|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 14:01:43 GMT -5
On that note, it's why I liked the Bond films prior to Daniel Craig (isn't Craig's Bond a prequel?).
I like that when Licence To Kill was released in 1989, and Bond went rogue, I was watching the same 007 who had battled the likes of Goldfinger, Kananga, etc.
Yes, the actors were different. But that didn't matter. They did link back to earlier films. It was George Lazenby's Bond that married Tracy, but the marriage was mentioned in Roger Moore's The Spy Who Loved Me and Timothy Dalton's Licence To Kill. In one of the Pierce Brosnan films, whilst being shown around the laboratory by R, he notices some gadgets that we saw in earlier films. Five actors had played the role at that point, but it was the same Bond.
The role of Felix Leiter wasn't always consistent, but I like how David Hedison, who first played Felix in 1973's Live and Let Die, reprised the role in 1989's Licence To Kill. It provided a reassuring "comfort zone" for me as a viewer. Although it was Dalton acting with Hedison in 1989, there was that link due to Hedison's earlier appearance.
They didn't have to spend lots of screentime linking back. Seven or so seconds is all it took for Bond's marriage to be mentioned in Licence To Kill. Seven seconds or so isn't a lot of screentime. But like with Supes' mention of Muhammad Ali in the DC Comics Presents issue, it was more than enough to provide a nice link to what had came before.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Feb 3, 2019 22:49:16 GMT -5
One problem with comic-book "canon" is tht there are so many contradictory stories by now, after all these years of characters and series being written by so many different people, it's probably impossible to make it all work together - though I gather that this is one of the things Grant Morrison was trying to do with his various Batman stories a few years back.
For me it's as much about getting the tone and the persona right rather than details about alternate universes and so on. So I'm as turned off by, say, writing Doctor Strange as a wise-cracking hipster (or whatever he is currently) as I would be by a more explicit re-boot.
|
|
|
Post by tolworthy on Feb 4, 2019 6:10:02 GMT -5
X-Men #150 (1981) Diety?? I suppose it makes sense. Storm appears to be the goddess of amazing curves and narrow waists. I can see her worshippers calling her a "diet-y". She is obviously on a high protein diet, and I suppose that explains the excessive wind.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 5, 2019 11:01:01 GMT -5
For me it's as much about getting the tone and the persona right rather than details about alternate universes and so on. So I'm as turned off by, say, writing Doctor Strange as a wise-cracking hipster (or whatever he is currently) as I would be by a more explicit re-boot. Yeah, I was really torn by Jason Aaron's Strange. The stories were fun and the art was excellent, but it just wasn't the Doctor Strange I knew.
These days all characters are wise-cracking hipsters it seems.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 10:31:27 GMT -5
Currently reading Immortal Hulk #11.
Reporter Jackie McGee is talking to the Hulk. His membership of the Avengers is mentioned. As is the time he was shot into space.
This is the kind of thing I was talking about in my initial post. I know I'm reading the exploits of the Hulk that I've always known; I know I'm reading about the same guy who was a founding member of the Avengers - and who was shot into space on Greg Pak's watch.
This is why reboots and the like aren't for me. All that history and self-reference gets lost.
|
|