Dark Reign: Good concept, bad execution

[random_havoc]

Was "Secret Origins" bad because it ignored Emerald Dawn?

Haven't read it. Admittedly my GL knowledge is limited.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Hey here's a novel idea, how about one that does BOTH. That's what good writers are capable of. Writers without much skill HAVE to pick internal over external because they're not good enough to make them work together.

That's not possible in a comic universe made up of hundreds of thousands of comics, nor is it wise. Comics are a medium that need to be accessible. Star Trek is a good example of a series that has tried to be too fan driven, and as a result has lost a lot of it's accessibility. Hence now you have J.J.Abrams making a newer, better version of it. Comics need to be given flexibility or else every writer who comes on board will need to have a PhD in Marvel History. Do you honestly think top talent like Joss Whedon and Brad Metzger want to pour through thousands of comics just so they make sure they don't tread on a previous writers toes.

Also this comment feeds into one I made before. Maybe...just maybe the writer feels what came before him sucks and the book needs a massive overhaul. This has happened many times, and it has created iconic characters and classic storylines. X-Men had been cancelled, and those who picked it up changed it to an unrecognizeable team and a new feel. Those changes proved more successful to the original.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Haven't read it. Admittedly my GL knowledge is limited.

So how do you know Geoff John's doesn't ignore parts of continuity on a consistent basis...

 

[Doc Destruction]

So how do you know Geoff John's doesn't ignore parts of continuity on a consistent basis...

Because Johns and Slott are the MASTERS of continuity.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Because Johns and Slott are the MASTERS of continuity.

Bullsh**, Slott and John constantly ignore previous stories in favor of more sensible ones. "Secret Origins" is an excellent example of completely undoing a previous storyline. Take a step back and imagine if "Secret Origins" had been complete trash and had been a sh***y new origin story. Most fans would be rabid over how Johns ignored continuity, but because his story was good it instead is done with respect to it.

 

[Doc Destruction]

There is a HUGE difference with a full-on retcon and disregard for continuity.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

There is a HUGE difference with a full-on retcon and disregard for continuity.

How so? A full retcon is a disregard for continuity.

 

[Mr. Green]

No. They have to acknowledge the continuity in the first place to retcon it.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

No. They have to acknowledge the continuity in the first place to retcon it.

Not really. They can simply go back and totally rewrite the story. They never acknowledged Cyclops never mentioning he had a brother. They never acknowledged DareDevil never seeing, mentioning, or seeking out Stick, Elektra or having confrontations with the hand. They never acknowledged Legion in Secret Origins. They didn't acknowledge the 1950s comics when they wrote the return of Captain America. They didn't acknowledge the fact that Norman Osborn hadn't been an ongoing character when they revealed him to be GG.

 

[Doc Destruction]

No. They have to acknowledge the continuity in the first place to retcon it.

This.

Plus, a retcon is telegraphed as such - retellings, recounts, etc. Usually company mandated - IE Spidey's bullcrap.

Micharacterization ALWAYS makes you go..."WHAT???" when you read it. Like Scarlet Witch going berserk, or Leslie letting Batgirl die.

 

[Doc Destruction]

Not really. They can simply go back and totally rewrite the story. They never acknowledged Cyclops never mentioning he had a brother. They never acknowledged DareDevil never seeing, mentioning, or seeking out Stick, Elektra or having confrontations with the hand. They never acknowledged Legion in Secret Origins. They didn't acknowledge the 1950s comics when they wrote the return of Captain America. They didn't acknowledge the fact that Norman Osborn hadn't been an ongoing character when they revealed him to be GG.

Those are retcons. Micharacterization is Captain America shooting someone in the face, or Superman calling someone a ***.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Those are retcons. Micharacterization is Captain America shooting someone in the face, or Superman calling someone a ***.

Because Superman would never be racist, insensitive or rude...

 

[Doc Destruction]

Okay Golden Age doesn't count lol.

 

[Doc Destruction]

That word was supposed to be f to the a to the g...not jap.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Okay Golden Age doesn't count lol.

Yet that's the kind of arbitrary nature I'm talking about. Golden Age doesn't count because writers decided it probably wouldn't be good to have a racist Superman appealing to kids. You don't see writers making explanations for this like: "well the reason Superman did this was because of poka-dot Kryptonite, it makes people racist". They choose to ignore it so they can make a better (at least in their opinion) character.

 

[Doc Destruction]

I think you're reaching there.

 

[random_havoc]

Do you honestly think top talent like Joss Whedon and Brad Metzger want to pour through thousands of comics just so they make sure they don't tread on a previous writers toes.

Ever hear of an 'editor'. I hear they're kind of paid to make sure these comics work together.

 

[cerealkiller182]

You're making some valid attempts at arguments here. At least you're not claiming that continuity doesn't matter one bit and repeating disproven argumentation over and over again.

That being said, I still disagree with you. But I applaud the attempt. I disagree with you because of points listed a number of pages back regarding Osborn being publicly known as a murderer and psychopath. For details look back.

