Freedom Reborn Archive

So marvel have ruined yet another character for me >_>
The Beyonder...
[spoiler]
Apparently, the Beyonder, as in, the cosmic being Beyonder.... -isnt- a cosmic being, he's a mutant inhuman..... yay -_-
[/spoiler]

 :doh: Why is Marvel ruining their characters like this? :banghead:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm sorry, that's just too much. :wacko: The guy was supposed to be a universe, then it turns out he's a mutant? :headbang:

I heard that Namor is three baby ducks in a rubber suit.

Er, mutant baby ducks.

Whilst the character was a bit lame in his original conception (ummm..sort of God I guess?), and his retcon into a cosmic cube was also a bit lame, this latest Bendis Retcon sucks so badly that I fear for the universe now this black hole is in it.
The Illuminati is itself a suck-con of Bendis proportions, and having them micturate all over old comics both good and bad has gotten to the point that I just can't bear to read any more of them.
:thumbdown:

They just can't leave this character alone can they?  They always have to make him weaker and weaker.

Leave him as the nearly omnipotent being he used to be.  That was much more interesting.

(as a matter of fact, one of the issues of Secret Wars II was one of the first comic books I ever read)

Honestly, I never thought much of the Beyonder- he was okay as a "mysterious entity" in the original Secret Wars, but Secret Wars II completely ruined him for me. Still, this sounds extremely absurd.

Quote from: Alaric on June 01, 2007, 03:33:29 PM
Honestly, I never thought much of the Beyonder- he was okay as a "mysterious entity" in the original Secret Wars, but Secret Wars II completely ruined him for me. Still, this sounds extremely absurd.

I mostly have to ditto Alaric.  For his original purpose, he worked.  Secret Wars II was a flop for a special event, especially compared to the first one.  Having him be half of a cosmic cube made *some* bit of sense.  This, however, does not.  Trying to explain away that level of power in that manner would make him the most powerful non-cosmic entity, ever.  Forming a world from chunks of others.  Transporting creatures from all over the universe.  Enough raw power to kill everyone in the Secret Wars in one shot, as well as breaking Cap's Shield.  Yeah, I can buy that being all inside one mortal being.  <_<

Me, I just found out what they did to Speedball.

Doesn't anybody like HAPPY super-heroes anymore.

I guess I'll just have to console myself with Showcase Presents: The Flash.

Last I remember, Beyonder was a girl. She took a disliking to Thanos and whomped him good; yet he still lived. Who the man?

Well, I admit it was a surprise to me, but I didn't mind it as much as most people seem to have. I would agree with Alaric to begin with. I never really thought much about the Beyonder. He was a poor plot idea created for a big "versus" comic. The SWII was just plain silly... an omnipotent being shows up in a Michael Jackson jacket and fights humans. Um... okay.

I guess that's why this revelation didn't bother me. Omnipotent or not... the Beyonder is portrayed as an idiot. He has the mentality of a child. So it didn't bother me that he was explained as an Inhuman mutant. That links his intelligence to that which we can comprehend.. something like human thought. That would explain his simplistic ideas. Kind of makes sense.

catwhowalksbyhimself: How was he made weaker? I read the comic today, and he was saying, "I can make anything a reality" and he was doing so all around himself as quick as he could think it, without breaking a sweat. That's what he did in Secret Wars.

I do understand what people are saying about all the retcon sucking. I sincerely disliked Cable for that very reason. They wrote him as if he was around and knew Wolverine "back in the day" and interacted with a lot of existing characters. But he was never in their comics. But at least Bendis does a good job of writing his retcon work into existing events, without disturbing their previous outcome. I'm not defending him, just stating why it doesn't bother me so much.

I just KEEP on getting reasons to never pick up another Marvel comic for the rest of my life, don't I?  :banghead:

Quote from: Spring Heeled Jack on June 01, 2007, 03:19:38 PM
I heard that Namor is three baby ducks in a rubber suit.

Er, mutant baby ducks.

PffHAHAHAHA! Milk shot out of my nose on that one!

I'm not going to go into details, mainly because it'd be nothing more than a re- stating of what's already been said. But, for the record, I most definitely agree with Alaric and Panther on this one.

And it's not so much that they should leave the beyonders character alone, I mean they should leave him alone in general. We arent missing out on much by not having beyonder stories...

Count me as another vote for "The Beyonder Always Sucked" Party.  This is kind of lame, but the Beyonder was always really lame, so it's barely a net increase in lame-osity.

Quote
catwhowalksbyhimself: How was he made weaker? I read the comic today, and he was saying, "I can make anything a reality" and he was doing so all around himself as quick as he could think it, without breaking a sweat. That's what he did in Secret Wars.

Weaker in concept and expectation, then.

Omnipotent Cosmic Being sounds a whole lot grander than human mutant.  In fact, really, he's so ridiculously powerful as to make no sense at all for any form of human.  Plus, a lot of SWII was about how he didn't understand humanity as he was so different from them.  There was every indication there that he was not even vaguely human-like.

Bah, I say.

The Beyonder should have stayed an enigmatic entity at the end of SW1. There was no need for SW2 - SW2 took some entity that should have only appeared once and tried to explain him and Marvel ruined the concept from the word "go".

I was conflicted while reading issue #3. First off I felt that the overall story was actually really good.  However I felt the entire story was a bit rushed and deserved two issues. In fact I think each of the Illuminati issues should have been double in size or at least 2 issues per story arc. 1 issue per story arc just feels way too compressed.

Second, the whole Beyonder = Inhuman + Mutant was "okay". He's still the omnipowerful omnipotent character of old. Actually, I don't think of the Beyonder as a character, but more of a concept. I also got the impression that the end of the issue led into SW2 - at which the whole thing ends. I don't see this as a means of bringing back the Beyonder (at least I hope not) in the current timeline.

But I have to admit one sidebar here..... This was the first comic in which Tony Stark wan't present!!!!!!!  *GASP*!!!!! Tony has been everywhere lately, I was actually happy to see the villain not around.  And does anyone else think Mr. Fantastic is a tool? If Stretch didn't have Sue in his life I could actually see him being a supervillain.

LMFAO @ SHJ's 'duck' comment.

Seriously, who isn't a mutant anymore? Its such a cop-out, but only for characters like the Beyonder who obviously isn't a mutant. Blech..

I despise the horrible things Marvel is doing/has done to it's major and minor characters. 

I hated that they killed off Alpha Flight (One of my most favorite teams...off-panel and they don't have any faith in AF as a viable product), I hate that they made Spider-Man some mystical spider-avatar thing with organic web-shooters and stingers (ick...Oh and had him take off his mask...Stupid move, Marvel!)...I hated that in Civil War they have made Iron Man and Mr Fantastic into a rat-bastards that no body likes (pretty much the whole Pro-reg side turned into Nazi-ish "you must conform and obey" monsters...And using a Thor clone to attack and kill their fellow heroes?....What the hell is wrong with this picture, people?!), I hate that the heroes are now working along-side some of the most vile murderers and villains in the Marvel Universe(the new Thunderbolts members...Venom, Green Goblin, , etc...), I really hate that they screwed up the original Spider-Woman's origin even more with Bendis' terrible Spider-Woman: Origin miniseries...Did I mention that I hated that they killed off Alpha Flight?

Wow...A lot of this stuff is Bendis' work...But Joke Quesada just let's him keep doing it.

I don't even want to go into the whole watering-down (with as many Wolverine-like characters as they can possibly churn out)/screwing up and over-exposure of Wolverine...And the crap that is the the "Ultimate" line.

This new "the Beyonder was a mega-powerful mutant Inhuman" stuff is some of the worst crap I've heard (along with the spider-avatar Spider-Man, the shoe-horning of Sentry and Jewel/Jessica Jones into Marvel history).

Marvel's foundation is being eroded out from under it (over the past several years under Quesada's leadership)...It's flagship characters and long-term supporting heroes/characters are being mishandled, mangled/mutilated and killed off for the sake of shock-tactic stories.  Marvel will be very, very lucky if they don't someday find themselves in need of a huge DC Crisis-style reboot to fix all of the horrors being perpetrated by the current "talent" and editorial staff.  Marvel would be better off without the "Q", the "BMB" and the "JMS".

There are some bright spots here and there...Like the kid-team books (Runaways and New X-Men, both of which I've heard great things about) and series like Joss whedon's Astonishing X-Men (which basically prove you don't have to mangle and destroy characters to tell great stories).  I'm liking Omega Flight, but I'm having doubts that the "Q" has an ounce of faith in anything Alpha-related to let it truly fly (he already had it cut down from being an on-going to a five-issue mini).

Sigh...End of rant.

Dana

EDITED to fix some typos.

I haven't read the issue, but the idea that the Beyonder is just a genetically-altered human is a bit hard to swallow. I don't recall ever seeing a mutant or inhuman with anything near that level of power (Phoenix doesn't count, because her powers came from an outside source). And yes, it completely contradicts everything established about the character in Secret Wars I & II. Steve Englehart's explanation that the Beyonder was half of a broken Cosmic Cube was a little goofy, but at least it fit the data (extra-dimensional energy being with no concept of humanity).

And why would anyone want to revive/revamp the Beyonder in the first place? Maybe the writer is trying to prove that he's such a genius, he can "fix" even the lamest of the lame? What's next, Ultimate Turner D. Century?  :P

Haven't read the comic in question (and really, I never cared for the Beyonder) so I'll just address the notion being put out there that Quesada has somehow done unforgivable harm to Marvel's characters.

I'm not a "New Marvel" apologist in any sense of the word (I thought Quesada's first high-profile project as editor-in-chief, the Origin mini-series, was an overly produced turd, for example) but you have to give credit where credit is due. Quesada, along with the much-maligned Bill Jemas were responsible for pulling Marvel out of bankruptcy and turning it into the viable multimedia business it is today.

