I was going through some old comics when I came across a reprint of the original Galactus story and I wondered -yet again- if some ideas shouldn't be left alone. The idea of knowing what the nullifier did, of learning the Beyonder survived Secret Wars,.. Isn't it better to just let some things be?

Views: 543

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Probably. A little mystery a la Pulp Fiction isn't a bad thing. 

Modern comic book writing pretty much consists of either constantly picking at scabs so that they'll never heal, or rebooting everything so that no one can be quite sure which scabs still exist in any given issue.

I like to think that picking at scabs is an authors way of trying to fix things. After all if you're a writer and you've always wanted to write a specific character only to find that after years of waiting you'll finally get the chance -after another writer has completely trashed the character- do you try to fix it and re-create the character you knew or just ignore it? Stuff like the Amazon's after Amazon's Attack or Tony Stark after cw, do you try to fix them or walk away when the job is offered to you? Give it all you have or just throw something out there and move on as quickly as possible, scorning or ignoring anyone who's not satisfied? Probably a tricky choice on so many levels. It's not a great idea for a writer to complain about what a previous writer did, at least not publicly.  They are forced into the roll of a Washington spin-master.  Like the old opening line from WKRP "The senator while denying he was intoxicated could not explain his nudity".

But sometimes things should be left alone I think. Like the nullifier that really scared Galactus back when he first showed up. When how it worked was explained I felt let down. Especially when it was shown that the effect could be reversed. It sort of reduced Galactus to a lesser threat. Some people were disappointed at the end of Alien 1 because the full shot of the alien didn't match all of the menace built up from the attacks from the shadows. I feel that way with some of the stuff.

T'weren't broken.

Mark S. Ogilvie said:

I like to think that picking at scabs is an authors way of trying to fix things.

In light of the question asked, I think that most writers now answer questions that no one asked. 

Is anyone happier now that we know Wolverine's origin?  Did it really make the character come alive to give the Phantom Stranger a definitive back story?  Do we really need to see Doom's face?

Bleah.

I think there are certain writers who like to 'make their mark' by answering some of these questions or doing what other writers have either wisely shyed away from or feared to go.

John Byrne did some great things with the Avengers/West Coast Avengers in his time - but the 'white-Vision' was ridiculous and seemed to me just so that Byrne could say 'I Did that'.

I have the same opinion of alot of Bendis stuff too - but certainly his recent redesign of the Beast. - What's that about other than being able to look at the issues in another 50 years and saying 'Bendis Did that'.

 

The best example of - "actually it was done well" - I would say was the return of Bucky/Winter Soldier (other than the silly name he's left with) it wasn't done in a purely 'look what I've done!' manner.

...What's " cw " re: Stark ?

  That 90s thing where he was replaced by a teenage version of himself from an alternate universe ?
 
Mark S. Ogilvie said:

I like to think that picking at scabs is an authors way of trying to fix things. After all if you're a writer and you've always wanted to write a specific character only to find that after years of waiting you'll finally get the chance -after another writer has completely trashed the character- do you try to fix it and re-create the character you knew or just ignore it? Stuff like the Amazon's after Amazon's Attack or Tony Stark after cw, do you try to fix them or walk away when the job is offered to you? Give it all you have or just throw something out there and move on as quickly as possible, scorning or ignoring anyone who's not satisfied? Probably a tricky choice on so many levels. It's not a great idea for a writer to complain about what a previous writer did, at least not publicly.  They are forced into the roll of a Washington spin-master.  Like the old opening line from WKRP "The senator while denying he was intoxicated could not explain his nudity".

But sometimes things should be left alone I think. Like the nullifier that really scared Galactus back when he first showed up. When how it worked was explained I felt let down. Especially when it was shown that the effect could be reversed. It sort of reduced Galactus to a lesser threat. Some people were disappointed at the end of Alien 1 because the full shot of the alien didn't match all of the menace built up from the attacks from the shadows. I feel that way with some of the stuff.


Um, My guess is that makes a reference to repairing Stark's reputation and character after his position in Civil War ('cw')

The only way they could repair Stark after the teenage-Tony was -wisely - to ignore it altogether!


Emerkeith Davyjack said:

...What's " cw " re: Stark ?

  That 90s thing where he was replaced by a teenage version of himself from an alternate universe ?
 

That to me is a matter of opinion.

Randy Jackson said:

T'weren't broken.

Mark S. Ogilvie said:

I like to think that picking at scabs is an authors way of trying to fix things.

Which can be good or bad, depending upon why the questions have never been asked before.

Mike Parnell said:

In light of the question asked, I think that most writers now answer questions that no one asked. 

Yea, pretty much. What with throwing people into the negative zone for life and cloning Thor they made Stark such a full on supervillain during civil war that I still don't think of his character as heroic. I'm truly disappointed when he looses against supervillains now. Same for Reed and I've lost a lot of respect for Sue the way she just rolled over for him after learning his part in creating Clor, making the negative zone prison and the millions dead on Hulkworld. Given that he's blowing up worlds with the Illuminati I really feel that Doom is a more honest and honorable person now.

Richard Mantle said:


Um, My guess is that makes a reference to repairing Stark's reputation and character after his position in Civil War ('cw')

The only way they could repair Stark after the teenage-Tony was -wisely - to ignore it altogether!
Emerkeith Davyjack said:

...What's " cw " re: Stark ?

  That 90s thing where he was replaced by a teenage version of himself from an alternate universe ?
 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Welcome!

No flame wars. No trolls. But a lot of really smart people.The Captain Comics Round Table tries to be the friendliest and most accurate comics website on the Internet.

SOME ESSENTIALS:

RULES OF THE ROUND TABLE

MODERATORS

SMILIES FOLDER

TIPS ON USING THE BOARD

FOLLOW US:

OUR COLUMNISTS:

Groups

© 2020   Captain Comics, board content ©2013 Andrew Smith   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service