|
Post by james on Dec 22, 2022 14:43:15 GMT -5
I think I'll start this thread with my "Does anyone else miss?
Does anyone else miss when Kingpin was primarily a Spiderman foe?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 14:53:48 GMT -5
I like how Kingpin was used in Daredevil stories, but I can definitely identify with that statement.
I miss how there could be “cross-pollination” of villains/heroes. While it should never be overdone, it was nice to see, say, Electro show up in a Spidey comic, or Scorpion go after Alpha Flight. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen now, but it doesn’t seem to happen often, probably because of all these long arcs, but I feel there is still so much we could see, e.g. Juggernaut VS Fantastic Four, or Captain America vs Green Goblin.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 19:28:56 GMT -5
I think I'll start this thread with my "Does anyone else miss? Does anyone else miss when Kingpin was primarily a Spiderman foe?
No, because he makes a great adversary for both Daredevil and Punisher as well. The latter includes a fantastic Punisher Max run penned by Jason Aaron.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 19:42:50 GMT -5
Personally I miss the whole Bronze Age But yes, while I do think Kingpin was put to good use in Daredevil, he's a classic Spidey villain to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 19:53:06 GMT -5
I look at Kingpin this way-if you are going to have a shared universe, and use NYC as the epicenter for all your stories, and then you set up a crime lord in NYC, he's no one's villain, he's an antagonist for anyone who fights organized crime in NYC, and just because Spidey stumbled on his activities first didn't make him a Spidey villain. The hero who could pose a real threat to his activities would be the one Kingpin considered his enemy. Spidey was an annoyance for the most part who got lucky. Daredevil, with Murdoch's legal background, was the one that posed a threat not only to him, but to his organizational infrastructure, so more effort was put into taking him down. But as a whole, it makes sense for Kingpin's story as a crimelord in the epicenter of a shared universe's nexus city to play out that way.
That's the one difference in the MU and the DCU. The MU has NYC as its epicenter, so every villain is in play for every hero that operates there. The DCU is filled with several, let's call them fiefdoms, that are the domain of one hero or one heroic brand-Gotham is Batman/Bat-family so everyone who operates there is essentially a Bat-villain. Metropolis is Superman's demesne, so most of the villains there are Superman-villains. Central City/Keystone is Flash's demesne, so villains there are Flash rogues, etc. Still a shared universe, but one comprised of several petty fiefdoms rather than one large central sandbox like NYC is in the MU.
-M
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 21:33:03 GMT -5
I look at Kingpin this way-if you are going to have a shared universe, and use NYC as the epicenter for all your stories, and then you set up a crime lord in NYC, he's no one's villain, he's an antagonist for anyone who fights organized crime in NYC, and just because Spidey stumbled on his activities first didn't make him a Spidey villain. The hero who could pose a real threat to his activities would be the one Kingpin considered his enemy. Spidey was an annoyance for the most part who got lucky. Daredevil, with Murdoch's legal background, was the one that posed a threat not only to him, but to his organizational infrastructure, so more effort was put into taking him down. But as a whole, it makes sense for Kingpin's story as a crimelord in the epicenter of a shared universe's nexus city to play out that way. That's the one difference in the MU and the DCU. The MU has NYC as its epicenter, so every villain is in play for every hero that operates there. The DCU is filled with several, let's call them fiefdoms, that are the domain of one hero or one heroic brand-Gotham is Batman/Bat-family so everyone who operates there is essentially a Bat-villain. Metropolis is Superman's demesne, so most of the villains there are Superman-villains. Central City/Keystone is Flash's demesne, so villains there are Flash rogues, etc. Still a shared universe, but one comprised of several petty fiefdoms rather than one large central sandbox like NYC is in the MU. -M I totally get this logic, it's a good point on how a common city could create that dynamic. But then by extension I would question the role of arch-enemies in the Marvel world in general. Sure, as you said, the Kingpin may be "city-wide" in scope based on being a crime boss. But except in adventures where the villain might be looking for revenge against a certain hero/team, why does say Spidey tend to be the one who shows up when Doc Ock is causing trouble in the city? Shouldn't the Avengers or FF or others get there just as often? Logistically it wouldn't make sense in a "real NYC" for that not to happen. And sometimes of course they do exactly that to your point of the common sandbox, and will even poke a little fun and have the heroes say things like "I thought he was one of yours". But also "conveniently" power levels tend to match off. Like the Kingpin is fairly decently matched to both Spider-Man and Daredevil. And I agree, the legal background aspect of Daredevil plays well with the "crime boss" machinations, but could you imagine if say the Vision took a day off just to mess with Kingpin? He could grab incriminating files, bust up operations, take down henchmen, and even Kingpin himself before lunch. But that would be terribly boring to read...Daredevil has to work a LOT harder. I think it's a balancing act...established rogues galleries, even in Marvel, make for classic superhero storytelling. Coming up with creative alternate match-ups (short or long term) when there's an opportunity to tell great stories also keeps things fresh and entertaining. Which again I think has been the case with Daredevil and Kingpin, though back to the OP's comments, I tend to think of him as a classic Spidey rogue still.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 21:53:56 GMT -5
