|
Post by kirby101 on May 11, 2020 9:40:24 GMT -5
[/div][/quote]Not when they were publishing those post-WWII stories. Again why change it a decade (or two) later to make it a different Cap? Again changes "we" like good no one blinks an eye and creators get applauded for innovation. Changes "we" don't like get lampooned and creators get reviled as hacks who can't work in continuity or don't care about it. It boils down to fickle fandom reactions essentially. -M[/quote] I don't see it as fickle at all. Some work and some are plain stupid. The stakes are higher when doing retcon, so the stories have to be better and "work" for the readers. I think the ones fans like Frozen Cap, Swampthing elemental, etc can be easily defended. And the ones fans hate, like Sins Past are easily criticized.
Avengers #4 was a great book that fans love and fit perfectly into the MCU at the time, and Englehart did a satisfactory of explaining the post war Cap.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2020 10:20:13 GMT -5
We (as a forum) have sort of discussed this before. linkMy thoughts? Some of these changes have stood the test of time. DC's Earth 2 or the 50's Capt America. Some were created for one story and ignored since then because they were done just for shock value and therefore bad(Sins Past). Some ideas were good at the time and just ran out of steam after serving their purpose (PAD's Aquaman/West Coast Avengers).
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on May 11, 2020 12:22:46 GMT -5
There was a time when a writer expected an issue of a comic to be pretty much entirely forgotten within, at most, three years. They were something to sell to entertain for that moment. I do remember thinking that the frozen Cap being "worshipped" by Eskimos was a corny touch too much (everyone knew they worshipped Ookpik the great owl after all), but it seemed worth it for the pathos of a person out of time suddenly confronted with the present, especially in the later '60s. There are just things that work and things that don't work and they vary from reader to reader. If the new wrinkle undoes or throws out something that had worked up to that point though... look out! Especially when they fool around with the basis origin story, that can get really dangerous. A young Bruce Wayne and the cave of a gigantic supernatural bat god you either love or hate perhaps? And the de-uniqueing, where an accident was revealed as part of a deliberate design and average seeming characters are revealed to be very unique or super themselves. I read a circa 2000 Iron Man origin revisit via a villain dispatched in the origin still being around and ruling over a jungle domain of prisoners. They added a big dollop of general Asiatic mystery spiritualist martial arts jazz to it. I found just the amount of time all these people and the baddie were operating in seclusion since the origin in 1963 the most unlikely, but I guess that's Marvel time; maybe it was only five years not over thirty five? Except they include very real datable aspects like the Vietnam war. Basically though, Bruce Wayne would have to be in his 90s now, Spider-Man in his 70s and you know they won't let that get in the way of selling a lot of Batman and Spider-Man comics and stuff. Nobody cares that Archie is still a teenager or that Donald Duck doesn't wear pants. So I, who am not a big fan of Wonder Woman, take it over, write-out the invisible plane, have her riding a big kangaroo all the time because I thought that was a cool visual, make her the last Amazon so there isn't this island of women just hanging around for centuries hoping a man never sets foot on it or they all turn to dust, and all the fans who liked those things and didn't like the battle roos burn me in effigy! It's probably a good idea if someone who genuinely likes something is the one to work on it. I think sometimes you get someone who didn't and wants to fix what they see as wrong. Well, I have those four Byrne issues to get to yet and I think I will really like them even though the plane and the women in togas hanging about are in it (and no kangaroos)... you get what you think you want and you might be more disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2020 13:26:03 GMT -5
[/div][/quote]Not when they were publishing those post-WWII stories. Again why change it a decade (or two) later to make it a different Cap? Again changes "we" like good no one blinks an eye and creators get applauded for innovation. Changes "we" don't like get lampooned and creators get reviled as hacks who can't work in continuity or don't care about it. It boils down to fickle fandom reactions essentially. -M[/quote] I don't see it as fickle at all. Some work and some are plain stupid. The stakes are higher when doing retcon, so the stories have to be better and "work" for the readers. I think the ones fans like Frozen Cap, Swampthing elemental, etc can be easily defended. And the ones fans hate, like Sins Past are easily criticized.
Avengers #4 was a great book that fans love and fit perfectly into the MCU at the time, and Englehart did a satisfactory of explaining the post war Cap.