If it weren't for Quesada and Jemas taking risks with the Ultimate line, pushing (and sometimes manufacturing) comics controversy onto the mainstream media, and playing loose with the unofficial (but nonetheless artificial) rules the sometimes overly-anal comic book culture has created, we might not even have any Marvel comics to complain about on message boards today. So if Quesada and his pool of talent want to take liberties with certain characters, I'd tell them to go ahead and knock themselves out. It might turn out to be garbage (but even artistic failures can be interesting), but I'd take an earnest attempt at trying something new (Ultron with boobs!) rather than sticking to what is largely an imagined status quo.

Sure, I don't really enjoy much of the high-profile projects out there but it seems that many other readers do, and if huge sales on the latest Bendis/JMS-written Illuminati-Hulk-X-thing-Avengers mega-event is what's necessary to keep less successful (but better, IMHO) titles like The Immortal Iron Fist, She-Hulk, and The Punisher afloat, I'll take it.       

Quote from: zuludelta on June 02, 2007, 04:13:16 PM
........but I'd take an earnest attempt at trying something new (Ultron with boobs!) rather than sticking to what is largely an imagined status quo.

Sorry to redact down to one line taken out of context, but I think it worth nipping in the bud the notion that Ultron with boobs is a "new" thing.
1. Jocasta.
2. Alkhema.
3. That "chick" off the "new" battlestar galactica which Bendis himself cited as either inspiration or rationale, (I forget which).
4. The eleventy bazillion books/films/plays/tv shows/comics where gender swap has been done before.

The man has No new ideas.
Not a one.
And some masturbatory rubbish like this may well sell, (after all, pron is by far the most popular and profitable part of the internerd, so why not comics too?) and it's sales may subsidise comics I like reading.
But frankly, if it's a choice between a situation where the Bendisrubbish is hugely popular but we get a tiny minority of good comics that inevitably get cancelled, or no comics at all, I'll take none at all, thanks.
That's just my view, and maybe I'm just particularly tired and jaded today, but if there were never another comic published I'd see it as euthanasia at this point.

Quote from: tommyboy on June 02, 2007, 04:31:36 PM
But frankly, if it's a choice between a situation where the Bendisrubbish is hugely popular but we get a tiny minority of good comics that inevitably get cancelled, or no comics at all, I'll take none at all, thanks.

Tommy, I think you're forgetting Sturgeon's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law): "Ninety-percent of everything is crap."  :lol:

I guess that's the basic difference between our opinions on the current state of Marvel Comics. Sure, the good comics eventually get cancelled, but we also get new, good comics solicited. I enjoy comics enough that I won't let my disappointment with what goes on in the major books to diminish my passion for the medium. I just keep looking for books to like and ignore the ones that I don't.   

I'm going to have to stand with Zulu on this one. Most of what goes on in the "big books" I find uninteresting to stupid, but there's still a number of books I do enjoy.

As for this thing with the Beyonder, I haven't read the issue, but one thing comes to mind when I heard about it: Bendis, why?

Am I the only one who doesn't mind Beyonder getting a do-over. I mean he was a horrible idea to begin with and everyone is screaming like he was being featured or even used lately (save the transgender thing in Annihilation). I think maybe this will save the character. I mean the issue itself was slow paced but I am sure it is setting up something else in the future.

FYI Franklin Richard is a mutant with Beyonder-level power so a mutant inhuman with this level doesn't bother me.

True Dat.

Quote from: zuludelta on June 02, 2007, 04:13:16 PM
H

If it weren't for Quesada and Jemas taking risks with the Ultimate line, pushing (and sometimes manufacturing) comics controversy onto the mainstream media, and playing loose with the unofficial (but nonetheless artificial) rules the sometimes overly-anal comic book culture has created, we might not even have any Marvel comics to complain about on message boards today.

After how badly they've mangled things I'm not sure that wouldn't be a good thing. If they had stuck to the "artificial" rules of keeping characters true to their roots and told good heroic stories we might have a  larger and less reviled marvel.

Quote from: tommyboy on June 02, 2007, 04:31:36 PM
[


And some masturbatory rubbish like this may well sell, (after all, pron is by far the most popular and profitable part of the internerd, so why not comics too?) and it's sales may subsidise comics I like reading.
But frankly, if it's a choice between a situation where the Bendisrubbish is hugely popular but we get a tiny minority of good comics that inevitably get cancelled, or no comics at all, I'll take none at all, thanks.

I have to agree.

On marvel being better off without Quesada: quite a few titles including critically acclaimed daredevil and punisher would not exist, together with big chunks of marvel. Remember it's not a subsidized liscensing farm like DC (Time Warner), it actually has to fall back on comics sales (averaging 75% of the top 25 comics each month).

About gender switches, throw the terminatrix on the pile.

Quote from: lugaru on June 02, 2007, 10:37:13 PM
On marvel being better off without Quesada: quite a few titles including critically acclaimed daredevil and punisher would not exist, together with big chunks of marvel. Remember it's not a subsidized liscensing farm like DC (Time Warner), it actually has to fall back on comics sales (averaging 75% of the top 25 comics each month).

About gender switches, throw the terminatrix on the pile.

....And Sasquatch/Walter into Wanda into Walter again.

... didn't Scarlet Witch declare "No more mutants"?

New mutants are still appearing on occasion and many of those who were depowered are being re-powered by her brother, Quicksilver (via the Terrigen crystals he stole from the Inhumans) or by other means (Feral, Thornn and Wild Child in the latest crappy Wolverine storyline).

Dana

I don't feel too strongly about The Beyonder one way or the other ... although it does seem that Bendis has the power to change/integrate whatever characters he pleases into the Marvel universe.

It's funny. I quit reading the X-Men in the mid-'80s because I got tired of them dumping dren on the characters all the time. The long spells of misery and unhappiness were relieved by short spells of less misery and less unhappiness. Over the years I quit reading Avengers, FF, DD, Thor, Iron Man, Moon Knight, and dozens of other because what was being done with the characters didn't appeal to me. I started reading Strachzinski's (or however it's spelled) Spider Man because I generally liked Babylon 5, and I generally liked it (except for the constant whining). DC has managed to do pretty much the same thing (although I was often amused by the way some writers wrote Hal Jordon like a barely competent poster child for ADD who I don't think had enough willpower to run a flashlight, much less a power ring, while others wrote him as a mature, confident, COMPETENT individual who was a hero in every way), although it took longer.

I wonder if many of the writers today aren't nihillists, or feel that everything sucks in this world, living sucks, then you die and it sucks to be dead, so why not wirte about characters whose lives suck even worse than yours. When did it become therapeutic to read stories about miserable, unhappy people, who will never succeed and cannot win but are too stubborn (NOT heroic) to give up?  I quit the X-Men because I was tired of seeing people I had actually grown to like and care about in constant pain with me unable to do anything about it.
Except quit reading the book.

You want to read about someone who has to fight his way to success through more opposition than is humanly bearable? Read reprints of the old Spider pulp. At the end of the story, after literally crawling through rivers of blood (they weren't called "bloody pulps" for nothing) with two broken legs, he emerges triumphant, with the villain dead, quite often in pieces. Okay, so The Spider is probably paranoid, but then again, there ARE people out to get him.

With the obvious Marvel Bashing™ aside I would like to say something.

Who cares?

I don't recall fans clamoring for a Beyonder mini-series after SW2. It doesn't matter who wrote the Illuminati issue that revealed this "fact". It could have been Stan Lee himself and people would whine. Why, you ask? It's because most comic fans do not like the thought of the statis quo being bothered.

Beyonder was a character that hasn't had anything sugnificant happen to him in years. Damn Bendis, or whom ever, for trying to come up with a new angle on him.

Marvel has a lot of pure crap going on these days but this isn't one of those things.

-MJB

Quote from: MJB on June 03, 2007, 11:27:43 PM
With the obvious Marvel Bashing™ aside I would like to say something.

Who cares?

Me, somewhat. And my rant had to do with comics in general, not just Marvel. Most of us fear that a medium we enjoy is being destroyed by those who claim to love it as much as we do. The complaint of the readers isn't that they want status quo so much as they want entertaining, exciting, well written stories about characters who have at least SOME redeeming value. True, many would accept exciting and entertaining only, but what are comic books, anyway? Like any form of fiction, they are meant as a form of entertainment. If you learn something along the way, that's great, if you don't, that's okay too.
Me, I like to look at the pretty pictures.

Quote from: MJB on June 03, 2007, 11:27:43 PM
With the obvious Marvel Bashing™ aside I would like to say something.

Who cares?

I don't recall fans clamoring for a Beyonder mini-series after SW2. It doesn't matter who wrote the Illuminati issue that revealed this "fact". It could have been Stan Lee himself and people would whine. Why, you ask? It's because most comic fans do not like the thought of the statis quo being bothered.

Beyonder was a character that hasn't had anything sugnificant happen to him in years. Damn Bendis, or whom ever, for trying to come up with a new angle on him.

Marvel has a lot of pure crap going on these days but this isn't one of those things.

-MJB

I've got news for you.
Bendis is the Status Quo at marvel. Has been for the last three to four years.
I actually want change, away from his stale, repetitive, inward looking, derivative, shallow, fanboy-turned-writer-who-gets-to-publish-all-the-samizdat-nonsense-he-came-up-with-as-a-ten-year-old "writing".
I want writers who can spell, who know the actual meaning of the words they use, who tell stories with a beginning, middle and end.
What I don't want is endless retcons and so-called "character moments" (that are nothing of the sort since there is only ever Bendis talking to himself).

And yes, Beyonder is a weak character that not many people cared much about. Which sort of raises the question Why Bother To Retcon Him? What was Broken, that needed to be Fixed? If you don't like the character and stories hes in, ignore them. It's not like Secret Wars were a lynchpin of current continuity. If Bendis wanted to retcon something with the words "secret" and "war" in the title, he should have retconned away the ordure that was his own "secret war".