I look at Kingpin this way-if you are going to have a shared universe, and use NYC as the epicenter for all your stories, and then you set up a crime lord in NYC, he's no one's villain, he's an antagonist for anyone who fights organized crime in NYC, and just because Spidey stumbled on his activities first didn't make him a Spidey villain. The hero who could pose a real threat to his activities would be the one Kingpin considered his enemy. Spidey was an annoyance for the most part who got lucky. Daredevil, with Murdoch's legal background, was the one that posed a threat not only to him, but to his organizational infrastructure, so more effort was put into taking him down. But as a whole, it makes sense for Kingpin's story as a crimelord in the epicenter of a shared universe's nexus city to play out that way. That's the one difference in the MU and the DCU. The MU has NYC as its epicenter, so every villain is in play for every hero that operates there. The DCU is filled with several, let's call them fiefdoms, that are the domain of one hero or one heroic brand-Gotham is Batman/Bat-family so everyone who operates there is essentially a Bat-villain. Metropolis is Superman's demesne, so most of the villains there are Superman-villains. Central City/Keystone is Flash's demesne, so villains there are Flash rogues, etc. Still a shared universe, but one comprised of several petty fiefdoms rather than one large central sandbox like NYC is in the MU. -M I totally get this logic, it's a good point on how a common city could create that dynamic. But then by extension I would question the role of arch-enemies in the Marvel world in general. Sure, as you said, the Kingpin may be "city-wide" in scope based on being a crime boss. But except in adventures where the villain might be looking for revenge against a certain hero/team, why does Spidey tend to be the one who shows up when Doc Ock is causing trouble in the city? Shouldn't the Avengers or FF or others get there just as often? Logistically it wouldn't make sense in a "real NYC" for that not to happen. And sometimes of course they do exactly that to your point of the common sandbox, and will even poke a little fun and have the heroes say things like "I thought he was one of yours". But also "conveniently" power levels tend to match off. Like the Kingpin is fairly decently matched to both Spider-Man and Daredevil. And I agree, the legal background aspect of Daredevil plays well with the "crime boss" machinations, but could you imagine if say the Vision took a day off just to mess with Kingpin? He could grab incriminating files, bust up operations, take down henchmen, and even Kingpin himself before lunch. But that would be terribly boring to read...Daredevil has to work a LOT harder. I think it's a balancing act...established rogues galleries, even in Marvel, make for classic superhero storytelling. Coming up with creative alternate match-ups (short or long term) when there's an opportunity to tell great stories also keeps things fresh and entertaining. Which again I think has been the case with Daredevil and Kingpin, though back to the OP's comments, I tend to think of him as a classic Spidey rogue still. I would argue neither the Avengers or the Fantastic Four are really crime-fighters (outside of maybe the first handful of adventures for each one), and they likely spend more time off-world or in other dimensions than they do in NYC, so when Doc Ock goes on a rampage, they don't respond, the local talent does. You don't call out the National Guard if the local police force can handle the threat. As far as arch-nemesis, I think that is a matter of something becoming personal. Because Spidey thwarted Doc when Doc's ego make him think he us superior to the "costumed clown" he takes it upon himself to target Spider-Man (with Osborn it is even more personal). As for Peter, his hyper sense of responsibility plays a factor-Ock is causing damage because he has a vendetta against me, so it makes it my responsibility. Not to mention the whole Spider-Sense thing serving as an early warning system (if Spider-Man were better written/thought out Peter would also probably use journalistic contacts and tips to provide him with an information gathering system so he can respond quicker to problems he will eventually have to deal with). But at the end of the day, outside of the period between 1961 to about 1065, neither the Avengers nor the FF have been depicted as reactive organizations or responders (first or otherwise) to threats facing NYC that weren't already on their radar of their own creation. They wouldn't respond to a Doc Ock escapade unless requested to through official channels even if they were in the city when it occurred. Again, if the MU were conceived of and developed as a cohesive shared universe form the get go, such channels and infrastructure would have been developed as it went, but the MU was an ad hoc creation done without original intent or direction, so some of it doesn't make sense because there was no foundation established