It's not really a retcon since it doesn't so much change what happened but instead shed new light on details readers hadn't been privy to and there's something I really like about this one in spite of the fact that it is tampering with a classic origin (even if the one doing the tampering is Batman's own creator).
See, the origin Batman had from 1940 to 1956 didn't make Thomas Wayne look so good during his final moments on Earth. Chill wants Martha Wayne's necklace and may very well have left them alone had he gotten it. Unfortunately, Thomas decides to attack Chill and it's then that things go downhill for the Waynes. One can't help but suspect that had Thomas Wayne not interfered, both he and his wife would have been short one necklace but nothing else. With Moxon in the picture however, Thomas Wayne can't be faulted for taking a swing at Chill since Chill isn't leaving that alley without carrying out his hit.
Interestingly, this story contains two major revisions (or revelations depending on how you see it) about Batman. First; the Lew Moxon component and second; the fact that Thomas Wayne was the first Bat-Man. Either of these ideas could have been a low point for the Caped Crusader's career, but Finger made them classics. I knew about the Moxon ret-con of a ret-con when I wrote about Batman's origin, but intentionally left it out because, despite my love for that era of Batman stories, to me it always "Roy Thomas-ed" Batman's origin. I think that the story of the unknown burglar/murderer and the possible foolhardiness of Thomas Wayne make for the best origin because of the randomness of the act. The identification of the burglar as Joe Chill was not damaging to that story, but I would have preferred that the tinkering ended there. Adding the Moxon/ Thomas Wayne crusading citizen aspect was unnecessary, and I would argue, less compelling. This makes me think of the "Burglar" in Spider-man's origin. My memory and knowledge of Spidey's mythos are not vast enough to answer these questions: Was he caught? Was he more than an anonymous burglar? Was he ret-conned into someone we all knew? |
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 23, 2016 17:56:20 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by coinilius on Aug 23, 2016 17:56:20 GMT -5
Yeah there have been plenty of additions to the burglar from Spider-Man's origin - I have known what they were in the past but couldn't tell you off the top of my head may more. He has a daughter that dated Ben Reily for awhile though.
|
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 23, 2016 18:58:13 GMT -5
Post by chadwilliam on Aug 23, 2016 18:58:13 GMT -5
This makes me think of the "Burglar" in Spider-man's origin. My memory and knowledge of Spidey's mythos are not vast enough to answer these questions: Was he caught? Was he more than an anonymous burglar? Was he ret-conned into someone we all knew?
Actually, your knowledge of Batman's past seems vast enough that you do know the circumstances behind the Burgler's capture even if you don't realize it. Spider-Man caught up with him in Amazing Spider-Man 200 and in a sequence lazily ripped off from Batman 47, confronts the criminal (who we learn was at the Parker house in Amazing Fantasy 15 because he was searching for hidden treasure) who pleads to know why the wall crawler cares so much about Ben Parker. "I care, because Ben Parker (pulls off mask) was my Uncle!" The Burgler dies then and there. I can't believe that for such a momentous event, Marvel simply decided that "aw to hell with it, let's just cut and paste what happened with Batman and Joe Chill for our anniversary tale".
|
|
|
|
Retcons
Aug 23, 2016 19:33:34 GMT -5
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 23, 2016 19:33:34 GMT -5
This makes me think of the "Burglar" in Spider-man's origin. My memory and knowledge of Spidey's mythos are not vast enough to answer these questions: Was he caught? Was he more than an anonymous burglar? Was he ret-conned into someone we all knew?
Actually, your knowledge of Batman's past seems vast enough that you do know the circumstances behind the Burgler's capture even if you don't realize it. Spider-Man caught up with him in Amazing Spider-Man 200 and in a sequence lazily ripped off from Batman 47, confronts the criminal (who we learn was at the Parker house in Amazing Fantasy 15 because he was searching for hidden treasure) who pleads to know why the wall crawler cares so much about Ben Parker. "I care, because Ben Parker (pulls off mask) was my Uncle!" The Burgler dies then and there. I can't believe that for such a momentous event, Marvel simply decided that "aw to hell with it, let's just cut and paste what happened with Batman and Joe Chill for our anniversary tale".
Glad I hadn't known that! Were Wolfman and Lee ever called on their theft? If so, did they say it was inadvertent, or claim it was an obvious homage? Holy feck. |
|
