Basis for discussion?

[Raven1014]

I love reading/participating in many of these Vs. threads. A lot of the matchups would make for some very cool battles and the opinions offered on both sides are usually pretty thought out and informative. What I have noticed is that a lot of them come down to FEATs preformed by one of the combatants that goes against what has previously been established. So my question is, if it appears in a comic (in continuity, not a What If or Elseworlds type story), should that be considered canon even when it goes against the long-time established parameters?

The two most glaring examples I can think of in recent posts are regarding Thor vs. Red Hulk and Juggernaut vs. Magneto/Onslaught. In both instances it appears to be sloppy writing, but then if you really want to get nit-picky you could use the sloppy writing argument for a lot of things that happen in the books in today's market vs. the 70's, 80' and earlier.

[RichBamf]

I love reading/participating in many of these Vs. threads. A lot of the matchups would make for some very cool battles and the opinions offered on both sides are usually pretty thought out and informative. What I have noticed is that a lot of them come down to FEATs preformed by one of the combatants that goes against what has previously been established. So my question is, if it appears in a comic (in continuity, not a What If or Elseworlds type story), should that be considered canon even when it goes against the long-time established parameters?

The two most glaring examples I can think of in recent posts are regarding Thor vs. Red Hulk and Juggernaut vs. Magneto/Onslaught. In both instances it appears to be sloppy writing, but then if you really want to get nit-picky you could use the sloppy writing argument for a lot of things that happen in the books in today's market vs. the 70's, 80' and earlier.


I would say no, especially with a character like Rogue, whose powers change like the wind.

[Meteor Man]

I love reading/participating in many of these Vs. threads. A lot of the matchups would make for some very cool battles and the opinions offered on both sides are usually pretty thought out and informative. What I have noticed is that a lot of them come down to FEATs preformed by one of the combatants that goes against what has previously been established. So my question is, if it appears in a comic (in continuity, not a What If or Elseworlds type story), should that be considered canon even when it goes against the long-time established parameters?

The two most glaring examples I can think of in recent posts are regarding Thor vs. Red Hulk and Juggernaut vs. Magneto/Onslaught. In both instances it appears to be sloppy writing, but then if you really want to get nit-picky you could use the sloppy writing argument for a lot of things that happen in the books in today's market vs. the 70's, 80' and earlier.



This is a great question, and post.

My answer is also no. The long established character powers and histories As well as the OHOTMU, should be what the writers use when writing these characters, and they shouldn't freelance with their "whatever they want" writing programs like they currently do. Sloppy, and plain old total disregard for established character histories has done a lot to pull my interest away from a lot of stories and comics over the past several years. In the 70's and 80's, you knew the characters, and what they could do, and it was enjoyable to read about them. Now, you can find an interesting storyline once in a while, but the inconsistencies in their handling have grown past the point of distraction for me.

[Makkari1]

A lot of writers ignore what is in the handbooks or have a complete lack of knowledge on what they are writing.

[MrYac]

you have to take it all in together, you can't just pick 1 or 2 examples out of a characters multiple decades of writing and then say "this is how it is because it happened once in issue 487". obviously comics aren't an exact science, and when you get hundreds of people eventually writing stories about the same characters theres going to be lots of inconsistant things.

[Meteor Man]

you have to take it all in together, you can't just pick 1 or 2 examples out of a characters multiple decades of writing and then say "this is how it is because it happened once in issue 487". obviously comics aren't an exact science, and when you get hundreds of people eventually writing stories about the same characters theres going to be lots of inconsistant things.

Not entirely true. This has become a MUCH bigger problem than it was in past decades, at least in the 70's and 80's. The writers need to do some research on characters, their established powers, sizes, looks, etc, rather than trying to re-invent them over, and over again. When I read comics consistently in the 70's, and less so, but still through most of the 80's, there was A LOT MORE CONSISTENCY in the handling of the characters. I believe the writers of those days had more respect for what had gone on before, and tried, perhaps they were even told outright, that they had to follow the established set patterns. But, now I believe that most writers are so %#&! concerned with "leaving their mark", or whatever that they just don't care about the past, and they throw it out the window, unless it jives with the outcome they want, or to further the story that they want to tell. It's a lack of respect for the work of the creator's of these characters as far as I'm concerned.

There now, I sound like the old timer that the younger generation probably thinks I am becoming, but hey. That's okay with me, I call it like I see it on this topic...

[Raven1014]

Not entirely true. This has become a MUCH bigger problem than it was in past decades, at least in the 70's and 80's. The writers need to do some research on characters, their established powers, sizes, looks, etc, rather than trying to re-invent them over, and over again. When I read comics consistently in the 70's, and less so, but still through most of the 80's, there was A LOT MORE CONSISTENCY in the handling of the characters. I believe the writers of those days had more respect for what had gone on before, and tried, perhaps they were even told outright, that they had to follow the established set patterns. But, now I believe that most writers are so %#&! concerned with "leaving their mark", or whatever that they just don't care about the past, and they throw it out the window, unless it jives with the outcome they want, or to further the story that they want to tell. It's a lack of respect for the work of the creator's of these characters as far as I'm concerned.