If I pitched my idea to marvel that since FF#5 Doctor Doom had secretly been a member of the Fantastic Four, and that I now wanted to re-tell and retcon every FF comic and Doom appearance with that premise, most people would think it A) Bizarre, B) Boring, C) Likely to undermine and do a disservice to decades of perfectly good comics that are not in any need of a retcon. You might consider me a touch egotistical for thinking that my ideas supercede those of Lee and Kirby. And you may opine that my endless conversations between Doom and his "teammates" were less interesting than the comics I would be trashing. You might reasonably point out that I, in fact, had no original ideas at all, and just wanted to leech off the talent and hard work of others by presenting their ideas and stories as "re-imagined" as my own.
Excuse me, I've got to email my pitch to Joey Q.....

No, ultimately I don't "care". Nor do I spend money on comics anymore.
But theres a big difference between expressing a dislike of something and "whining" about it.
 
   

Beyonder was in "beyond" very recently

and for the record my fave beyonder moment was when dr doom tried to siphon power out of him, this event takes all sense away from that

I would just like to vote for Tommyboy for President of Comics.

Quote from: MJB on June 03, 2007, 11:27:43 PM
With the obvious Marvel Bashing™ aside I would like to say something.

Who cares?

I don't recall fans clamoring for a Beyonder mini-series after SW2. It doesn't matter who wrote the Illuminati issue that revealed this "fact". It could have been Stan Lee himself and people would whine. Why, you ask? It's because most comic fans do not like the thought of the statis quo being bothered.

Beyonder was a character that hasn't had anything sugnificant happen to him in years. Damn Bendis, or whom ever, for trying to come up with a new angle on him.

Marvel has a lot of pure crap going on these days but this isn't one of those things.

-MJB

I've got to agree with MJB here.  The Beyonder's been drifting in limbo for a long time now (BTW, the Beyonder wasn't in Beyond.  That was the Stranger.)  If someone wants to dust him off and actually do something with him, I say why not?

Quote from: Agent on June 04, 2007, 05:47:16 PM

Quote from: MJB on June 03, 2007, 11:27:43 PM
With the obvious Marvel Bashing™ aside I would like to say something.

Who cares?

I don't recall fans clamoring for a Beyonder mini-series after SW2. It doesn't matter who wrote the Illuminati issue that revealed this "fact". It could have been Stan Lee himself and people would whine. Why, you ask? It's because most comic fans do not like the thought of the statis quo being bothered.

Beyonder was a character that hasn't had anything sugnificant happen to him in years. Damn Bendis, or whom ever, for trying to come up with a new angle on him.

Marvel has a lot of pure crap going on these days but this isn't one of those things.

-MJB

I've got to agree with MJB here.  The Beyonder's been drifting in limbo for a long time now (BTW, the Beyonder wasn't in Beyond.  That was the Stranger.)  If someone wants to dust him off and actually do something with him, I say why not?

My initial answer is simply the law of diminishing returns.
Some characters should be limited in appearance because they are too powerful. I think this applies to Galactus to some extent as well. The more you see them beaten by Power Pack or Speedball, the less awe inspiring they are, the less interesting it is. When they do appear it should be A Big Deal, not some cheesy one issue retcon that makes them into Yet Another All Powerful Mutant. Maybe Bendis could do an Illuminatu where Galactus is a mutant too.
My second answer is a question: What Did They "Do" with him, anyway? What was added? How is yet another inhuman, yet another Mutant Who Controls Reality (Proteus, Scarlet Witch, Jim Jaspers, Franklin Richards etc etc) really "doing something"? The original conception was of a force beyond human comprehension, beyond human understanding. Which may or may not have become the New Universe. Which may or may not have been part of a Cosmic Cube. None of those are intrinsically bad ideas, bad starting points for a story. Does anything about previous appearances of the Beyonder now make more, or less sense? Why would a mutant inhuman do any of what the beyonder did? They wouldn't. They wouldn't even do what he did in this comic, let alone any other. If he wanted to fit in, alter reality and become The Sentry. If he wants to understand heroism alter reality and become an Xman. If he wants to be accepted by Black Bolt and the Inhumans, alter realty to be accepted. No, in the end, (leaving aside the intrinsic absurdity of all-powerful beings), this comic doesn't make any sense even as a stand-alone issue. Considered within the context of other comics it makes less and less sense. That really isn't "doing something". It really isn't a "new angle". It really isn't worth the effort of thinking about it this much (which is a lot more than Bendis did), and typing out this or any future replies.
If you liked it, good for you, you'll be getting more of the same for the foreseeable future.
For the rest of us, majority or minority that we are, it was a bit less fun.

I'm not reading the Illuminati, but isn't it possible they haven't revealed what they're going to do with him yet.

Quote from: Agent on June 04, 2007, 06:20:42 PM
I'm not reading the Illuminati, but isn't it possible they haven't revealed what they're going to do with him yet.

No.
You don't get to say "wait and see" about Bendis anymore. I waited. I saw. Several Years is long enough.
You don't get to say "that comic isn't bad because someday in the future some other, as yet unwritten, unpublished, comic will redeem it".
They have revealed what they are going to do with him. He's now a mutant inhuman for no reason in particular. That's it. That's all there is. I did read it, so I know. And he's less interesting now than before, as is pretty much everything Bendis writes. Better selling, yes, but worthless.
In.My.Opinion. 

If there's another super-powerful mutant who can control time and space, can we possibly petition him to undo the last three years of Bendis's Marvel employment?

'Cause then I'd be okay with the Beyonder being a mutant.

Tommy has gotten me thinking about Marvel's biggest problem... actually it's not just comics but TV series too (i.e. LOST for most of the last 3 seasons) which have taken advantage of decompression storytelling. Which is really good in theory but when it takes 12 issues to tell a story which is told in overblown dialogue and 2-page spread artwork then it really starts to get on a comic book readers nerves. Sure it's great for those TPB collections for bookstore sales but comic books are hardly leaving me running to the shelves like I used to for the next issue of my favorite title. I just buzzed thru my weeks comics and some titles just managed to tell 4 pages of story in the whole comic and padded the rest to leave you hanging for next issue and the next plus needing to understand 3 different BIG story arcs in other titles.

Illuminati is more or less setting up the whole story arc that Marvel's resident watchdogs have been sticking their fingers into solving every problem in the universe even if they can't get along among themselves too well. Now the large set of dominoes they have set up since their founding are slowing tumbling down to a big event that Quesada had been hinting at since he took over as EIC - "putting the Genies back into their bottles". I'm pretty sure that he plans on doing a major major house cleaning sometime next year and needs to have some uber-gods handy to make this happen.

- CrimsonQuill

Quote from: crimsonquill on June 04, 2007, 08:15:55 PM
Tommy has gotten me thinking about Marvel's biggest problem... actually it's not just comics but TV series too (i.e. LOST for most of the last 3 seasons) which have taken advantage of decompression storytelling. Which is really good in theory but when it takes 12 issues to tell a story which is told in overblown dialogue and 2-page spread artwork then it really starts to get on a comic book readers nerves. Sure it's great for those TPB collections for bookstore sales but comic books are hardly leaving me running to the shelves like I used to for the next issue of my favorite title. I just buzzed thru my weeks comics and some titles just managed to tell 4 pages of story in the whole comic and padded the rest to leave you hanging for next issue and the next plus needing to understand 3 different BIG story arcs in other titles.

Illuminati is more or less setting up the whole story arc that Marvel's resident watchdogs have been sticking their fingers into solving every problem in the universe even if they can't get along among themselves too well. Now the large set of dominoes they have set up since their founding are slowing tumbling down to a big event that Quesada had been hinting at since he took over as EIC - "putting the Genies back into their bottles". I'm pretty sure that he plans on doing a major major house cleaning sometime next year and needs to have some uber-gods handy to make this happen.

- CrimsonQuill

LOL...A housecleaning needed, because of the messes he helped to create?  That's funny.  Do you think they'll bring Captain America back for this upcoming event too?

Dan

That was scary at first I thought everyone was talking about our FF Beyonder.  Damn you Bendis.
I wonder if now that we are older we look at things differently.  When I was younger I never said any comic was crap. I would read with my eyes open with excitement. Now I take a look and almost everything is crap.

Quote from: cripp12 on June 05, 2007, 05:35:14 AM
That was scary at first I thought everyone was talking about our FF Beyonder.  Damn you Bendis.
I wonder if now that we are older we look at things differently.  When I was younger I never said any comic was crap. I would read with my eyes open with excitement. Now I take a look and almost everything is crap.

Lucky person; you obviously weren't exposed to Prez at an aearly age (but I've always had a fondness for The Geek).

To some extent, it's always been crap, but it was ENTERTAINING crap. I mentioned The Spider previoiusly: I knoow that the things are overwritten, seldom edited, and have plot holes that you could sail The Titanic through, but if you get caught up in what passes for a story, you don't think about that until you are finished. I mean, you KNOW he's gonna get out of it, but HOW?

I've read the first three Showcase Presents Superman. You want to see plot holes and contradictions? His strength fluctuates from story to story within a single issue. The plots are weak, the resolution are often deux ex machina, there is very little logic, most of the people in the stories act like kids, and scientific possibilities abound. They're still fun to read.

And don't get me started about the science in The Flash.
I noticed a few years ago that some artist were reducing the number of panels on a page. The problem with this, is that it also controls the pace of the story. It's no secret, comic book artists have laid out stories to control the pacing probably since the late '40s (and Bob Kane & Co. and I think Jack Burnley earlier). Kirby may have been the first to utilize the splash page or the double-page spread. The thing is, spalsh pages tend to stop the pace of the story. Kirby usually used it for some dramatic moment (and Neal Adams and Jim Steranko followed suit), but now it's being used to sell the original art. What it does to the pacing of the story is make it like driving a car while your foot is riding the brake: vrooom-screech, vrooom-screech, vrooom-screech. That isn't entertaining, that's annoying. It's also why I quit reading several Image comics.

I also have a rhetorical question: how does an artist end up Editor in Chief? Even when Carmine Infantino was boss at DC, it didn't completly make sense to me. And I have the utmost respect for Carmine (especially after reading Showcase Presents The Flash #1), but c'mon. Could Kirby have b een EIC at Marvel? Don Heck?

