|
|
Post by badwolf on Jan 15, 2020 9:59:18 GMT -5
I didn't know that! So was the Ned Leeds thing editorial fiat? An attempt to put a bow on it and move on? Roger Stern had the storyline planned from the start but left before he could reveal Hobgoblin was Kingsley. Tom DeFalco took over as writer of ASM but decided he disliked the Kingsley idea; he planned for the Goblin to be Richard Fisk, but never got around to revealing it as he wanted to string it out as long as possible. When Jim Owsley took over as editor, he and DeFalco didn't get along, so when Owsley asked who the Goblin was, DeFalco claimed he was Ned Leeds, as a piece of deliberate misdirection. Owsley then wrote the Spidey/Wolverine one-shot in which Leeds was killed in order to change that, ordering Peter David (who was writing Spectacular Spider-Man) to out Hobby as the Foreigner instead, but David objected because he felt Leeds made more sense and, in any case, he had other plans for the Foreigner. In the end, Hobby was revealed to have been Leeds because there was no real alternative, despite neither Owsley or DeFalco being happy about it. It took Roger Stern returning to the character in '97 to sort it all out. I remember thinking Hobgoblin was Richard Fisk, because of the way he spoke to the Kingpin in one issue, but he turned out to be the Rose. |
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Jan 15, 2020 12:54:22 GMT -5
As for Dredd, yes, he has an origin. He's a clone of the late Chief Judge Fargo, founder of the Judge system.
Moreover, although we've never seen his face properly speaking, he does have a brother clone named Rico who was kicked out of Judge school and we've seen his face (or what's left of it).
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 15, 2020 14:10:08 GMT -5
We've seen his face,,,,,   |
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Jan 15, 2020 15:07:11 GMT -5
Have we ever learned Rogue's real name? (Anna Raven is obviously an alias). Her name is Anna-Marie, but we don't know her last name. Claremont sez that Rogue is the child of Mystique (Raven Darkholme) and Destiny (Irene Adler). If she has a birth certificate, it probably says "Adler." |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Jan 15, 2020 18:36:28 GMT -5
Her name is Anna-Marie, but we don't know her last name. Claremont sez that Rogue is the child of Mystique (Raven Darkholme) and Destiny (Irene Adler). If she has a birth certificate, it probably says "Adler." I've never believed that Irene Adler was Destiny's real name. It's too obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Jan 15, 2020 18:48:40 GMT -5
I thought Rogue was adopted by Mystique.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jan 15, 2020 19:05:25 GMT -5
I thought Rogue was adopted by Mystique. Everything you know is untrue! Actually, Caremont wanted Mystique to be the biological father and Destiny the mother, but editorial nixed the idea, due to Code restrictions. He rationalized it as Mystique taking on male form; but, that would require more than just shape changing, as she would have to develop real testicles and produce sperm. So, unless the intent was that Mystique was born a biological male and adopted a female form long term, or was born with both sex organs, it doesn't work. Science was never Claremont's strong point (or many creators, in comics). The official history is that Mystique and Destiny were adoptive parents, and she is the biological mother to Nightcrawler. Every time the X-Men need a sales boost, they monkey with an origin. |
|
zilch
Full Member
Posts: 244 
|
Post by zilch on Jan 15, 2020 19:52:49 GMT -5
Cap'n Fear (the pirate) real name is Fero.
Quality hero... The Unknown is, well, unknown.
Mutant Mesmero, and the X-Men's Ogre are unnamed.
Space Cabby?
-z
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jan 16, 2020 18:32:49 GMT -5
To chadwilliam: There's an interesting fan theory about Chief Quimby being Doctor Claw. I mean, he does keep sending Gadget off on those assignments - and seems to know Claw's crime plans in advance (what, did Claw take out an ad?). But it's about more than that. In the end credits of Inspector Gadget, Quimby is opening his mouth and talking to Gadget - at that exact moment, Claw does a voiceover. It is most likely just a coincidence, but it's that from where the fan theories grew... Go to 0:32-0:34 of this video: hmmm. Only problem is for this theory to work it would mean that Gadget is something of an idiot. Which we know he isn't. Still, interesting. Thanks Taxidriver! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2020 18:47:34 GMT -5
It most likely is a coincidence that Quimby's mouth movements are in sync with Claw's threats, but it does make one wonder.
Regarding this topic, aren't the identities of many G.I. Joe characters still a mystery? Cobra Commander's origins seem to differ depending on what incarnation you read (there's no consistency with the 1987 animated movie, the comics and the cartoon). But I don't think his real name has ever been revealed. Nor the real name/identity of Zartan. Has Snake Eye's real name ever been revealed?
As a kid, I did have some G.I. Joe figures. The cards on the back of the box had the biographical information for various characters, e.g. Shipwreck's real name was Hector Delgado. But I found it frustrating to read the biographies for Cobra Commander, Zartan, Snake-Eyes, etc - and see "Real Name: Unknown". Oh well, I suppose some mystique is interesting.
Staying in a similar ballpark to the original topic, it's amazing how many cartoon characters (80s) didn't have origins. Some origins may have been added retrospectively, but the likes of Skeletor came fully-formed. Who was he? How did he come to be? And did Cybertron have any sort of history when the franchise first appeared? Mystique is good, but it's nice to know a little bit of history along with aliases.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jan 16, 2020 23:37:41 GMT -5
I think that has to do with the origin of the stories. Those 80s cartoons were not really intended to be masterpieces of TV, they were ads for toys that sneakily got to be whole shows. You don't need an origin story for that, just lots of action.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2020 9:23:36 GMT -5
I think that has to do with the origin of the stories. Those 80s cartoons were not really intended to be masterpieces of TV, they were ads for toys that sneakily got to be whole shows. You don't need an origin story for that, just lots of action. That is true. Someone like me craves backstory (it's a character flaw!), but I realise that it just wasn't the way they did things then. I mean, just how did Inspector Gadget become what he is? How did they fit all the gadgets in? But, again, it's my character flaw. When I first saw the beauty of Cybertron in the original cartoon, I was intrigued. Who built the robots? How did Cybertron develop? Of course, it's important not to dwell on the past forever. |
|
