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?

You need to be a member of Captain Comics to add comments!

Join Captain Comics

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • 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.

This reply was deleted.