Somewhere I read an article on the different influences different generation of comic book creators have had. I remember the bit about the first group having mostly motion pictures and newspaper strips as a basis, then the later groups adding pulp magazines (including detective, S/F, and adventrue pulps), then paperbacks and TV and more recent ones adding video games. I wish I could remember the rest of the aritcle or where I saw it. The gist was that it blamed a lot of the problems with comic books (and several other forms of fiction) with the lack of originality in the source materials. I remember that I thought that Crisis and Zero Hour was a lot like someone hitting the "reset" button on an Atari.

Quote from: cripp12 on June 05, 2007, 05:35:14 AM
That was scary at first I thought everyone was talking about our FF Beyonder.  Damn you Bendis.
I wonder if now that we are older we look at things differently.  When I was younger I never said any comic was crap. I would read with my eyes open with excitement. Now I take a look and almost everything is crap.

No way, Cripp...for the most part, many comics were not crap when we were young.  I don't know how old you are , but I grew up in the seventies (I loved, loved, loved Marvel's horror comic line) and eighties (where I fell in love with the X-Men, Alpha Flight and the Doom Patrol).  Back then, comics were fun and had great storylines, now they're all about Luke Cage giving it to a former superheroine in the back door, Ultimate Hank Pym shrinking and then crawling up into Jan's panties or killing off characters just because nobody seems to be able to write them well...Shudder!

I did look at some comics as crap, when I was a kid...Mostly, my sister's Archie comics...LOL(I know now that they weren't crap...Just not my taste)!

We do look at things differently as we age, but it's only because we get a bit more sophisticated in our tastes(for the most part).

Dana

Quote from: Mowgli on June 01, 2007, 09:02:35 PM... an omnipotent being shows up in a Michael Jackson jacket and fights humans. Um... okay.

Neil Diamond.  For me, it was always Neil Diamond versus the Marvel Universe.

I would just be happy if Marvel could choose a continuity and stick with it.

Yep, I agree.

Quote from: cmdrkoenig67 on June 05, 2007, 07:59:37 AM

Quote from: cripp12 on June 05, 2007, 05:35:14 AM
That was scary at first I thought everyone was talking about our FF Beyonder.  Damn you Bendis.
I wonder if now that we are older we look at things differently.  When I was younger I never said any comic was crap. I would read with my eyes open with excitement. Now I take a look and almost everything is crap.

No way, Cripp...for the most part, many comics were not crap when we were young.  I don't know how old you are , but I grew up in the seventies (I loved, loved, loved Marvel's horror comic line) and eighties (where I fell in love with the X-Men, Alpha Flight and the Doom Patrol).  Back then, comics were fun and had great storylines, now they're all about Luke Cage giving it to a former superheroine in the back door, Ultimate Hank Pym shrinking and then crawling up into Jan's panties or killing off characters just because nobody seems to be able to write them well...Shudder!

I did look at some comics as crap, when I was a kid...Mostly, my sister's Archie comics...LOL(I know now that they weren't crap...Just not my taste)!

We do look at things differently as we age, but it's only because we get a bit more sophisticated in our tastes(for the most part).

Dana

I don't agree.  A lot of comics now are crap; a lot of comics then were crap.  Styles have changed, and the superhero fanbase is notoriously conservative - that's part of it, but the gross generalizations some people throw out about "all" comics of today bug me.

A lot of comics back then were crap. I think the essential difference was that in the 60s 70s and early 80s, creators were trying to make good stories as opposed to creating a "comics events."   DC and Marvel now go from event to event.  The event nature benefits all involved with the business end of things: the Comics company which sees spikes in sales of all involved titles (which at this point includes everything) plus creates a product which is easilly repackaged into a trade paperback for further sales, not to mention ancillary products (see DC's Action Figures of late - all tied to comics events); the creators gain celebrity status, and higher wages as a result; the retailers have back issues hat they can sell at inflated prices mmediately after the event ends.  Those shelling out the money, us, don't benefit as much.  We have to shell out more money for what usually is an inferior product because it it is created by committee. 
To me Civil War is a commitment by Marvel to event comics (hmmm... is it ironic that Quesada's old company was called Event Comics?) - now its continuity is simply one portacted event, encompassing every aspect of the universe, including those aspects that are better left alone, like Beyonder. 

Yeah - I'll have go with Neil Diamond too.

Quote from: MJB on June 03, 2007, 11:27:43 PM
With the obvious Marvel Bashing™ aside I would like to say something.

Who cares?

I don't recall fans clamoring for a Beyonder mini-series after SW2. It doesn't matter who wrote the Illuminati issue that revealed this "fact"...

Beyonder was a character that hasn't had anything sugnificant happen to him in years...

Marvel has a lot of pure crap going on these days but this isn't one of those things.

-MJB

EXACTLY. That's what I was saying before when I mentioned that I didn't even think of the Beyonder. He was a weak story device to begin with... so why care what happens to him now?

Answer... another reason to bash Bendis. At least I guess that's it, because I can't think of any other reason to be even mildly concerned with the Beyonder's storyline. Seems like a lot of people around here hate Bendis. "Bendification" and "his retconning sucks" are terribly common on these forums now.

But what has he done that's worse than what many other writer's have done in the past? Retconning? That's so bad? That's what Cable, Bishop and Deadpool are practically based on. Bendis didn't make those characters suck. A lot of writers do that. Then there's the reverse. Like John Byrne's genius idea to destroy another writer's work. He had Reed Richards wake up at the beginning of an FF comic, stating, "what a nightmare", dismissing the entire last storyline as just a dream. In my opinion, THAT'S bad writing.

I don't like everything Bendis does, to be sure. But I do like some of what he does. And I certainly don't think he is any worse than many of the other "great writers" who were hot for a time, and aren't anymore. It's his time, and it won't last forever. But in my opinion, it has been worse.

Also...

tommyboy wrote:  "No. You don't get to say "wait and see" about Bendis anymore. I waited. I saw. Several Years is long enough.  You don't get to say "that comic isn't bad because someday in the future some other, as yet unwritten, unpublished, comic will redeem it". "

Actually, yes he can. Isn't this a great country? We all have our opinions, and we can state them as often as we like. Who knows, maybe the next storyline WILL be better and make sense of this choice for the Beyonder. Comic bookks and their writers are often unpredictable things. That's one of the reasons I keep buying them.

Lastly, why do so many people say, "Well, I don't buy comics anymore," or "I'm glad I don't read comics anymore" and then go on to explain why they hate this new comic idea? Those statements have been made in many, many threads in the comic forum. If you don't read comics anymore, then why waste your time complaining about something you aren't even interested in? Do people just like complaining? I'm just curious, because I stopped playing football after high school, but I don't get on forums and complain about the current state of high school football programs.

Quote from: Mowgli on June 05, 2007, 12:59:48 PM
But what has he done that's worse than what many other writer's have done in the past?

Most writers in the past actually know what the words they use mean. Bendis doesn't. I can cite examples if you want.
Most writers in the past understand what a story is, and what a story isn't. Bendis doesn't. He thinks a story is a series of conversations punctuated by two page spreads. It isn't.
Most writers in the past would not compare their writing to Shakespeare. Bendis does.

Quote from: Mowgli on June 05, 2007, 12:59:48 PM
Also...

tommyboy wrote:  "No. You don't get to say "wait and see" about Bendis anymore. I waited. I saw. Several Years is long enough.  You don't get to say "that comic isn't bad because someday in the future some other, as yet unwritten, unpublished, comic will redeem it". "

Actually, yes he can. Isn't this a great country? We all have our opinions, and we can state them as often as we like. Who knows, maybe the next storyline WILL be better and make sense of this choice for the Beyonder. Comic bookks and their writers are often unpredictable things. That's one of the reasons I keep buying them.

In a discussion or argument about the merits of a piece of work, citing as yet unwritten, unpublished comics to support it is devoid of any value within that argument or discussion. It's not a matter of "opinion", it's a matter of a fallacy within the context of the discussion. He might as well say "but if I have a really nice cup of coffee next week that will make sense of Illuminati #3". It won't. That isn't about whether someone has freedom of speech, it's about the context of that discussion.

Quote from: Mowgli on June 05, 2007, 12:59:48 PM
Lastly, why do so many people say, "Well, I don't buy comics anymore," or "I'm glad I don't read comics anymore" and then go on to explain why they hate this new comic idea? Those statements have been made in many, many threads in the comic forum. If you don't read comics anymore, then why waste your time complaining about something you aren't even interested in? Do people just like complaining? I'm just curious, because I stopped playing football after high school, but I don't get on forums and complain about the current state of high school football programs.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for my part I do still read comics, but am very particular about what I buy. I wouldn't spend money on what Bendis does, but I do read the parts of his work that affect titles I have followed, or do follow. I'd point out to you that I have the right to post "complaints" or otherwise about any thing I please, thanks, regardless of whether you approve or understand why I do it. Thats the nature of free speech. If you don't want to read any particular posts, don't read them. Or read them and disagree. And post your disagreement.
I'll freely admit I don't like 99% of what Bendis writes, and I do post on that subject. You can characterise that as "Bendis Bashing" if you like, but that doesn't make him a better writer. In fact your complete lack of contrary factual or critical arguments to counter my opinions just makes me more certain that I am right. Your reliance on the " Who knows, maybe the next storyline WILL be better and make sense of this choice for the Beyonder" argument, yet again, is not a matter of opinion. It is your imaginary comic retroactively justifying Bendis poor real comic. It is not even approaching a valid argument, any more than if I said "maybe his next comic will make this one seem even worse". The only things worth discussing are the comics that exist, for real. Which is what this thread is about.

Quote from: Talavar on June 05, 2007, 12:07:47 PM
I don't agree.  A lot of comics now are crap; a lot of comics then were crap.  Styles have changed, and the superhero fanbase is notoriously conservative - that's part of it, but the gross generalizations some people throw out about "all" comics of today bug me.

