Marvel Universe >> View Thread

Author
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 663


I feel that this post is appropriate given some of the posts that I read below about Marvel "Ruining." their characters, and I feel that people are going overboard. Either that, or they don't understand the nature of superhero comics. Remember when people thought that Hal Jordan was ruined? Well, after some time they brought him back and blamed it on him being controlled. Remember when people thought that Magneto was ruined during Grant Morrison's Planet X arc? That wasn't really him, that was an imposter (How did he survive being decapitated, by the way?). Scarlet Witch after Disassembled and House Of M? That was all Doctor Doom's fault. Remember Teen Tony? Cassandra Cain? The list goes on. It sounds like people just don't like the current direction or stories, but to say that the characters are ruined is just laughable (And wrong.). Any of these changes can (And will at some point.) be reversed, retconned or undone. Comics are cyclical. Logan and The Hulk are dead? They can come back. Characters have been getting killed and replaced since, when, the 70's? Everything will go back to the status quo (Because it is god.) after some time. But very few characters can actually count or qualify as being ruined. Okay, other than Gwen Stacy if Sins Past still counts. THAT I can't see being washed away, but just never mention it again. I also don't understand Hawkman or Cable, or a few other X-characters. But this is just how ongoing serial superhero fiction works.


Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
Iron Man Unit 007


Member Since: Thu Oct 20, 2011
Posts: 1,975



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,266




    Quote:
    I feel that this post is appropriate given some of the posts that I read below about Marvel "Ruining." their characters, and I feel that people are going overboard. Either that, or they don't understand the nature of superhero comics. Remember when people thought that Hal Jordan was ruined? Well, after some time they brought him back and blamed it on him being controlled. Remember when people thought that Magneto was ruined during Grant Morrison's Planet X arc? That wasn't really him, that was an imposter (How did he survive being decapitated, by the way?). Scarlet Witch after Disassembled and House Of M? That was all Doctor Doom's fault. Remember Teen Tony? Cassandra Cain? The list goes on. It sounds like people just don't like the current direction or stories, but to say that the characters are ruined is just laughable (And wrong.). Any of these changes can (And will at some point.) be reversed, retconned or undone. Comics are cyclical. Logan and The Hulk are dead? They can come back. Characters have been getting killed and replaced since, when, the 70's? Everything will go back to the status quo (Because it is god.) after some time. But very few characters can actually count or qualify as being ruined. Okay, other than Gwen Stacy if Sins Past still counts. THAT I can't see being washed away, but just never mention it again. I also don't understand Hawkman or Cable, or a few other X-characters. But this is just how ongoing serial superhero fiction works.


You're just making excuses for bad writing.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Mon Aug 06, 2012
Posts: 9,798






Posted with Google Chrome 61.0.3163.100 on Windows 10
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 21,243



    Quote:
    I feel that this post is appropriate given some of the posts that I read below about Marvel "Ruining." their characters, and I feel that people are going overboard. Either that, or they don't understand the nature of superhero comics. Remember when people thought that Hal Jordan was ruined? Well, after some time they brought him back and blamed it on him being controlled. Remember when people thought that Magneto was ruined during Grant Morrison's Planet X arc? That wasn't really him, that was an imposter (How did he survive being decapitated, by the way?). Scarlet Witch after Disassembled and House Of M? That was all Doctor Doom's fault. Remember Teen Tony? Cassandra Cain? The list goes on. It sounds like people just don't like the current direction or stories, but to say that the characters are ruined is just laughable (And wrong.). Any of these changes can (And will at some point.) be reversed, retconned or undone. Comics are cyclical. Logan and The Hulk are dead? They can come back. Characters have been getting killed and replaced since, when, the 70's? Everything will go back to the status quo (Because it is god.) after some time. But very few characters can actually count or qualify as being ruined. Okay, other than Gwen Stacy if Sins Past still counts. THAT I can't see being washed away, but just never mention it again. I also don't understand Hawkman or Cable, or a few other X-characters. But this is just how ongoing serial superhero fiction works.