to build on. However, once you get into the mid-70s and 80s more creative intent was put into the idea of the shared universe and some attempts were made to impose logic onto it and things like Kingpin as a crimelord of the nexus city of the shared universe and the implications of that were grafted onto the existing stories, and with that being the case, the shift away from Spider-Man and towards a lawyer-based vigilante like Murdoch made more sense for the characters and for the universe they were trying to make, especially if you are looking at it from the perspective of a creator trying to create stories in that shared universe and not from that of a fan wearing nostalgia glasses. A lot of those fans wanted the comics to take a more serious approach to the stories, for them to grow with them as they aged, but then rejected the results of such attempts when the violated their kneejerk nostalgia reactions. It's why comic book super-hero storytelling is always stuck betwixt and between. You can't make everyone happy, most readers don't actually want what they say they want, and everyone wants it to grow with them and stay the way it was when they first cracked open a super-hero comic as a kid. They want continuity and growth and change except when that takes the concept away from what they remember it being when they first engaged with comics (whether those memories are accurate or not) or when continuity makes it impossible for stories to keep up with the world outside their window without invalidating the world depicted in the earlier stories because time has passed and things have changed at a faster pace than the character aging in story can account for. -M
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 22, 2022 22:42:06 GMT -5
I think I've finally managed to let go of any concern over how the old characters are written today, for the most part. I don't read any current Marvel or DC and the last few years I don't even feel curious enough to glance at them in the comic store or to look at any online samples or previews, as I would sometimes do during the 2000s and part of the 2010s. Occasionally something unusual will get my attention - often something to do with the New Gods or the Eternals, probably since those were so famously cut off before Kirby had a chance to develop them fully - but after the recent Gillen Eternals I think I'd better try to ignore whatever they come up with next for those "properties" too.
So I'd say I don't miss anything at this point. If I want to read the old favourites I'll just go back and re-read the old favourites.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 22:55:08 GMT -5
I would argue neither the Avengers or the Fantastic Four are really crime-fighters (outside of maybe the first handful of adventures for each one), and they likely spend more time off-world or in other dimensions than they do in NYC, so when Doc Ock goes on a rampage, they don't respond, the local talent does. You don't call out the National Guard if the local police force can handle the threat. This argument often comes up, and sure, you want the Avengers focused on say Kang level power threats in general. But let's take the Sandman as an example. He goes on a rampage (like Doc Ock), the local talent might be his classic foe Spider-Man. But if he's with the Frightful Four, he's an FF villain. Maybe you could say that being with a villain team ups the power level threat overall, but he's one of (if not the most) dangerous members. But back on Doc Ock rampaging street level and people's lives threatened (you know, tentacles knocking over parts of buildings and whatnot), I think ANY superhero in the city available would make an effort to do something if they could get there quickly. Would you really be sitting at Avengers mansion and say, well, Spidey will be there soon, more tea Jarvis? And yes, to your point the Avengers may be away a lot, but how many times would cosmic menaces and really bad street level violence truly be happening at the same time when teams are conveniently away? How many times have we actually even seen that conveniently played out with lines like "I contacted Avengers mansion and Jarvis said nobody is there, and the FF aren't picking up". Plot devices methinks. As far as arch-nemesis, I think that is a matter of something becoming personal. Because Spidey thwarted Doc when Doc's ego make him think he us superior to the "costumed clown" he takes it upon himself to target Spider-Man (with Osborn it is even more personal). As for Peter, his hyper sense of responsibility plays a factor-Ock is causing damage because he has a vendetta against me, so it makes it my responsibility. Not to mention the whole Spider-Sense thing serving as an early warning system (if Spider-Man were better written/thought out Peter would also probably use journalistic contacts and tips to provide him with an information gathering system so he can respond quicker to problems he will eventually have to deal with). Absolutely, all great points. The only thing I would add though is back on Kingpin, I would argue it was somewhat personal in the 60s and 70's. One of my favorite stories is ASM #197 when he finally has the firm opportunity to finish off Spidey once and for all, but out of his love for Vanessa walks away. However, once you get into the mid-70s and 80s more creative intent was put into the idea of the shared universe and some attempts were made to impose logic onto it and things like Kingpin as a crimelord of the nexus city of the shared universe and the implications of that were grafted onto the existing stories, and with that