[/quote] It's fickle because fans don't simply say "I like this change" and "I don't like this change" it's because they ignore and deny it's change when they like it and curse change in general when there's a development they don't like, and utter things about creators ability in regards to continuity and blame "change" on why comics is losing readership and driving away fans leading to the general blanket statement modern comics suck because too much has changed. The thing is comics have always changed, fans just assume the changes that occurred before they bought in are part of the landscape and that somehow once they bought in comics will stay the same and all that change will come to a screeching halt and remain the comics they discovered forever and ever. They conflate that snapshot moment of what comics looked like when they bought in with the eternal unchanging reality of comics, and change becomes the enemy in general, except for the few changes they find palatable which are rationalized away as not actually being change. The efforts of fans in general to be apologists for things like Avengers #4 and Englehart's replacement Cap stories as not being change or acceptable change are a prime example of this pattern. It's fine to like some changes and not others, but the grandiose efforts to rationalize the changes they like as "not change" and the changes they don't like (with labels like retcons) as what is wrong with comics and the bile heaped upon creators (with labels like talentless hacks) who perpetuate those stories is the issue. It is often arbitrary and fickle what is accepted or not, and the rationales used to explain the changes they like are rejected out of hand when used to explain changes they don't, even if the rationales are identical or logically the same. -M
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 11, 2020 13:37:46 GMT -5
We were having a discussion on another thread about shocking changes way after the fact. I mentioned that Balder the Brave was revealed to be Thors brother 60 years after the comic was first published. I usually just ignore retcons of that magnitude. What events or " reveals " have you shaking your head? Many have been the retcons that made me shake this hoary head. A few major revelations were clever and well-handled, and led to new and interesting stories. Most were cheap and silly stunts, and led to absolutely nothing of value. To those already listed, I would add... - Puck not being a real dwarf but an old guy whose body was used as a prison for some demon and magically shrunk because... er... demons keep better when shrink-wrapped? Complete nonsense that deprived us of a great and believable character. - Guardian being alive after all, after the fake story about him managing to turn a malfunctioning costume into a time/space vehicle IN UNDER TEN SECONDS before exploding turned out to be true. - Hydra and SHIELD having existed and having been the same outfit since, like, forever. While the concept of Hydra infiltrating and subverting SHIELD is a nice twist, having the two outfits run around each other for absolutely no reason for decades is nonsensical. - Aunt May not being dead, but having been replaced by an actress before her demise. Now for a few major retcons I thoroughly enjoyed... - Wakanda having been a technologically advanced nation for centuries. That turned out to be a pretty good idea! It clashed with everything we knew, but it made the Marvel Universe more interesting. - Bucky not being dead (something of a capital sin, in my eyes, originally). It was handled extremely well! - The Vision being the original Human Torch, refurbished (a great retcon that was later modified. Urgh). - Changing the origin of all those superpowered characters of the Legion universe from “they’re aliens who just happen to be indistinguishable from humans, only with powers” to “they’re the descendants of human guinea pigs who were given super powers by the Dominators during the Invasion! crossover, and later resettled to other worlds”.
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on May 11, 2020 14:34:56 GMT -5
I have no problem with changes but why 30-50 years after a history is established? Especially when they're not clearing up some previous inconsistency or anything. It's like a writer decided to change something just for the sake of change, or because he ran out of good ideas.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 11, 2020 14:39:13 GMT -5
- Wolverine's birth name is not Logan. He was born in the 19th century as James Howlett. - Wolverine is the son of Sabretooth and Seraph. - Wolverine was raised in an accelerated-time bubble as part of A.I.M. research on mutant-hunters. "Weapon X" means "Weapon Ten."
Does this mean he's no longer supposed to be Canadian? As a Canadian myself, I'm all for that!
|
|
|
Post by dbutler69 on May 11, 2020 14:57:06 GMT -5
Captain America got frozen in WWII? Then who was that fighting "Commies" in the Red Scare era after WWII? Who's going to believe someone can survive by being froze in a block of ice in the ocean and how you going to explain how he was fighting the god fight after the war while being frozen in the ocean? Why that change? Maybe because wild changes that spark new stories (though some don't actually make sense to many fans) have always been part of the comic book super-hero landscape. There's always been changes like that. Nobody blinks an eye when those changes result in something most fans like, but they jump all over ones they don't want to accept for whatever reason. -M Different Cap
Those covers, with the Falcon sharing the cover, reminded me of a terrible, terrible change - the change by Englehart of the Falcon's origin, changing him into a former pimp or whatever it was, 'Snap' Wilson. I like Englehart's work overall, but that was unforgivable!
|
|
|
Post by rberman on May 11, 2020 15:14:17 GMT -5
- Wolverine's birth name is not Logan. He was born in the 19th century as James Howlett. - Wolverine is the son of Sabretooth and Seraph. - Wolverine was raised in an accelerated-time bubble as part of A.I.M. research on mutant-hunters. "Weapon X" means "Weapon Ten." Does this mean he's no longer supposed to be Canadian? As a Canadian myself, I'm all for that!