Your list of previous ruinations that were fixed doesn't apply here until the current situations are fixed in the same way. Until such time as they are fixed, the characters are in a state of ruin.

Logan being dead isn't the ruined state. He was ruined before he was dead. Bringing him back just might be ruining him.

Tony has been ruined since CW1.
Carol has continued her ruination into the present.
Spidey will be ruined until the marriage is retroactively restored.
Thor is extremely ruined. Mjolnir as a concept is ruined. And they seem to be progressing the ruin each month.

But yeah, there's always hope.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 10
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,266






    Quote:
    Logan being dead isn't the ruined state. He was ruined before he was dead. Bringing him back just might be ruining him.


I'm uncomfortable agreeing or disagreeing with X-23, Daken, Old Man Logan and Jimmy Hudson running around.

Marvel was selfish and didn't really let me enjoy us experience "the death of Wolverine" with all these clones, bastard sons and alternate timeline versions running around.

I never liked Wolverine but having 4 knock off around is worse than everything they actually ever did to the character. It shows the house of ideas has run out of original ideas.



    Quote:
    But yeah, there's always hope.






Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,266



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 7
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Mon Aug 06, 2012
Posts: 9,798



    Quote:
    I'm uncomfortable agreeing or disagreeing with X-23, Daken, Old Man Logan and Jimmy Hudson running around.



    Quote:
    Marvel was selfish and didn't really let me enjoy us experience "the death of Wolverine" with all these clones, bastard sons and alternate timeline versions running around.



    Quote:
    I never liked Wolverine but having 4 knock off around is worse than everything they actually ever did to the character. It shows the house of ideas has run out of original ideas.


I'm still waiting with gleefully baited breath (due to my sick sense of humor) for the publication of "Giant-Size Wolverine Family," priced at $5.99 and featuring short stories that star Wolverine and/or one or more of his knock-offs.






Posted with Google Chrome 61.0.3163.100 on Windows 10
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Mon Aug 06, 2012
Posts: 9,798



    Quote:
    Logan being dead isn't the ruined state. He was ruined before he was dead. Bringing him back just might be ruining him.


True. But possibly not, if they send him to Madripoor or Tokyo, the two places on Marvel Earth where Wolverine can still be cool.


    Quote:
    Tony has been ruined since CW1.


Oh God yes - indubitably true.


    Quote:
    Carol has continued her ruination into the present.


She had that one good gig in the space station and Marvel had to mess it up.


    Quote:
    Spidey will be ruined until the marriage is retroactively restored.


It won't be. Look for Tony and Mary Jane to get married because that's the kind of up-yours Bendis loves to give to old time fans.


    Quote:
    Thor is extremely ruined. Mjolnir as a concept is ruined. And they seem to be progressing the ruin each month.


Unworthy Thor is by definition ruined (the whole point of the story line was to ruin him) but Mjolnir isn't ruined in my eyes.


    Quote:
    But yeah, there's always hope.


Not for Peter or Tony. But maybe something worthwhile will be done with the others.







Posted with Google Chrome 61.0.3163.100 on Windows 10
USAgentfan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,535


I disagree.

Firstly because its impossible to escape the fact that these changes are agenda driven rather than story driven.

Secondly because all of my favourite characters have been marginalised in someway, and until that changes they ARE ruined.

Finally because what they have been replaced with for the most part pales in comparison.

I'm dropping books left, right and centre, and thats got nothing to do with the fact that my favourites have been replaced - because I count numerous replacement heroes including John Walker, Jim Rhodes, Eric Masterson, and Carlos Cruz amongst my very favourite heroes of all time

Firstly its because the originals werent turned into villains, or killed off, or disgraced when those replacements were brought in as an effort to legitimise the characters talking over from them.