Ok, but you are talking about "current character." He was publicly known as a murder and psychopath but now, very recently Osborn has become the character I described. Hes got a shady past, but in the public eye (not the viewers eye) he has had a fairly squeeky clean present mixed with scapegoats and seemingly good behavior. It wasnt exactly an overngiht thing monster to messiah. Again, I am not saying its strong, but I dont think it is weak. I think the concept as a whole shows potential and this one speedbump to get it going that everyone seems to make a mountain from should be no problem IMO.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Ever hear of an 'editor'. I hear they're kind of paid to make sure these comics work together.

The editor is there to make sure you don't call Wolverine "Bob", not so that everything exactly lines up perfectly with continuity.

 

[random_havoc]

The editor is there to make sure you don't call Wolverine "Bob", not so that everything exactly lines up perfectly with continuity.

Depends how good an editor they are and how well they do their job. Again, I'm not expecting perfection. I don't expect them to remember what happened on the third panel of the second page of ASM 11. I'm expecting them to realize some pretty obvious stuff and make sure their writers take that into account.

And according to your own logic, why CAN'T Wolverine be called Bob? You've said over and over that continuity doesn't matter between story arcs. So why can't the new writer suddenly go "Hmm, Scott Summers? Man, both names starting with the same letter is so cheesy! For my UXM run, his name'll be LUKE Summers. MUCH better!"
What's wrong with that? After all, it's just a matter of degree isn't it? If you say that something that clearly took place in a characters past (and is obviously remembered by a number of comic fans even just here) with GG, and you insist repeatedly that continuity doesn't matter at all, it's all up to the writer's whims, then NOTHING should be set in stone. If, next issue, Osborn NEVER WAS the Goblin, then hey, no problem.

 

[random_havoc]

Ok, but you are talking about "current character." He was publicly known as a murder and psychopath but now, very recently Osborn has become the character I described. Hes got a shady past, but in the public eye (not the viewers eye) he has had a fairly squeeky clean present mixed with scapegoats and seemingly good behavior. It wasnt exactly an overngiht thing monster to messiah. Again, I am not saying its strong, but I dont think it is weak. I think the concept as a whole shows potential and this one speedbump to get it going that everyone seems to make a mountain from should be no problem IMO.

And you don't think the american public would have a problem with a known murderer and psychopath running the most powerful organization in the world?

Again, I'm not saying the hole Dark Reign is now gonna be trash as a result, simply that the title of this thread is very much correct.

 

[sdc10]

And you don't think the american public would have a problem with a known murderer and psychopath running the most powerful organization in the world?

Again, I'm not saying the hole Dark Reign is now gonna be trash as a result, simply that the title of this thread is very much correct.

In your opinion

 

[The Question]

Comic characters don't "grow" though, they never have. Their growth is merely several sudden changes, like this one, strung over a series of years, so when fans go back and update the story in their heads the new information overwrites the old. You've only created the illusion of growth in your head, and whether you believe it or not you would've laid these exact same complaints out about prior stories had you been around for them.

I'm not saying what is, I'm saying what I want. Character development in mainstream comics is sketchy at best. Sometimes it's done well, some times it's a bit half assed but the writer's clever enough to cover it up, and sometimes it's just completely phoned in, the writer not even trying to use some kind of misdirection to hide the fact that the impetus for change makes little sense (which I feel is the case with Dark Reign). I'd like to see an attempt at more, actual character development, and not simply have us accept lazy writing (and really, not bothering to come up with an explanation as to why the central plot point of your story makes any sense is monumentally lazy writing, I'm sorry) as okay as long as it brings about change of some kind, even if it's hollow change.

Yeah, and guess what, that's what they're paid to do. If I pay Joss Whedon and Grant Morrison to write X-Men, I don't want them to write Stan Lee or Chris Claremont's X-Men.

And they shouldn't. But there is a difference between rehashing what came before and not ignoring it. There's a middle ground. You can acknowledge and respect the history of the character and still change the character and have them do new things. It just requires taking time and care to have that change come about organically. That's why I think it's lazy writing. It's not doing something that would take patience and creative skill because it takes too much effort. That is the very definition of laziness.

 

[cerealkiller182]

And you don't think the american public would have a problem with a known murderer and psychopath running the most powerful organization in the world?

Yes i do think they will have a problem. IS there somewhere where it said that the american public were in love with him? He was appointed not elected. Sure there was plenty of people rallying for him, but thats hardlya concensus of the country, many of whom making a gut reaction to a terrorist attack. President Bush was cool as **** on 9/11 when he was rallying the country against the "enemy."

This is similar to Tookie Williams. How many people wanted him out of jail? Plenty. How many people rallied for him? Plenty. Was he not a convicted murderer who turned over a new leaf and gained public sympathy? Yup.