I nominate this comment for "Most Ironic Post on the Intraweb"  :lol:

Some of Bendis stuff I have enjoyed (I liked Alias and Powers) but not everything. Civil War woudn't have been so bad if he didn't portray Iron Man the way he did. Tony came off blind to reality and borderline facist. I mean he made the entire thing about a registration act and ignored the fact that the person who really blew up that suburb escaped unpunished (until Wolverine/Namor). This either says a lack of understanding of Iron Man's character or his (Bendis) trying to hard to make the story fit. As much as I hate Civil War and some of his other stories (Ultimate Spider-Man), he isn't as bad as people make him out to be. Plus he might have free reign over Marvel at the moment, but he doesn't run the entire show (good stories sneak through).

tommyboy: Personally I haven't seen Bendis misuse any words, but even if he has, he would be far from the first. It may have happened, I just didn't catch it.  And if he is comparing himself to Shakespeare, he's just being ridiculous. But many people let fame go to their heads and overate their own success. It's unfortunate, but very common.

As far as knowing what a story is, and telling them, Bendis does. You may not like the manner in which he does it, but it's still a story. It is "a fictional narrative that is shorter than a novel." Many people dislike the conversations that he goes into with such detail. Some like it. Either way, it's all part of the story he tells. Many people think his writing is too slow for the action filled world of comics, and it may be. But it's still a story.

I disagree that mentioning work yet to be written is devoid of any value. This is a medium that is continuous. What is currently written is often based heavily on what has already been written. Other times, it is based on what is going to be written. Many issues and plots in comics are intended to set up another story or plot. Who's to say that isn't what is going on here? And I apologize if I got caught up in your wording, I just don't like anyone telling someone else they can't argue their point or state their opinion. A cup of coffee has no bearing on a comic book, but the continuous story that is part of, does.

I never said anyone couldn't post their ideas about comics. You are changing the subject there. I asked why would anyone waste their time complaining about something they specifically said they didn't care about? That's all. I never said or hinted that they shouldn't post. Those are your inferences.

"In fact your complete lack of contrary factual or critical arguments to counter my opinions just makes me more certain that I am right."

I don't even know where to start with that statement. You are stating an opinion. You are not right. You are not wrong. You are stating a belief or a view, not a fact that can be proven. Everyone has their own opinions and you can't disprove one with facts. And I have presented viable critical arguments. The fact that you disagree with them doesn't make them less valid. I believe your opinions are valid and are your own, I simply disagree with them. But I disagree most with the absolute way in which you are arguing for your opinion. It's just an opinion, like the rest of us.

Quote from: Mowgli on June 05, 2007, 12:59:48 PM
But what has he done that's worse than what many other writer's have done in the past? Retconning? That's so bad? That's what Cable, Bishop and Deadpool are practically based on.

Saying "It's no worse than Cable" is not exactly a ringing endorsement, now is it? "Gee, influenza gets such a bad rap. It's not as bad as the bubonic plague!"  ;)

QuoteLike John Byrne's genius idea to destroy another writer's work. He had Reed Richards wake up at the beginning of an FF comic, stating, "what a nightmare", dismissing the entire last storyline as just a dream. In my opinion, THAT'S bad writing.

Yes it is. But I'm not sure how the existence of other bad writers magically causes Bendis to be good.

QuoteWho knows, maybe the next storyline WILL be better and make sense of this choice for the Beyonder.

How long are we supposed to wait? How many bad, unenjoyable comics are we required to purchase before we're allowed to say, "That's not a good comic"?

QuoteIf you don't read comics anymore, then why waste your time complaining about something you aren't even interested in?

Probably because they still have a fondness for the characters, and they'd still be buying the comics if they weren't so poorly written.

Cable and Deadpool compared to influenza and bubonic plague... we're on the same page there.  :)

I never wanted to make a case for Bendis being good (magically or otherwise. I was making a case for him not being any worse than so many others that have written. There just seems to be so much venom around here for Bendis. From my experience, there has been much worse. The Beyonder is an example that makes a lot of sense to me. Secret Wars was alright, but the Beyonder wasn't so much a character as he was a story device. SWII was, in my opinion, just plain terrible. An omnipotent being shows up on Earth, wearing a Michael Jackson leather jacket and silly myllet hair cut to fight super heroes, because he doesn't understand humans. For me, that was just ridiculous. That's why this Illuminati story didn't ruin anything for me. So he's an Inhuman mutant? So what? He was headed nowhere as a character. This at least offers minor validation as to why he would be in a human form, trying to understand humans. That's my opinion.

I think Bendis has his ups and downs like any other writer. I like some of it, and I don't like some of it.

Hey I take offense to that Mowglie. Deadpool is a great character when Liefeld isn't involved. The Joe Kelly run on his solo series is proof enough. Cable on the other hand can go stick his tongue in a socket for all I care.

Here is a question if someone else wrote this other than Bendis would this topic even exist?

Quote from: Ajax on June 05, 2007, 07:25:02 PM
Here is a question if someone else wrote this other than Bendis would this topic even exist?

Oh, I imagine so. Marvel fandom is very continuity-conscious, after all, so that big a retcon was bound to cause comment. But the fact that Bendis pulls this kind of silly stunt all the time probably made the reaction stronger.

Quote from: Ajax on June 05, 2007, 07:25:02 PM
Here is a question if someone else wrote this other than Bendis would this topic even exist?

There are several things about this comic that I dislike, and retconning the Beyonder is perhaps the least of them.
The Illuminati themselves are a retcon I dislike intensely, (because it's stupid, pointless, and essentially undermines decades of stories).
I dislike the lack of narrative, metaphor, poor characterization, shoddy thought, ignorance of physics, biology, psychology, sociology, grammar, syntax, history, and the general pointlessness of the comic that is a hallmark of a Bendis comic.
So the question should be "if someone else  wrote this exactly, word for word, other than Bendis, would this topic even exist?" I think that if they had, it would.
I'm not opposed to retcons or change per se. Moore on Swamp Thing, or Miracle Man, Morrison on Animal Man or Doom Patrol, Englehart retconning the Vision's origins, or his Beyonder Retcon, Miller on Batman or Daredevil, Joe Casey on Earths Mightiest Heroes. I really liked all of these and many, many, many, other comics that retconned or dramatically changed a comic book series or characters. If it's done with care, intelligence, and some respect and regard for what went before, these are amongst my favourite type of story. I love for my entertainment to work on several levels, to have several levels of meaning. I enjoyed Infinite Crisis and even much of Civil War.
I try really hard to judge a comic on it's merits, not on who's name is in the credits.
And I dislike Bendis' writing because I dislike the comics he writes, not because I dislike the man.
Had the names Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman been in the credit box for Illuminati #3, but all else been the same, I would still have disliked it, and for the same reasons as when Bendis wrote it. I might have had more faith in the notion that this was a part of some greater whole, but the rest would have to be truly awesome to make this clunker fly. And even if I did accept the "future comics will redeem this" premise for another writer (and I flatter myself that I wouldn't), I would still think that this was a bad comic, a bad chapter, a bad start.
Not because I hate Bendis.
Not because I fear change to the status quo.
Not because I love the way the beyonder was.
I would think it because I think it's a bad comic.
Bad in conception, bad in execution.
The art was OK though.

Quote from: JKCarrier on June 05, 2007, 04:02:49 PM

QuoteIf you don't read comics anymore, then why waste your time complaining about something you aren't even interested in?

Probably because they still have a fondness for the characters, and they'd still be buying the comics if they weren't so poorly written.

Hear, hear.  I don't even know Bendis and am not familiar with his work in general.  Has nothing to do with him, personally.  I'd probably still be buying various Spider-Man and X-Men titles at least occasionally if I had liked anything that I happened to pick up in the last 10 years.  I kept visiting newsstands hoping that I'd find a Marvel comic I thought was worth buying.  Instead, more often than not I found continual attempts at reinventing characters in ways that didn't make sense or fit continuity such-as-it-is, trying to make every character ever more edgy, dark, and angsty, lots of occult/mystic garbage in titles where it frankly doesn't belong, and unappealing artwork by artists who seemed to feel that Cartoon Network art was plenty good enough for the medium.  Personally, I figure the powers-that-be LIKE Marvel-Bashing for some inexplicable reason, so they go out of their way to aggravate the fans who actually care about those things.

It's not just comics, either.  I'm personally boycotting Spider-Man 3 at the theaters because I felt the characters were being mishandled and that the story itself wasn't compelling, IMO.  I'm not going to reward -any- writer or artist for throwing much beloved characters into a blender and adding random ingredients to taste just for the sake of making a few extra (million) bucks.

I wish I could properly introduce my sons to the characters I used to love... but they don't exist anymore.

Ajax: I wasn't trying to offend anyone, I just don't dig Deadpool or Cable. To each his own though. I know a lot of people like both of them. That's one of the things that keeps comics interesting, the variety of characters, stories and readers.

tommyboy: "I dislike the lack of narrative, metaphor, poor characterization, shoddy thought, ignorance of physics, biology, psychology, sociology, grammar, syntax, history, and the general pointlessness of the comic that is a hallmark of a Bendis comic."

Do you really think that this one comic truly lacked all of those things? It's a sincere question. I honestly don't think I've ever read any story that lacked all of those things. Some of those I can see, like poor characterization. A lot of people don't like how Bendis characterizes many heroes. But lack of a narrative? The comic does tell a story, that is linear and easy to understand. Ignorance of physics? It is about a character with almost omnipotent power, who can alter reality.

It's cool that you don't like stories by Bendis, or changes he makes to the Marvel Universe. It's cool that you don't like this story and thought it was pointless. But "and ignorance of... psychology, sociology, grammar, syntax" etc. ... I just don't see all of those as faults with the comic. Maybe I missed all of that.

Quote from: doctorchallenger on June 05, 2007, 12:47:45 PM

Yeah - I'll have go with Neil Diamond too.

No, it was Daryl Hall....or John Oates.  Take your pick.  (I could never remember which was which)

Quote from: Mowgli on June 06, 2007, 01:58:36 PM
Ajax: I wasn't trying to offend anyone, I just don't dig Deadpool or Cable. To each his own though. I know a lot of people like both of them. That's one of the things that keeps comics interesting, the variety of characters, stories and readers

Don't worry, though I am a big Deadpool fan, I didn't really take offense.

