AMEN
Thanks for this post. It was sorely needed.

Posted by PercussionMasta on 2007-06-26 17:39:59
Another Good Point
I could be wrong, and I often am, but it sounds to me that someone's been reading the FF comics section here at the Marvel boards.

Posted by friskydingo on 2007-06-26 18:52:53
For years, the extent of my knowledge of Madame Web in the comics was reading some online profiles about her. For years I believed her accident with Juggernaut left her amnesiac and powerless, because that was what the profiles told me. When she came back in the late 90s, people complained that it was inconsistent with previous stories. Today for the first time I read Amazing Spider-Man #239, her last appearance for fifteen years or so and there's a sequence there which implies that she hasn't lost her memories or her powers and that she's just lying to make Peter feel more at ease with himself (and probably for her own protection). It's a brilliant scene if you interpret it this way (and it is quite subtly done, with a silent smile in the last panel of it to telegraph that the scene you've just read isn't all as it seems - one of the great advantages of this particular medium), and it's a totally pointless waste of panel space if you don't, that appears to serve neither the story at hand nor any of the subplots. Yet none of the online profiles ever make mention of this, because they didn't notice. Because different people read different things, and they read different things into them. This is the disadvantage of the enormous, complex shared universe. It's a little concerning that some people expect the writers to have read everything that's happened in it, when realistically it would take years to ascertain all that knowledge. And it's especially hard to keep up with it all when profile-writers get things wrong.

The solution, of course, would be to come up with entirely new concepts and ideas, but that ain't ever going to happen at Marvel... ;)

Posted by Fetsur on 2007-06-26 20:06:36
blimey, that was long.

Posted by Fetsur on 2007-06-26 20:07:02
Also True
One of the biggest problems facing something like a "coherent universe" these days that happens to be written by a smattering of all-too-human writers, is that the internet and interconnectivity of it all means that every tiny byte of information can be transferred all across the world in seconds. Which means that NO mistake, no matter HOW small, will escape the voracious comic public.

Back in Stan's day they created the No Prize because of his blunders, because it meant that people who were sitting down and reading comics in their bedrooms could only use their own minds and memories to recall if facts were fudged or flat-out wrong.

But now we have global communication. And all of this stress really isn't fair to put on writers who only have so much time to read the back issues (especially when there are more comics out now than in Stan's day) or look up official bios of characters to get everything right.

Of course, when it comes down to it, it's just another case of insecure people needing to use their brainpower to uncover something they feel is important and thereby lends them importance, and then focus all their hurt and rage onto message boards defaming some poor comic scribe who probably didn't have a clue that he or she had made any mistake. They just don't realize that it doesn't make them special to have found the error, it doesn't help anyone else to spout their discovery, and in the end it will only continue to make them sad and possibly hurt some writer's feelings which they've poured into their work.

Posted by PseudoSherlock on 2007-06-26 22:59:26
and revivals...
we just bumped from an extrem to another,
first there are the reader who want to write the stories instead of the creative team, then the writers had no more freedom at all,
and now there are some others who take their job under the leg ( pardon the expression ) with characters backgrounds, I mean there's so much writers who 'd like to have the chance they got so I don't understand,hopefully there are some happy revivals like David Lapham on Terror ,Inc.
and can't wait for anothers;
meanwhile,SURE I WILL GOOGELING....

Posted by notapotatoe on 2007-06-27 10:43:02
good thoughts
Fetsur, I have had a couple of moments exactly like you have had. I was completely incensed and thought it was stupid that Guggenheim blew up Wolverine to nothing but bones and then had him come back to fight Nitro. I still think it is a bad direction for the character, but then I found out that his powers have been boosted once to the point where he came back from a single cell. That is just way over-the-top for me. I like my wolverine to still need a couple of weeks to heal from really big fights like the Claremont days of X-men 208-210, but I understand that his abilities got boosted.
And no, I don't want to kill Guggenheim and Ramos. And I don't want an editor to lose his job. I do, however, think that Bendis is a Skrull.

Posted by bigdaddyhub2 on 2007-06-27 12:23:14
Continuity and Consequences
Tom, you have a valid point, in a general sense, about fans complaining needlessly about minor mistakes in continuity that don’t affect the outcome of a storyline, or don’t grossly violate characterization. Wolverine’s healing ability has ranged, I believe, from quick healing of wounds to practical tissue regeneration in stories over the years. The inconsistencies don’t matter much in a practical sense, though, since a storyline’s outcome is rarely going to hinge on an extreme interpretation of Wolverine’s healing ability. Fight scenes fill page space.

In the case of Wanda, though. . .

You’re probably aware that Byrne misinterpreted the conception of Vizh’s and Wanda’s children, when he wrote his WCA/AWC storyline. He asserted that Wanda used her power. She didn’t; she used magical energy instead, and did so because she knew that her power couldn’t create life. The basis for Byrne’s storyline was a mistake. Bendis, of course, repeated and amplified the original mistake in “Avengers Disassembled.”

Aside from the flagrant continuity violations, Bendis’s treatment of Wanda ruined the character in terms of doing a serious character study at some future point, because a critical portion of her history is false. She can hardly come to grips with something that never happened.

The Englehart/Byrne-Bendis continuity break is difficult for fans to deal with when it’s pointed out. Some rationalize that well, maybe Wanda “unconsciously” or “accidentally” used her power, which is absurd, since the original story ruled out the use of her power. Did Byrne’s story establish a “new continuity”? No, not unless every continuity error establishes a new, contradictory continuity.