I understand that both of these are not mirror images of what is happening. Because Bush isnt a murderer or psychopath (at least by non cynical people) and Tookie Williams wouldnt even be considered for such a position in the least, but because this is a fictional world, the combination of the 2 comparisons is close enough to justify a leap of faith to overlook the illogical set up.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Depends how good an editor they are and how well they do their job. Again, I'm not expecting perfection. I don't expect them to remember what happened on the third panel of the second page of ASM 11. I'm expecting them to realize some pretty obvious stuff and make sure their writers take that into account.

What's pretty obvious to you and what's pretty obvious to the reading public are two very, very, different things. This is a very little pond. I remember being little and thinking, quite assuredly, that Flash Thompson was DareDevil. This little misconception was cleared up quite quickly when I learned to read and realized similar hair colors did not mean the characters were the same. Ironically I ended up loving DareDevil. Now put this into perspective for the average reader. Most readers are going to follow one, maybe two books, and be familiar with the characters they've seen on screen or cartoons. Those are the characters they will want to follow. This is why Wolverine is so popular and gets so popular and gets so many titles. People who will get into reading comics and people who make up the bulk of their TPB and comic sales are going to be people who have a functioning knowledge of the Marvel Universe. In other words they will know basic stats on the major characters and not many details.

What you're talking about is a detail. Ultimately it won't make a difference to most readers since most readers are not going to actively seek to nitpick the story they're reading. Most readers don't even understand the concept of Earth-616 versus Earth-295 (AOA), those designations in and of themselves are obscure facts. When the person picks up the Dark Reign trade or reads the Dark Reign comic he's not going to be judging it against all the other comics on the rack and the back issue bins, he's going to be judging it by itself.

And according to your own logic, why CAN'T Wolverine be called Bob? You've said over and over that continuity doesn't matter between story arcs. So why can't the new writer suddenly go "Hmm, Scott Summers? Man, both names starting with the same letter is so cheesy! For my UXM run, his name'll be LUKE Summers. MUCH better!"

You just love giving bad examples don't you?

Someone needs to bone up on their X-Men history. In issue 1 of X-Men Cyclops' official real name was "Slim Summers" not Scott Summers. In issue three he was referred to by Scott for the first time, and Slim was never again used as his real name. No explanation given, but if you ask me "Slim" is a damn stupid first name and I'm glad they changed it.

As for getting rid of silly names, they've done it with great success, and often fans embrace it when names are changed so they are not simply reitterations of their powers. Again, same logic applies: if this is done and the story is well received it's considered a great decision done with respect to the comics, and if it isn't, people claim it violates some sacred continuity.

What's wrong with that? After all, it's just a matter of degree isn't it? If you say that something that clearly took place in a characters past (and is obviously remembered by a number of comic fans even just here) with GG, and you insist repeatedly that continuity doesn't matter at all, it's all up to the writer's whims, then NOTHING should be set in stone.

Remember that classic phrase: "no one stays dead in comics besides Uncle Ben and Bucky...oops". Nothing is set in stone in comics, even the things that are still aren't. Ultimately writers deserve free reign, because when you sign over that check to that writer you are giving him creative freedom over that book. If the changes he makes are something you, or the editors don't agree with they have the ability to fire that person and retcon his storyline...as has been done in the past.

When I grew up Scott Summers' one and only someone was Jean Grey. In fact it was them, as a child, that convinced me that true love existed, because I saw it in the comics. Hundreds of stories were devoted to developing that love story which spanned the cosmos...today he sleeps with Emma Frost, the woman who once held his only love prisoner. The mere presence of her character is a continuity error. If you went back and read Firestar the miniseries, you'd realize how she callously had her boyfriend killed, manipulated her much like Sinister or Magneto and then tried to turn her into a weapon to use against her foes. Nice girl, right? By the nineties though it was decided that character should be abandoned. After sitting in comatose for about a year she inhabits Iceman's body, in one of the coolest single issues ever, and finds out about her Hellions. After that she is instantly trusted and placed at the head of the Massachusetts Academy. Her retconned origin has since swept most of her misgivings under the rug, as did Xavier when he appointed her the head of Gen X. As far as I know that Firestar mini is null and void, and her time with the Hellfire Club has been reinterpretted as merely being a pawn of Shaw...while nothing could be further from what really occurred.

That is a small example for how something I saw as sacrosanct was overturned completely.

Emma is now a staple though, so much so she'll be in Wolverine: Origins and Wolverine and the X-Men as a main character. To this new generation of readers who grow up Emma Frost is Cyclops' one and only someone, to those who grew up ten and twenty years earlier, she is just another lame placeholder for Jean. Though as these new readers grow they'll make that new relationship sacrosant until a writer comes along and decides to throw it away.

Do you know what the explanation was for Emma and Scott? Grant Morrison said Emma reminded him of his new girlfriend while Jean acted like his ex-wife, so Jean had to go. That was his entire rationale behind it, but he made it work astonishingly (seewhutididthere), as did Joss Whedon, but in the process they ignored and rewrote a lot of Emma history and Jean history to make it work.