There now, I sound like the old timer that the younger generation probably thinks I am becoming, but hey. That's okay with me, I call it like I see it on this topic...


Isn't it the job of an editor to make sure that what a write produces doesn't contradict or drastically change the character's history? I can understand a writer not being familiar with every little detail about a character. That's really not part of his job, but it should be required for an editor.

[Teague]

Isn't it the job of an editor to make sure that what a write produces doesn't contradict or drastically change the character's history? I can understand a writer not being familiar with every little detail about a character. That's really not part of his job, but it should be required for an editor.

This is another problem in the industry; editors don't edit with the same power that they once had. Super-stars (both writers and artists) overrule them all the time, whereas in the old days, the editor's opinion was generally what ruled.

[bat_collector]

Meteor Man, those days are over. I think some of the writers today might be insulted if you asked them to stick with the parameters set in OHOTMU.

Comics, like all other things, are evolving in nature and can't stay static.

[Ink]

Meteor Man, those days are over. I think some of the writers today might be insulted if you asked them to stick with the parameters set in OHOTMU.

Comics, like all other things, are evolving in nature and can't stay static.

then they can take thier ball and go home!!!

[Meteor Man]

Isn't it the job of an editor to make sure that what a write produces doesn't contradict or drastically change the character's history? I can understand a writer not being familiar with every little detail about a character. That's really not part of his job, but it should be required for an editor.

That is correct to a point, but as a writer, I still feel that doing your homework on your subject is a HUGE part of your job...at least in my opinion.

[Meteor Man]

This is another problem in the industry; editors don't edit with the same power that they once had. Super-stars (both writers and artists) overrule them all the time, whereas in the old days, the editor's opinion was generally what ruled.

Perhaps this is the crux of the whole problem...thanks for the enlightenment.

[Ink]

alot of the artists and writers these days have huge egos

[RichBamf]

Lets use this argument, Rogue originally could be knocked out by a whiff of dust I believe (not joking), does this mean we have to adhere to this when counting her in a vs thread, even though this weakness has been forgotten about?

The thing that I really hate about the vs threads is people's inability to comprehend that if a character was in a no holds barred fight, their morality, or prep time or any of the other loopholes someone will use to win an argument don't count, they fight til they drop using every power, or there's no point doing these threads.

[Meteor Man]

Lets use this argument, Rogue originally could be knocked out by a whiff of dust I believe (not joking), does this mean we have to adhere to this when counting her in a vs thread, even though this weakness has been forgotten about?

The thing that I really hate about the vs threads is people's inability to comprehend that if a character was in a no holds barred fight, their morality, or prep time or any of the other loopholes someone will use to win an argument don't count, they fight til they drop using every power, or there's no point doing these threads.


I completely agree with this logic.:)

[Meteor Man]

alot of the artists and writers these days have huge egos

Agreed, possibly cosmic in scope and size...:inquisiti

[Teague]

Perhaps this is the crux of the whole problem...thanks for the enlightenment.

I'm not sure it's the crux, but it's definitely enabling the situation. I mean, say what you will about Jim Shooter as Marvel EIC, but nothing got done then without Shooter's sign-off. Now, Queseda lets writers and artists have the run of the place; there's no overarching vision of the 616.

[Meteor Man]

I'm not sure it's the crux, but it's definitely enabling the situation. I mean, say what you will about Jim Shooter as Marvel EIC, but nothing got done then without Shooter's sign-off. Now, Queseda lets writers and artists have the run of the place; there's no overarching vision of the 616.

We're in total agreement on that. I remember the Jim Shooter days, and there is no comparison to then and now, with regard to continuity. Honestly, I don't mind "some" change from time to time. Change can be a good thing, but it needs to make some kind of sense. I'm just so tired of every event bringing with it a totally different take on so many characters. The fact that there "IS" a "616", feels very 70's DC to me. It was the reason that DC did the whole Crisis on Infinite Earths storyline, to stream line a lot of the unnecessary stuff that had built up over the years, and was making their whole universe ridiculous to maneuver. It almost feels like Marvel is building up some of the same excess baggage as well. Perhaps it's time for a "Barium" explosion?:D

[Argonus]

This is another problem in the industry; editors don't edit with the same power that they once had. Super-stars (both writers and artists) overrule them all the time, whereas in the old days, the editor's opinion was generally what ruled.

There are as many "inept" writers in comics these days as there are excellent ones, and that's being generous to the writers who fall under the latter category.

Sadly more people care about making their mark than they do respecting the given properties/characters they're writing about, more often than not. Marvel seems "far more guilty" of this than DC.

As far as editors are concerned, I totally agree with Teague that yeah... they don't have the same pull that they once had as far as story direction/adherence to character histories. Sad, really. Editors should be paid for more than just grammatical/spelling errors (which effin' writers shouldn't be making to begin with, yet they still pop up fairly often).