being the case, the shift away from Spider-Man and towards a lawyer-based vigilante like Murdoch made more sense for the characters and for the universe they were trying to make, especially if you are looking at it from the perspective of a creator trying to create stories in that shared universe and not from that of a fan wearing nostalgia glasses. A lot of those fans wanted the comics to take a more serious approach to the stories, for them to grow with them as they aged, but then rejected the results of such attempts when the violated their kneejerk nostalgia reactions. I think DD needed a boost in popularity and borrowing an established high profile villain that could easily fit into his world was in play. I agree it played out as you described, and fans liked the results. It's why comic book super-hero storytelling is always stuck betwixt and between. You can't make everyone happy, most readers don't actually want what they say they want, and everyone wants it to grow with them and stay the way it was when they first cracked open a super-hero comic as a kid. They want continuity and growth and change except when that takes the concept away from what they remember it being when they first engaged with comics (whether those memories are accurate or not) or when continuity makes it impossible for stories to keep up with the world outside their window without invalidating the world depicted in the earlier stories because time has passed and things have changed at a faster pace than the character aging in story can account for. Of course! I want everything like 1978. Maybe with a few clever surprises. But not too many
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 22, 2022 22:59:43 GMT -5
I kinda agree with Berkley.. most of the big 2 characters have been around too long, adn the current iterations have really only the name and (sometimes) the costume of their original characterization... I try to treat each new writer these days as a new character that happens to ahve the same name so I don't get too annoyed.
That said.
I DO miss when Tony Stark was a successful businessman with a big company and actually had some modicum of self confidence and self respect. EVen when he was going through his bout with alcoholism he was less whiny and insecure than he's been the last couple series. Slott's run was the last one that was readable, and only barely.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2022 23:59:11 GMT -5
I'm sure mostly everone here misses a title that was (unceremoniously) cancelled.
My most recent one was Black Widow.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Dec 23, 2022 8:46:14 GMT -5
I'm sure mostly everone here misses a title that was (unceremoniously) cancelled.
My most recent one was Black Widow.
I feel like that Black Widow run was intended to be that one story. I enjoyed it too, and it definitely set up a status quo that could have been further explored, but really, is any series ongoing these days? I feel the writer takes the job to do their story, then the book gets cancelled and the next writer starts with a new #1 when they are ready.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Dec 23, 2022 13:21:38 GMT -5
I miss the original Spider-Woman, Jessica Drew. A while back I read a modern series of her by a writer aptly named Hopeless...
|
|
|
Post by tonebone on Dec 23, 2022 13:51:59 GMT -5
It's why comic book super-hero storytelling is always stuck betwixt and between. You can't make everyone happy, most readers don't actually want what they say they want, and everyone wants it to grow with them and stay the way it was when they first cracked open a super-hero comic as a kid. They want continuity and growth and change except when that takes the concept away from what they remember it being when they first engaged with comics (whether those memories are accurate or not) or when continuity makes it impossible for stories to keep up with the world outside their window without invalidating the world depicted in the earlier stories because time has passed and things have changed at a faster pace than the character aging in story can account for. -M ... but you could make a lot more people happy than they are currently. Not by replicating or repeating the past, but by seeing what worked, and tailoring it to a modern audience. Scott Snyder has done that with Batman, to great success, even through the horrid Nu52 years. Hint: people are not sitting on the edge of their seat to see what the X-men are going to wear to an elitist ball.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Dec 23, 2022 18:15:01 GMT -5
I look at Kingpin this way-if you are going to have a shared universe, and use NYC as the epicenter for all your stories, and then you set up a crime lord in NYC, he's no one's villain, he's an antagonist for anyone who fights organized crime in NYC, and just because Spidey stumbled on his activities first didn't make him a Spidey villain. From the Kingpin's POV, Spider-Man was a major threat in the running arc of Kingpin's appearances in The Amazing Spider-Man from 1966-70, and to readers, he was justifiably perceived as a Spider-Man villain. Well, during the Silver and Bronze Age, every time Galactus threatened earth (for some reason he always visits New York), it was almost always the Fantastic Four dealing with him (Thor had his short runs against him, but usually, it was off-world), and not Spider-Man, Captain America or just about every other hero, despite all living in New York, which is the reason I'd say most people think of Galactus primarily as a F.F. villain--similar to the Joker to Batman.
|
|