Secondly its because stories like 'The Captain', 'Demon in a bottle', 'War Machine', 'Countdown' etc were excellent stories that made the change appear entirely organic.

Finally its because what they have been replaced with is for the most part incredibly dull.

Legacy is giving me the opportunity to jump off an additional half a dozen titles, because I'm sick of letting myself down paying for sub-par material filled with political grandstanding and more interested in trying to appease the mainstream media with how cool, hip, and diverse it is, than just telling a solid story.

The main difference too is that whilst I think it was always accepted that those earlier heroes were going to be temporary replacements, theres no doubt that these new heroes are here to stay, and no matter who they are the core concept of Cap, Ironman, spidey, Wolverine etc are all made ridiculous and diluted by having half a dozen people running around claiming the name at the same time.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 on Windows 10
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 21,243



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Thor is extremely ruined. Mjolnir as a concept is ruined. And they seem to be progressing the ruin each month.



    Quote:
    Unworthy Thor is by definition ruined (the whole point of the story line was to ruin him) but Mjolnir isn't ruined in my eyes.

Making it an imprisoned sentient being ruins it, imo.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 55.0 on Windows 10
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,266




    Quote:
    I disagree.



    Quote:
    Firstly because its impossible to escape the fact that these changes are agenda driven rather than story driven.



    Quote:
    Secondly because all of my favourite characters have been marginalised in someway, and until that changes they ARE ruined.



    Quote:
    Finally because what they have been replaced with for the most part pales in comparison.



    Quote:
    I'm dropping books left, right and centre, and thats got nothing to do with the fact that my favourites have been replaced - because I count numerous replacement heroes including John Walker, Jim Rhodes, Eric Masterson, and Carlos Cruz amongst my very favourite heroes of all time


Jim Rhodes and even Sam Wilson seemed organic and it made sense that they would take on the mantles they did. But now it just seems like new characters are created just to assume a mantle before getting the audience to really like them. (and before anyone cites him as an example I hated Genis even though he predates the current trend)


    Quote:
    Firstly its because the originals werent turned into villains, or killed off, or disgraced when those replacements were brought in as an effort to legitimise the characters talking over from them.



    Quote:
    Secondly its because stories like 'The Captain', 'Demon in a bottle', 'War Machine', 'Countdown' etc were excellent stories that made the change appear entirely organic.



    Quote:
    Finally its because what they have been replaced with is for the most part incredibly dull.



    Quote:
    Legacy is giving me the opportunity to jump off an additional half a dozen titles, because I'm sick of letting myself down paying for sub-par material filled with political grandstanding and more interested in trying to appease the mainstream media with how cool, hip, and diverse it is, than just telling a solid story.


It's the perfect jumping off point.


    Quote:
    The main difference too is that whilst I think it was always accepted that those earlier heroes were going to be temporary replacements, theres no doubt that these new heroes are here to stay, and no matter who they are the core concept of Cap, Ironman, spidey, Wolverine etc are all made ridiculous and diluted by having half a dozen people running around claiming the name at the same time.


Yeah the Secret Empire finale seemed to double down on the idea that the sucky replacements were here to stay and the old Marvel is dead. I mean good god they made Cap into a quasi-Nazi and didn't even have the decency to retcon it away.

By all means create all the minority characters you want...but don't put the established characters on the shelf in favor of these new guys. It just generates resentment.





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 on Windows 7
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,266




    Quote:

    Making it an imprisoned sentient being ruins it, imo.


I would have to agree with you. It's a bridge too far. Not what Stan and Jack had in mind IMO.

Like someone could always do a story where Aunt May and Wolverine are Iron Man's real parents...but one shouldn't do that story.

I think this sort of experimentation is fine for some of the later characters in the Marvel Universe but the original heroes of the Marvel Universe shouldn't be tampered with to such a drastic extent.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 on Windows 7
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Mon Aug 06, 2012
Posts: 9,798



    Quote:
    Making it an imprisoned sentient being ruins it, imo.