BTW on topic with Beyonder. [spoiler]The character was recently used (before Illuminati) in the Thanos series when it was leading up to Annihilation. Essentially she was a prisoner in the Klyn (the end of the universe where they built a cosmic jail for the paticularly powerful criminals), where it was revealed that she was a cosmic entity that for some reason decided to take mortal form. When the Beyonder did this she went crazy (apparently the sensation of being alive was too much to take in all at once) and if you kill the Mortal form it returns to being a cosmic entity. She died when the prison was destroyed. So what I want to know is why didn't they just say "This is the Beyonders new mortal form"?[/spoiler]

Uh Ajax, isn't the Beyonder a guy?

Mowgli.
Okey dokey.
One at a time then.
(Though this is really too much time and effort for this comic, or this debate)

lack of narrative,
taken literally could mean a lack of Narrator, of captions, of explanation of what happens, and possibly why. The first three pages have Xavier Narrating, (you might think). But he isn't. He is talking to his fellow Retconati. Note that I didn't say the complete absence of narrative. There are a handful of captions, ie "several hours later", "Black Bolt" etc. So a literal reading would indicate some narrative in this comic. Or you might (and have) argue that something happens, that's a story, that's a narrative. But it isn't. It's a protracted conversation which has no effect. The "problem" of the Beyonder is not resolved, and nothing has changed by them going and shouting at him. A story has to have meaning. It is not just a sequence of events, much less just some talk that effects nothing. This "story" has no meaning. It has one Idea. Retcon Beyonder to be an Inhuman Mutant. That sentence could have been printed on page one, all the subsequent pages left blank and the net effect would be the same. The story of the Ant and the Grasshopper, of the boy who cried wolf, of the little boy who stuck his finger in the [expletive deleted]. These have events which have meaning relative to each other, they have a narrative that speaks to some part of what it is to live, to be human. They teach us something about ourselves. That is narrative. That is what this comic lacks.



metaphor,
as above really. The boy who cried wolf is not literally about sheep herding and wolves. It is a metaphor for the value of truth within social interactions, for how actions have consequences, for how people get along with each other. Illuminati #3 has no metaphor within it, it tells us nothing about life, love, people.

poor characterization,
Xavier claims to be able to put everyone on battleworld to sleep. This would have "won" Beyonder's little game. He instead assumes Beyonder would retaliate. THat is stupid. Xavier is not stupid. Ergo, poor characterization.
Namor is introduced speaking the words "Okay. but at this point why call a meeting". "Okay." Not "Indeed" or "Very well" or anything a Prince might say. Instead it's "Okay". Which is not how Namor talks, even later in this issue. Poor characterization.

shoddy thought,
an all powerful being will recreate Manhattan in an asteroid field. Why? Why not on a planet? Why not MAKE a planet. Why not in empty space? Why does an all powerful being back down when shouted at by Namor, who he doesnt know from Adam? Beyonder says he can "hear it inside you" and reads their desires (lets repeat House of M a few more times shall we?), but he needs Namor to shout what Black Bolt wants? There are other examples, and you could (and probably will) argue their shoddiness, but to me it's about a lack of consistancy within and without the comic. It's poorly thought out.
 

ignorance of physics,
Beyonder, All powerful being who can create worlds and manipulate matter says upon meeting the Retconati: "Molecules. You have your own molecules? How is that possible?" Which is enormously ignorant and stupid, on the part of the writer, NOT the character. Everything has its own molecules, whether created by the Beyonder or not. And if he IS an inhuman, he would already know that they have their "own" molecules.

biology,
see above.
Plus:
Beyonder "but you interfere"
Doctor Strange  "it's our species"
If Namor and black bolt are part of "our species", then so must the Beyonder be. Xavier said he was a mutated inhuman. Ignorance of what the word species means, either on the part  of Doctor Strange, or the writer himself.


psychology,
See my question about why someone who is God, basically would back down when shouted at by Namor, who he doesn't know.
Why would the Retconati assume he was gone again, when he had already hidden from them once?

sociology,
Beyonder was essentially a God. Gods do not obey Kings or Princes, no matter how much they shout.

grammar,
(Actually this one isn't too bad, maybe Brian Reed is polishing the grammar up)
All i got was:
Richards "we're working for a better tomorrow, today".
As opposed to "we're working towards a better tomorrow, today"
Or "we're trying to create a better tomorrow, today"
Pretty minor really, so this one I'll concede.


syntax,
Again, this issue comes up relatively clean, by Bendis' standards, so I'll concede it too.

history,
well, it might be a touch weaselly to point out that he's rewriting comic history here, and since theres no real history of any sort, correct or incorrect, I'll either concede that point or at best call it a draw (in that his history is neither proven nor refuted).

(The three points above must be my experience of other Bendis comics bleeding into my judgement of this one. Mea Culpa. But who knows, maybe the next issue will have all those things in? (Sarcasm))

and the general pointlessness of the comic
They go, they talk, he carries on exactly as before (except now hes a mutant inhuman). That, to me is a pointless comic.

If you are now going to politely ask me to explain in ever greater detail each of the points above, forget it.
It's not worth the effort.
I'd rather be characterized as a Bendis basher than have to examine and analyze his work to that degree.
I'll concede that my criticisms are more accurately aimed at his work in general than ALL being in this specific comic. But the stuff that is in there is poor enough for me.

Quote from: Podmark on June 06, 2007, 04:53:34 PM
Uh Ajax, isn't the Beyonder a guy?

Apparently there is more than one Beyonder who can shape reality. The one I am talking about is female and was locked in the Klyn. They called her The Beyonder and she had a grudge against Thanos. (I didn't know this until I did some digging)

Quote from: Ajax on June 06, 2007, 05:58:14 PM

Quote from: Podmark on June 06, 2007, 04:53:34 PM
Uh Ajax, isn't the Beyonder a guy?

Apparently there is more than one Beyonder who can shape reality. The one I am talking about is female and was locked in the Klyn. They called her The Beyonder and she had a grudge against Thanos.

Well that's the solution, isn't it?  More than one Beyonder.  So you can have one that's a cosmic cube and another one who's a mutant inhuman and another one that's the embodiment of another universe.

When you allow dimension hopping, time travel, and alternate universes all sorts of riff-raff show up.

tommyboy: I still disagree about the narrative point. There is no need for any form of narrator in this story. Many stories, especially when presented with pictures, don't need a narrator. As far as this not being a story. It doesn't cease to be a story because the majority of it is a conversation. Several things happen. The Illuminati start off on earth, having a meeting. They board a spaceship. They approach and land within a asteroid field. They talk with the Beyonder, both parties having trouble making the other see their viewpoint. They leave as the Beyonder stays and continues as he did before. In my opinion, that is the point. These self appointed high council members can't affect this being that is greater than them. They believe they can intervene and change things that are actually far beyond their control. I got the impression he was amused with them and allowed them to think they made a difference, letting them leave. This illustrates how small they actually are in the grand scheme of things (despite what they believe).

As for poor characterization, I don't know why Xavier assuming this unknown being, who obviously wanted to see a fight, might retaliate if he stopped it, is stupid. Smart or not, he was dealing with an entity unlike anything he had encountered before. All he had to go on, was knowing that entity had set up conditions to create and view a big fight. It seems reasonable to me that anyone would believe that stopping that fight, might anger the entity.

As for shoddy thought, I kind of agree there. The city in the asteroids made little sense. Also, Namor speaking for Black Bolt didn't either. Having someone speak for Black Bolt (usually Medusa) is a simple way to convey what a non speaking character is thinking or wants to say. The Beyonder can read Black Bolt, but the reader can't. So someone has to convey what Black Bolt wants to say. But if it was anyone, it should have been Xavier, as he has done it in every other Illuminati comic.

As for physics, I din't really understand the Beyonder's comment there. I was guessing that meant that everything around him (that city and it's inhabitants) were all created by him (the molecules too). So the prescence of molecules he hadn't created was very different to him. But I am guessing there.

Sociological... the Beyonder may essentially be a god, but as stated in the comic, he's actually an Inhuman. He is powerful, but not a god. He was born as an Inhuman, respected and obeyed Black Bolt as hid king as he grew up.  Eventually mutated and gained amazing power through the terrigan mists. Then it would be up to him as an individual, as to whether or not he would show respect for his former king.

It's understandable that you don't like Bendis, or more specifically, this comic book. I didn't think it was among Bendis' better work. Yet, I just don't think it was a s bad as some are making it out to be. A Beyonder story just doesn't interest me much, so it doesn't bother me much either. I was much more bothered by something like Spider-Man unmasking himself in Civil War. I believe that happened due to Bendis influence (Powers, etc). But a Beyonder story that isn't that bad, or good, just doesn't warrant so much venom in my opinion.

Just to larify things for those people who were confused about the Beyonder's gender;

When the Beyonder first apepared in the original Secret Wars series, it was a genderless (and bodiless), completely alien being. At the begining of Secret Wars II, the Beyinder creted a human body for itself based on the most physically-perfect human it had encountered- Captain america. In so doing, the Beyonder became male. Later, in Steve Englehart's Fantastic Four, it was revealed that the Beyonder was actually half of a cosmic cube. The two halves were brought together, and the Beyonder effectively became a genderless object. Still later, in a backup story in the back of some anual or other (can't remember where), the Beyonder's cosmic cube "hatched", effectively restoring the Beyonder to a humanoid form, which, by the Beyonder's own choice, was female this time. She took the Name Kosmos (or something like that), but I gather later she went back to calling herself the Beyonder. So, there were no "alternate Beyonders"- it was all supposed to be the same being.

As to why I can remember so many details about a character I never really thought much of to begin with, what can I say. I'm a geek.