Then there’s Heinberg, who, in YOUNG AVENGERS #11, retconned both Englehart’s and Byrne’s storylines, had Wanda do things she never would have dreamed of doing and had Vision II, impossibly, remember what happened--all because Heinberg didn’t do narration and somebody apparently told him that retcons overwrite old stories and make them disappear. No, they don’t. A retcon that conflicts flagrantly with an older story is a failed retcon.

The only way to fix the continuity break is with a story that effectively eliminates the basis for “Avengers Disassembled” by saying that Wanda was manipulated--used as a puppet. Such a story would be easy to write, but it shouldn’t have to be written.

Since Bendis has failed to observe continuity more flagrantly than other writers--the NEW AVENGERS/HOUSE OF M discontinuity involving the Sentry’s Watchtower, for instance--he’s vulnerable to sharper criticism than other writers would be. Readers have reason to believe he doesn’t take the art of writing seriously.

SRS


Posted by Steven R. Stahl on 2007-06-27 14:40:56
Ironman question:
I know you are busy but this question is important to me. Recently, I saw in the Offical Guide to the Marvel Universe Initative comic book something pertaining to Ironman about the Crossing event and the Heroes Reborn The Return Tony Stark. These are my questions:


"'Is this Ironman who is currently in the comics the original Tony Stark that died during the Crossing?'

I know that Marvel officially stated that Teen Tony upon returning to the 616 Marvel universe retained the memories of the original Tony Stark that died from the mainstream Marvel universe. But just retaining the memories does not nessacarily mean that this 'new Ironman' is the original merged with the Teen Tony and Heroes Reborn Ironman. All that it means is that this is a Tony Stark who remembers and has the memories of the original 616 Ironman. So, follow up questions to my original question that need to be answered too are these

'Upon returning to the regular Marvel Universe (616), did Franklin Richards resurrect the 616 Marvel Universe Tony Stark that died and merged him with Teen Tony? Does that mean that this Ironman possesses not only the original Ironman's personality and mind but also his soul too? Is his soul off somewhere enjoying an afterlife or is it back in this Ironman's body?'

I know I am asking semantics but please be as precise as possible answering all these questions. Thank you so much for your time and I wish you well."




If you could pass this along to someone who knows all the answers to these questions, please do or refer me to him/her. Again I am sorry to bother you but please contact me back as soon as you can. Thank you and have a nice day. Bye now.

Posted by hulk2482 on 2007-06-27 23:04:40
Ugh
"Readers have reason to believe he doesn’t take the art of writing seriously."

See, this is the kind of stuff I just don't get . This sentiment screams arrogance to me. Do you know Brian Bendis? If not, then I don't think you're qualified to pass this type of judgment.

I'm in no way an expert on continuity, but I enjoy Bendis' stories. I think he's a great writer, especially when it comes to interpersonal dialog. Yet, even if I didn't like Bendis, I wouldn't go around saying he didn't take his job seriously. The guy writes a ton of books year in and year out, so I think he takes his job pretty seriously, and the fruit of his labor is apparent.

I really did not like Peter Milligan's X-Men run, and I probably wouldn't pick up his stuff elsewhere, but I'm not going to go around badmouthing him in ways that are outside my realm of knowledge and experience. Maybe if I knew Milligan and I had his permission to sling mud about his work ethic, it would be okay. Otherwise, it just borders on slander.

This type of stuff bothers me. It seems arrogant. I would guess that there are VERY few people on any comic message boards that know writers personally, so no one knows about the time and effort they spend researching characters, and no one knows their passions and respect for the characters. I don't understand why some fans seem to think they know characters so well that they can't give a professional, hired writer the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by PercussionMasta on 2007-06-28 10:47:11
continuity does not exist, it is just an abstract idea, perfect continuity is an utopia. Those fanboys who claim to know ''the truth'' about continuity and ''the true nature of the characters'' only make me laugh. They are dogmatic. the look like religious fanaticals who shake their sacred books while they do speech their ''truth'', salivating a lot.
I really don't care a bout continuty , but about GOOD STORIES.
I don't mind reading two or more different versions of the same character, because i think that the characters are ICONIC (based on a basic idea, for example SPIDERMAN: lost his uncle, get infected by a radioactive spider, decided to be superhero; or BATMAN: lost his parents, searched revenge, decide to be a superhero), that means, the ICONIC elements are the ones that should be respected ( or ''followed'' to be precise), but the rest of the story and the rest of the elements i think it is okay if they change (slightly or dramatically) according to the point of view of the writer and artist of turn.
I like creative diversity, and MARVEL has plenty of that.

MARVEL RULES!!

Guido Cuadros F.A.

Posted by Los Shapis on 2007-06-28 16:11:49
Excuse
Hey, I don't ask a lot from writers, no ones perfect but it is the BIG things that get me. Two great examples....everyone talks like World War Hulk is such a new concept. However, everyone seems to forget Dr. Strange banishing him in Hulk #300. The other is the complete re-making up of the Beyonders origin. He was written to be a cosmic being poweree by the cosmic cubes now 15 years later Bendis decides he's a inhuman for no reason. I was real stoked for Illuminati but it's turning out to just be a launcing point for other stories.

Posted by ISuprman on 2007-07-02 14:02:26
Oh, boo-hoo. The internet is mean to poor comic writers.

While it's certainly true that fandom shouldn't expect writers to be perfect it's equally true that writers should concede that there's a passionate, knowledgable fanbase out here on the web that probably cares at least as much and often a whole hell of a lot more about these characters than they do themselves. Rather than make endless excuses and justifications, how about ONE writer or editor EVER saying: "You know what? I got the character wrong that time, I'll make it up to you guys next opportunity."

Use the retcon for good instead of evil.

Posted by Spy_Smasher on 2007-12-21 10:58:05