Oh - I thought the hammer itself was a sentient being. It's actually the prison for one? That's cold and callous even for Odin.








Posted with Google Chrome 61.0.3163.100 on Windows 10
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 21,243



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Making it an imprisoned sentient being ruins it, imo.



    Quote:
    Oh - I thought the hammer itself was a sentient being. It's actually the prison for one? That's cold and callous even for Odin.

Yeah. The story is: Once upon a time, there was a sentient cosmic storm called God Tempst. Its path of destruction led it to Asgard, and Odin fended it off for days while the Dwarves made a secret weapon: a nugget of uru that would suck it inside and keep it there. Odin eventually used the nugget on God Tempest, and out of that nugget came Mjolnir. God Tempest has been trying to escape ever since.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 on Windows 10
USAgentfan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,535


I was always behind the idea of Sam taking over as Cap for a whileif there had to be a replacement. He was the best candidate in 1986 when they gave Walker the job (although that story required a person ideologically opposed to Rogers), and he was still the best candidate twenty years later when they gave it to Bucky.

Likewise I consider Jane Foster getting a run as Thor as being entirely organis and making sense.

The likes of Riri Williams and Amadeus Cho though - no.

I could probably get behind all of these changes though if it wasnt for the fact that Marvel have made it quite clear that the lime light will have to be shared by three Caps, six Wolverines, and god knows how many Hulks (theyve just announced an ongoing for Weapon H).




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 on Windows 10
Iron Man Unit 007


Member Since: Thu Oct 20, 2011
Posts: 1,975



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 on Windows 7
D. Strange


Member Since: Tue Sep 19, 2017
Posts: 65


I agree about Sam being the best candidate. I remember saying he made more sense When Bucky took over.

Now, I liked that run, and I think they found a way to make it work. Sam saying he had to stay Falcon to act as protector of Harlem, and be a symbol their worked fine.

I do think there should have been some story were Bucky says Sam should have it because he has been a hero longer... but over all it worked with Sam as his guide in the world of superhero-ing.

My first problem was that Cap had barely been back four years when he was replaced. But, that was easy enough to shake off.

I even think Sam should be a more socially active cap... to a point. It is who he is. I think there could have been some really interesting ideas with him trying to separate Cap and Sam, maybe building a type of secret identity who is more socially active, compared to the in the system Captain America.

I just think he was handled terribly, turning him into a guy who lectured people and had a lot kind of boring stories.

So in essence, that is where my view of ruining (albeit temporarily... hopefully) comes from. Not replacement, but rather just bad writing.

And even if they bring back every major character, that problem seems to be sticking around.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 52.0 on Windows Vista
USAgentfan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,535


In principle Sam was a Cap who picks a side politically speaking, where as Rogers always straddled the line.

I didn't mind that as an idea, I simply objected to how Nick spencer used it, and Sam became the proxy by which Spencer expressed his own political opinions - or at least the stories and environments that Spencer put him in.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 21,243



    Quote:
    Likewise I consider Jane Foster getting a run as Thor as being entirely organis and making sense.

I don't because they've basically had to twist her into something new in order for her to fit.


    Quote:
    The likes of Riri Williams and Amadeus Cho though - no.

Cho, at least, grew into his position. He'd been around long enough to step into the Hulk's shoes.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 on Windows 10
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 663


I don't see how this is going on any more than usual. Remember Jim Rhodes and John Stewart (This is before Spawn.)?

And again, characters change back all the time. In no way are most characters permanently ruined. Do you think that people didn't say the same thing with those stories that you mentioned, or when Tony became an alcoholic? Or,heck, when Peter and Mary Jane got married? Of course there were, but there was no internet then (Al Gore didn't get around to inventing it.).


Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 663




Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
The Black Guardian

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 21,243


The whole retroactive marriage annulment ruins him. It's like the ultimate irresponsibility for a character that is supposed to care about responsibility.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 on Windows 10
D. Strange


Member Since: Tue Sep 19, 2017
Posts: 65


Totally agreed.