Quote from: Alaric on June 08, 2007, 08:13:18 AM
Just to larify things for those people who were confused about the Beyonder's gender;

When the Beyonder first apepared in the original Secret Wars series, it was a genderless (and bodiless), completely alien being. At the begining of Secret Wars II, the Beyinder creted a human body for itself based on the most physically-perfect human it had encountered- Captain america. In so doing, the Beyonder became male. Later, in Steve Englehart's Fantastic Four, it was revealed that the Beyonder was actually half of a cosmic cube. The two halves were brought together, and the Beyonder effectively became a genderless object. Still later, in a backup story in the back of some anual or other (can't remember where), the Beyonder's cosmic cube "hatched", effectively restoring the Beyonder to a humanoid form, which, by the Beyonder's own choice, was female this time. She took the Name Kosmos (or something like that), but I gather later she went back to calling herself the Beyonder. So, there were no "alternate Beyonders"- it was all supposed to be the same being.

As to why I can remember so many details about a character I never really thought much of to begin with, what can I say. I'm a geek.

Well, that larifies things for me. That is, perhaps the best bit of larification I've seen in a long time.   :P

Quote from: Mowgli on June 06, 2007, 07:29:09 PM
tommyboy: I still disagree about the narrative point. There is no need for any form of narrator in this story. Many stories, especially when presented with pictures, don't need a narrator. As far as this not being a story. It doesn't cease to be a story because the majority of it is a conversation. Several things happen. The Illuminati start off on earth, having a meeting. They board a spaceship. They approach and land within a asteroid field. They talk with the Beyonder, both parties having trouble making the other see their viewpoint. They leave as the Beyonder stays and continues as he did before. In my opinion, that is the point. These self appointed high council members can't affect this being that is greater than them. They believe they can intervene and change things that are actually far beyond their control. I got the impression he was amused with them and allowed them to think they made a difference, letting them leave. This illustrates how small they actually are in the grand scheme of things (despite what they believe).

Well then we have to disagree. For me, a "story" that retcons in nothing happening is not a story. It's maybe worth a panel or two, like:
Xavier "You remember the Beyonder? Turns out he was a mutant inhuman. We went to confront and stop him but failed." The rest of the comic could actually have stuff happening in it, stuff that matters.

Quote from: Mowgli on June 06, 2007, 07:29:09 PM
As for poor characterization, I don't know why Xavier assuming this unknown being, who obviously wanted to see a fight, might retaliate if he stopped it, is stupid. Smart or not, he was dealing with an entity unlike anything he had encountered before. All he had to go on, was knowing that entity had set up conditions to create and view a big fight. It seems reasonable to me that anyone would believe that stopping that fight, might anger the entity.

The Beyonder bought Xavier to the fight. Xavier's power is his mind. If he wins by using his mind, why would the Beyonder have a problem with that? Xavier wouldn't be stopping the fight, he would be winning it. Like I said, it's stupid, and Xavier is not stupid. Not only that but he reads Beyonders mind enough to know he is inhuman, but manages to misunderstand "use your powers to win"? Stupid, stupid stupid.

Quote from: Mowgli on June 06, 2007, 07:29:09 PM
As for shoddy thought, I kind of agree there. The city in the asteroids made little sense. Also, Namor speaking for Black Bolt didn't either. Having someone speak for Black Bolt (usually Medusa) is a simple way to convey what a non speaking character is thinking or wants to say. The Beyonder can read Black Bolt, but the reader can't. So someone has to convey what Black Bolt wants to say. But if it was anyone, it should have been Xavier, as he has done it in every other Illuminati comic.

Yay agreement!

Quote from: Mowgli on June 06, 2007, 07:29:09 PM
As for physics, I din't really understand the Beyonder's comment there. I was guessing that meant that everything around him (that city and it's inhabitants) were all created by him (the molecules too). So the prescence of molecules he hadn't created was very different to him. But I am guessing there.

That's what I assumed was meant, but why do we have to guess? Why couldn't someone have said that like you just did, rather than the nonsensical and hard to understand "you have your own molecules?" No, actually I borrowed these molecules from work, I hired them from the molecule rental shop, I stole these molecules from Doc Doom when he was on the toilet.

Quote from: Mowgli on June 06, 2007, 07:29:09 PM
Sociological... the Beyonder may essentially be a god, but as stated in the comic, he's actually an Inhuman. He is powerful, but not a god. He was born as an Inhuman, respected and obeyed Black Bolt as hid king as he grew up.  Eventually mutated and gained amazing power through the terrigan mists. Then it would be up to him as an individual, as to whether or not he would show respect for his former king.

Well seeing as Beyonder ends up staying, and thereby ignoring Black bolt's wishes, it doesn't seem like he could make his mind up as to his place in society. He could have blinked and sent them all back to earth, and done that as often as they came back. Instead we get the dreary hollywood movie style scene where namor shouts him down for no discernable reason. It's just incomprehensible nonsense, which clearly, a lot of people like, but I don't. 

Quote from: Mowgli on June 06, 2007, 07:29:09 PM
It's understandable that you don't like Bendis, or more specifically, this comic book. I didn't think it was among Bendis' better work. Yet, I just don't think it was a s bad as some are making it out to be. A Beyonder story just doesn't interest me much, so it doesn't bother me much either. I was much more bothered by something like Spider-Man unmasking himself in Civil War. I believe that happened due to Bendis influence (Powers, etc). But a Beyonder story that isn't that bad, or good, just doesn't warrant so much venom in my opinion.

Venom? What venom? I stated an opinion (or six), and have quite reasonably discussed my opinions, citing proofs where I could, conceding where I couldn't. At no point have I said that "Bendis is a talentless hack who panders to the barely literate with cliched rubbish with which I would not wipe the rectum of a diarrheal sewer rat, this is the latest in a farcical series of the worst comics ever written". That would be venomous.
What the "story" doesn't warrant is this much argument.
I've explained (some of)what I didn't like, you've explained where you disagree, and I think both of us can agree it's neither the pinnacle nor nadir of western civilization.
I'll leave the last word for you, but I really have said far too much on the subject now...

Okay, I'm going to make my comment on New Avengers #31 here since it fits into the Illuminanti storyline as revealed by Bendis in a Newsarama interview.

Now for months Quesada and Marvel Editorial have been hyping that New Avengers #31 would reveal something huge for future storylines and how it ties into everything going on...

[spoiler]You clicked here so you must want it spoiled, eh? Okay... Echo breaks free of her control by the Hand and stabs Elektra killing her. However everyone is shocked when her body whithers into the corpse of a SKRULL! Yes, SKRULL! And they drop a few hints that some people might not actually be who they say they are (i.e. look closely at the last panel of the last page).[/spoiler]

It's pretty much falls into another "Break The Internet In Half" plot twist because Bendis reveals:

[spoiler]

QuoteBendis: I’m sure some people saw that, and thought, “What? That’s it? What the f*** have you guys been talking about?” But I want everybody to be calm, to breathe for a moment, compose yourselves, and think about what is being put forth. All of these questions will be answered both in the next issue, and upcoming issues of New Avengers and Mighty Avengers, and even the Illuminati miniseries.

It’s no just as simple as someone posing as Elektra – if that’s going on, there might be a bigger…an invasion might have already have happened, and earth may have already lost. If you start putting together the pieces of things that haven’t made sense, or people acting in a way that was contrary to what you’ve seen in the past, or if there have been holes in stories that people have told to their friends – on both sides of the coin, not just within S.H.I.E.L.D., but also in Hydra; not just the heroes, but also the villains. If you do that, you may be able to put together a tapestry of events that has been put forth since New Avengers began, starting with the earliest pages.

Now, who those players are, and what they’ve done, and what damage has been done, will be revealed in upcoming issues.

[/spoiler]

So, how can we trust heroes now? Who is really pulling the strings?

[spoiler]

QuoteNRAMA: How long does this story go?

BB: This goes on for the rest of the year, and then in early ’08 we get the start of the beginning of the big ba-boom.

NRAMA: Will it mostly play out in the Avengers titles?

BB: New Avengers, Mighty Avengers, and a big whopper in the ending of the Illuminati mini. In fact, the Illuminati miniseries opened with a big hint that this was coming…

NRAMA: Right – after the Kree-Skrull War, and the Illuminati were captured…

BB: And may have inadvertently given them the genetic keys to do what they are doing, which is different from what they did in the past.

NRAMA: And they were captured…

BB: Right – we don’t know how long they had them, and we don’t know if they got them out.

NRAMA: Wait – they all got out.

BB: Did they?

NRAMA: End of the issue, yeah – all the members of the Illuminati were there.

BB: Were they?

NRAMA: Wait – so since shortly after the ending of the Kree-Skrull War…you’re saying…

BB: Yup – that’s what I’m saying.

NRAMA: Bastard. So possibly, for what, thirty+ years, one or some of those characters could have been Skrulls?

BB: [laughs] I’m not saying yes or no to anyone, but the important thing is that it’s crazy, but it’s planned crazy. It’s all been planned out.

So, Bendis is saying that not only have certain characters have been replaced with these dopplegangers but key people in various titles over the years have been manipulating events because they are not really human at all. Secret War was when Nick Fury figured out that nobody but a handfull of people could be trusted so he buried himself so deep in the underground that nobody could find him. Civil War was actually an event to demoralize the heroes because these invaders wanted to keep everyone looking outward instead of what was actually standing in front of them. And these spies and traitors are people we would never suspect as being the ringleaders to an event that already has been hinted at in another title already.[/spoiler]

Let's let the discussion begin....

- CrimsonQuill

EDIT: D'OH! I hate it when I hit the wrong icon.... O.o... I was thinking of moving this to it's own thread. Sorry, Bluebard.

Geez, good find, Crimsonquill.  The whole Skrull impersonation thing could explain all sorts of things Marvel wants to retcon and could make a lot of things that didn't make sense and ticked a lot of fans off wind up actually kind of cool.  Just replacing characters over a handful of issues wouldn't be very exciting, but the idea that they've been at it for a long time and that maybe even the whole Civil War debacle could have been manipulated by them is very interesting.

[spoiler]Cap didn't give up.  It was an impostor.

Tony Stark didn't sell out.  It was an impostor.

Mr. Fantastic didn't create a Thor clone.  It was an impostor.