According to Grant Morrison's "Weapon Ten" explanation, Wolverine is now British, like himself. No other writers appear to have endorsed Morrison's story, though.
|
|
|
Post by profh0011 on May 11, 2020 16:07:33 GMT -5
I really doubt ANYBODY (except a fanatical Golden Age Fanboy like Roy Thomas) cared in the slightest about what happened in AVENGERS #4 at the time it happened. Captain America's last appearance was in 1954. THE AVENGERS #4 was in 1964. The general concensus was that comics audiences turned over every 6 years or so, so most reading in 1964 may not have even known or cared who "Captain America" was. Of course, there's more to it than that... heh. JACK KIRBY did CAPTAIN AMERICA #1-10 (Mar'41-Jan'42), then, he & Joe Simon (mainly, the "business" half of their partnership) both left Timely and went to National when they found out Martin Goodman was cooking the books and NOT PAYING them their CONTRACTUALLY-GUARANTEED royalties on a book that was selling a MILLION copies a month. Continued by others, the last CAP issue was in early 1950. Cap was revived (along with Sub-Mariner and the Human Torch) for less than a year, from late 1953 to mid-1954. At the time, Simon & Kirby saw the CAP revival, and thought, "Why shouldn't WE get a piece of that action?" And so they hatched FIGHTING AMERICAN. I've read both. FA was a HELL of a lot better than the CA revival!!!!! Market forces beyond their control put paid to both series about the same time. Kirby returned to Marvel in the late 50s, convinced his editor to convince his publisher NOT to shut down, and for the next few years mostly did giant monster books. The WHOLE time, Kirby kept trying to push for a superhero revival, as he'd seen how well that was doing over at DC with The Flash, Green Lantern, Challengers of the Unknown, etc... When Jack Kirby wrote THE AVENGERS #4, he no doubt reasoned that nothing that happened since HE left the book he helped create really mattered. You know, it hits me just now, I've long felt the personalities of Steve Rogers & Bucky Barnes may well have been based on those of Buck Rogers & Buddy Wade from the 1939 Universal "BUCK ROGERS" serial. By making Steve a man out of his own time, Kirby was borrowing ANOTHER facet of the "BUCK ROGERS" model. The 1950s Cap story was a long time coming. Fan letters discussed the glaring continuity problem, and I seem to recall at least one who actually spelled out a possible explanation for it... which was printed less than a year before Steve Englehart got on the book and wrote his memorable 4-parter. Amazingly, without it ever being mentioned in that 4-parter, it also neatly "explained" AMAZING SPIDER-MAN ANNUAL #5, wherein Spider-Man fought a Red Skull who'd been operating a spy ring in Northern Africa for the last 15 years. This came at the exact same time Cap was fighting The Red Skull in CAP's book. It becomes obvious, The Red Skull that Spider-Man fought... was the 1950s Red Skull!!!
|
|
|
Post by berkley on May 11, 2020 16:12:32 GMT -5
Does this mean he's no longer supposed to be Canadian? As a Canadian myself, I'm all for that!
According to Grant Morrison's "Weapon Ten" explanation, Wolverine is now British, like himself. No other writers appear to have endorsed Morrison's story, though.
If they want him, they can have him, as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 11, 2020 16:32:35 GMT -5
Does this mean he's no longer supposed to be Canadian? As a Canadian myself, I'm all for that!
According to Grant Morrison's "Weapon Ten" explanation, Wolverine is now British, like himself. No other writers appear to have endorsed Morrison's story, though. Did Logan come from The World itself, though? I know he’s supposed to have been a product of that super-soldier program (which also created Fantomex, who I believe is Weapon XIII or something), but as I recall Captain America himself is supposed to be Weapon I. I don’t believe all the Weapon Plus graduates came from The World. Logan was “uncanadianized” in a flashback scene from the early 90s, in which Sabretooth mocked the idea that he and Wolvie might be Canucks... but he gained his citizenship back, so to speak, in the Origins graphic novel that came out later (and introduced a whole different retcon). Things used to be so simple!