Its a shame... at least for me... we never got to see a really good run of Sam as Cap.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 52.0 on Windows Vista
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,266




    Quote:
    In principle Sam was a Cap who picks a side politically speaking, where as Rogers always straddled the line.



    Quote:
    I didn't mind that as an idea, I simply objected to how Nick spencer used it, and Sam became the proxy by which Spencer expressed his own political opinions - or at least the stories and environments that Spencer put him in.


I think the dilemma Sam ran into:

1. You can't be political and be Captain America

2. Why would you want to be Captain America unless you could be political and fight for positive change?

At the end of the day Sam sort of showed how worthless the whole mantle is. You can only be a symbol in a lame meaningless stand for nothing sort of way. Speak out and voice your politics and you're unfit to be Captain America.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 on Windows 7
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Mon Aug 06, 2012
Posts: 9,798



    Quote:
    I think the dilemma Sam ran into:



    Quote:
    1. You can't be political and be Captain America


True.


    Quote:
    2. Why would you want to be Captain America unless you could be political and fight for positive change?


I think for the same reason you'd want to be a soldier or intelligence agent. Captain America exists as the symbol of all those who protect the safety of Americans and the continuance of their democratic republic.


    Quote:
    At the end of the day Sam sort of showed how worthless the whole mantle is. You can only be a symbol in a lame meaningless stand for nothing sort of way. Speak out and voice your politics and you're unfit to be Captain America.








Posted with Google Chrome 61.0.3163.100 on Windows 10
USAgentfan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,535


Rogers has always represented an ideal rather than any particular group or cause.

Sam drew a line in the sand. He said it himself when he set up his hotline early in his series - there are some issues he cares about more than others and he was going to pick and choose what he represented.

Thats what both the people of the Marvel Universe and many fans were unhappy with - the fact that he became much more partisan.


Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows 7
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,266




    Quote:
    Rogers has always represented an ideal rather than any particular group or cause.



    Quote:
    Sam drew a line in the sand. He said it himself when he set up his hotline early in his series - there are some issues he cares about more than others and he was going to pick and choose what he represented.



    Quote:
    Thats what both the people of the Marvel Universe and many fans were unhappy with - the fact that he became much more partisan.



I guess at the end of the day Sam's stance makes him seem more heroic to me not less heroic as it does to you. Sam's saying there are things he believes in that are worth fighting for. Steve isn't really fighting for anything in particular. Just some vague namby pamby let's all get along nonsense.

Sam cares about issues. The fact that Steve doesn't is scary.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 on Windows 7
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,266






    Quote:
    I think for the same reason you'd want to be a soldier or intelligence agent. Captain America exists as the symbol of all those who protect the safety of Americans and the continuance of their democratic republic.


A meaningless symbol. How can he have any meaning when he refuses to take sides on issues. If he existed during slavery his stance would have been "well they both make a good case".





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 on Windows 7
USAgentfan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,535


I think the difference between Sam and Steve is that Steve is an idealist and Sam is a pragmatist.

Theres nothing wrong with either approach - although arguably the role of Captain America can do more as a symbol than it can on the streets getting its hands dirty. I'd compare it to a figure like Ghandi, who achieved far more as a symbol than he ever did with his physical actions

Its a similar debate when people question why Cap doesnt get involved in Americas dubious and controversial wars abroad. Sure, if Cap were there he would obviously save lives, but that would be against what the costume, shield and identity represent and inspire.

Incidently I dont think Sam was 'less heroic' by drawing a line in the sand, I actually think its an interesting approach that weve never seen before from a Captain America.

My main issue with it was how Nick Spencer did that, and also that there are literally hundreds of heroes who do that - including the Falcon - but only one Captain America, who traditionally has always done something else.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 56.0 on Windows 10

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2017 Powermad Software