What if SHIELD is now full of Skrulls?[/spoiler]

IRONMAN a skrull.  Now everything makes sense.  I hate the fact that I could of bought comics under false pretense.  So how far are we talking, 1970?  I want my money back. 

... and another thing, would that mean that everything that came out from that time period be considered skrulls.  "Those Hero-Clix are really Skrulls impersonating heros".  "That action figure of Ironman is really a skrull". Posters, Movies everything.  I'm all riled up. 

[spoiler]It wouldn't have to go back to the dawn of time.  They could have been replacing people slowly over time.  Now there's nothing saying that Tony Stark was replaced.  Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't.  And if he was, it could have been fairly recent.  Say, right before Civil War?  I didn't read the comics that the interview alluded to, so I can't really comment on the mechanism by which some might have been replaced.  It hints that maybe genetic material was stolen, which a Skrull wouldn't have needed... unless they're being bio-engineered to duplicate superhuman abilities, sort of like the Super Skrull.[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Lets break it down: Skrulls have been set up since the Kree-Skrull war to have been foretold that they would take over the Earth but having to lose their homeworld and almost their entire empire before it would take place. The only thing that has been holding them up is the superhuman factor that Earth seems to have which was elimated from their own race as genetic flaws. Then The Illuminati show up being the uber cocky morons they are to try and stop any future invasions - and thus ended up handing them all kinds of genetic material after they were captured and then being left with decades of research after they managed to escape.

Now we know from past storylines that the Skrulls have been trying for years to infiltrate the human race but each time heroes managed to figure out who these imposters were. Even the War Skulls which were introduced around The Twelve storyline in the X-Men showed that vast scientific improvements were being made in replicating super powers and hiding their identity even from telepaths. Plus add the fact that various anti-superhuman groups have shown up over the years which have done nothing but run heroes raggid and lock up villians to "study" them. Now in the New Avengers they have been slowly revealing that a shadow organization is slowly taking over the ranks of the villian underground and SHIELD was involved in collecting lots of materials (like Vibranium) and technology for unknown reasons (mostly noted as keeping it away from the bad guys). Plus in Secret War they threw out the question of how come so many criminals are getting access to uber high technology without being able to afford it - not to mension how they keep getting out of jail so fast.

Now take this into the X-Men titles as far as mutation goes. Mutants were the fastest growing superhuman element on the planet and that was growing more and more each year. Now think of how much interest there would be in manipulating someone with reality altering powers that was already unstable. Maybe someone could convince her that mutants are bad and they needed to be erased or just "shut off" so that only alien technology could restore them (oddly why it was so easy for Professor X and Polaris to get their powers back in this fasion).[/spoiler]

- CrimsonQuill

This has the potential to be a very interesting story, but it will probably end up being poor somehow. I don't have much faith in Bendis these days. Hopefully they won't try to go too far back in time, at least with the more established characters.

Well, the possibility has been there since Fantastic Four #2.
Nothing new here, but nothing tremendously bad either.
Not exactly my idea of a brilliant concept to base the next year on, but who knows, maybe it won't be horribly inept and drawn out. :rolleyes:

*Mowgli tries to take all of this in... and is concerned*

Okay, so Bendis hints heavily that someone in the Illuminati has been an imposter for quite some time (up to thirty years). If this is true, I'm with Cripp12... ticked off. Iron Man would make the most sense, as very few skrulls have ever demonstrated powers (other than about three I can think of), other than shape shifting. It would be tough for them to simulate or master magic, do anything Black Bolt does, stretch or use powerful mental abilities. But they could easily operate and even improve upon eath technology (the armor).

Regardless of who it is, it would suck. That means the last 30 years would be an imposter, explaining any recent strange behaviors, but also would include any of their heroic acts. We wouldn't know that character at all. This would be the king of all retcon debacles.

*Mowgli hopes there is something else going on*  :blink:

Quote from: Mowgli on June 14, 2007, 03:19:07 PM
That means the last 30 years would be an imposter, explaining any recent strange behaviors, but also would include any of their heroic acts. We wouldn't know that character at all. This would be the king of all retcon debacles.

Well, it's thirty years in our time but it would probably be anything from 5 to 10 years using the sliding scale they use for comic book time.

Also, using an unrevealed imposter as a plot device is pretty much standard fare in superhero comics, and isn't, in my opinion, any worse than using "Superboy continuity punches" a la DC to reconcile differing characterizations of the same character. Walt Simonson used a suddenly-revealed Doombot imposter (who apparently was filling in for Doom over the past few years) near the end of his Fantastic Four run back in the early 1990s and I think it worked quite well, didn't diminish the Dr. Doom character one bit.

Quote from: Mowgli on June 14, 2007, 03:19:07 PM

Regardless of who it is, it would suck. That means the last 30 years would be an imposter, explaining any recent strange behaviors, but also would include any of their heroic acts. We wouldn't know that character at all. This would be the king of all retcon debacles.

Which is pretty much what they already did to the Scarlet Witch, when they established that she had been insane since... at least Byrne's run on WEST COAST AVENGERS (when Agatha Harkness first came back to life), and everything she had done since then, including acts of extreme heroism, may not have been what it seemed.

I think it's important that the writers, editors, etc. remember that every character is someone's favorite, and in particular make an effort to try not to cheapen heroic scenes with any character years later.

Quote from: Alaric on June 14, 2007, 07:12:50 PMI think it's important that the writers, editors, etc. remember that every character is someone's favorite, and in particular make an effort to try not to cheapen heroic scenes with any character years later.

While I can understand where you're coming from on this, I think having an editorial mandate that lays down somewhat arbitrary limits on what creators can do with the stories they want to tell sets a bad precedent, especially if the basis for those limits is the idea that every character is some fan's favourite. I think such an approach might lend itself towards stagnation in terms of story development and the incorporation of new ideas.

The challenge of creating commercial and popular art (basically any artform, such as comics for example, which has its continued production tied directly into its profitability as a consumer product) is striking a balance between providing genuine artistic expression and giving the customers/consumers/readers what they want. A comic book that has genuine aesthetic value but no commercial merit or popular appeal is still only half-successful. On the other hand, a comic book that is created solely to "give fans what they want" isn't something that I'd find very interesting either. I already know what I want and find interesting, and while there is something to be said about reading something steeped in the things we're comfortable with as comic book fans, I think some of the best comics that have aged well and stood the test of time are those wherein the creators tried something different, new, or even offensive to the sensibilities of certain readers.   

 

Quote from: zuludelta on June 14, 2007, 08:27:30 PM

Quote from: Alaric on June 14, 2007, 07:12:50 PMI think it's important that the writers, editors, etc. remember that every character is someone's favorite, and in particular make an effort to try not to cheapen heroic scenes with any character years later.

While I can understand where you're coming from on this, I think having an editorial mandate that lays down somewhat arbitrary limits on what creators can do with the stories they want to tell sets a bad precedent, especially if the basis for those limits is the idea that every character is some fan's favourite. I think such an approach might lend itself towards stagnation in terms of story development and the incorporation of new ideas.

The challenge of creating commercial and popular art (basically any artform, such as comics for example, which has its continued production tied directly into its profitability as a consumer product) is striking a balance between providing genuine artistic expression and giving the customers/consumers/readers what they want. A comic book that has genuine aesthetic value but no commercial merit or popular appeal is still only half-successful. On the other hand, a comic book that is created solely to "give fans what they want" isn't something that I'd find very interesting either. I already know what I want and find interesting, and while there is something to be said about reading something steeped in the things we're comfortable with as comic book fans, I think some of the best comics that have aged well and stood the test of time are those wherein the creators tried something different, new, or even offensive to the sensibilities of certain readers.   

 

I didn't say anything about an editorial mandate. I said writers, etc., should keep it in mind.

Quote from: Alaric on June 14, 2007, 09:06:14 PM
I didn't say anything about an editorial mandate. I said writers, etc., should keep it in mind.

Sorry, Alaric, I didn't mean to misinterpret you there or ascribe to you something that you didn't actually post.

I guess my post was a bit of a knee-jerk response to the growing sense of, for lack of a better term, entitlement (coupled with an unhealthy measure of righteous indignation) among a number of comic book fans these days. I mean, I'm all for complaining and voicing one's displeasure over the current state of the industry (I do a fair bit of it myself both online and in the real world) but it seems like you can't enter a discussion board or a comic book store these days without encountering bitter and jaded readers who take every single freaking opportunity to dwell on what they perceive to be the negative aspects of today's books. It gets pretty old real quick.   

When Was Franklin Born? Before Or after the Kree Skrull War? Because lord forbid they go down that freaking road...

oh yeah.  That guy Cable.  A Skrull. Longshot, Gambit. Skrull, Skrull.

(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a384/tommyboy2002/page12.jpg)

Quote from: Mowgli on June 14, 2007, 03:19:07 PM

Okay, so Bendis hints heavily that someone in the Illuminati has been an imposter for quite some time (up to thirty years). If this is true, I'm with Cripp12... ticked off. Iron Man would make the most sense, as very few skrulls have ever demonstrated powers (other than about three I can think of), other than shape shifting. It would be tough for them to simulate or master magic, do anything Black Bolt does, stretch or use powerful mental abilities. But they could easily operate and even improve upon eath technology (the armor).

Hate to be a continuity cop here, but it was established in the ROM series that the Dire Wraiths were an offshoot of the Skrull species (Rom #50 I believe). The Dire Wraiths used magic in the later issues of that series.  Further, as I recall, on the space saga arc during the original Claremont/Jim Lee Run on Uncanny (the arc in which Lee came up with his design for Deathbird), a skrull was posing as Prof. X. the Skrull had Xavier hooked up to a device which transfered the Prof.'s power to him.  So said technology could be used for other powerrs as well.  Baring that story in mind, it is possible that the X-Men never rescued the real Xavier at all.

Quote from: Mowgli on June 14, 2007, 03:19:07 PM
Regardless of who it is, it would suck. That means the last 30 years would be an imposter, explaining any recent strange behaviors, but also would include any of their heroic acts. We wouldn't know that character at all. This would be the king of all retcon debacles.

Agreed.