|
|
|
Post by rberman on May 11, 2020 17:30:17 GMT -5
According to Grant Morrison's "Weapon Ten" explanation, Wolverine is now British, like himself. No other writers appear to have endorsed Morrison's story, though. Did Logan come from The World itself, though? I know he’s supposed to have been a product of that super-soldier program (which also created Fantomex, who I believe is Weapon XIII or something), but as I recall Captain America himself is supposed to be Weapon I. I don’t believe all the Weapon Plus graduates came from The World. My memory was a little fuzzy. Fantomex was Weapon XIII. Like his predecessor The Huntsman (Weapon XII, seen in New X-Men #129-130) Fantomex was from The World, which was one of the numerous research projects of the underlying "Weapon Plus" ("Weapon +," a sideways "x") program that began with Captain America (Weapon I). Nuke (the opponent Frank Miller made for Daredevil, with the American flag tattooed on his face) was another product of the Weapon Plus project, in Morrison's retcon at least. Three of the Weapons were animals, probably referring to Morrison's series We3.This was all part of a mutant-elimination plan set in motion long ago by Sublime, the mitochondria-based primal villain. No one can accuse Morrison of shunning the big idea! The goal of Weapon Plus was to assemble an ersatz Justice League of America, complete with a satellite HQ (with logo emblazoned in their meeting table!), code names, and marketing hype, to fight the X-Men. All of this is a big metaphor for DC vs Marvel. Note the reference below to Superman. Anyway, I suppose Morrison's real retcon on this score was claiming that Captain America and Wolverine were part of the same larger scheme whose goal was eliminating mutants, not fighting Nazis or what have you.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 11, 2020 19:23:56 GMT -5
Heh! It’s not Weapon X? Well it’s not Weapon Ten either! it’s definitely Weapon Khi! It’s a Greek letter, not a Roman numeral! The proof? Wolverine is from the same Canadian program that produced Weapon Alpha and Weapon Omega! Besides, khi in French would be pronounced like “Qui”, which means “who”. And “Who is Wolverine?” is a perennial question when it comes to the character! Who is Wolverine = Khi is Wolverine... It’s so obvious! Hear that, Mr. Morrison? We won’t be out-conspiracied!
|
|
|
Post by corona on May 11, 2020 21:01:04 GMT -5
I really doubt ANYBODY (except a fanatical Golden Age Fanboy like Roy Thomas) cared in the slightest about what happened in AVENGERS #4 at the time it happened. Captain America's last appearance was in 1954. THE AVENGERS #4 was in 1964. The general concensus was that comics audiences turned over every 6 years or so, so most reading in 1964 may not have even known or cared who "Captain America" was. Of course, there's more to it than that... heh. JACK KIRBY did CAPTAIN AMERICA #1-10 (Mar'41-Jan'42), then, he & Joe Simon (mainly, the "business" half of their partnership) both left Timely and went to National when they found out Martin Goodman was cooking the books and NOT PAYING them their CONTRACTUALLY-GUARANTEED royalties on a book that was selling a MILLION copies a month. Continued by others, the last CAP issue was in early 1950. Cap was revived (along with Sub-Mariner and the Human Torch) for less than a year, from late 1953 to mid-1954. At the time, Simon & Kirby saw the CAP revival, and thought, "Why shouldn't WE get a piece of that action?" And so they hatched FIGHTING AMERICAN. I've read both. FA was a HELL of a lot better than the CA revival!!!!! Market forces beyond their control put paid to both series about the same time. Kirby returned to Marvel in the late 50s, convinced his editor to convince his publisher NOT to shut down, and for the next few years mostly did giant monster books. The WHOLE time, Kirby kept trying to push for a superhero revival, as he'd seen how well that was doing over at DC with The Flash, Green Lantern, Challengers of the Unknown, etc... When Jack Kirby wrote THE AVENGERS #4, he no doubt reasoned that nothing that happened since HE left the book he helped create really mattered. You know, it hits me just now, I've long felt the personalities of Steve Rogers & Bucky Barnes may well have been based on those of Buck Rogers & Buddy Wade from the 1939 Universal "BUCK ROGERS" serial. By making Steve a man out of his own time, Kirby was borrowing ANOTHER facet of the "BUCK ROGERS" model. The 1950s Cap story was a long time coming. Fan letters discussed the glaring continuity problem, and I seem to recall at least one who actually spelled out a possible explanation for it... which was printed less than a year before Steve Englehart got on the book and wrote his memorable 4-parter. Amazingly, without it ever being mentioned in that 4-parter, it also neatly "explained" AMAZING SPIDER-MAN ANNUAL #5, wherein Spider-Man fought a Red Skull who'd been operating a spy ring in Northern Africa for the last 15 years. This came at the exact same time Cap was fighting The Red Skull in CAP's book. It becomes obvious, The Red Skull that Spider-Man fought... was the 1950s Red Skull!!! 1950s Cap made 10 appearances in the entire decade, scattered over 3 titles. I have no issues with Kirby going from the original to the revival. Roy Thomas never wanted to get caught with a continuity error so wanted to fix it, since he was obsessed with the Golden Age to the point of damaging his organic writing. In reality, the 1950s could have been forgotten completely and no one would have cared. Marvel in spirit ought to have started with FF#1.
|
|