Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, I have two questions before I comment.  First, did RDJ ever really apologize for his behavior?  I know he's spoken candidly about it, but I also know he's dodged questions about it too.  Secondly, has Gibson apologized?

I think if RDJ apologized and Gibson apologized, then they should be allowed to walk the same road back to Hollywood.  I know their "crimes" were different, and because of that, their apologies would need to be different.

I have to think that Gibson's blacklist has to do with the fact that he was highly antisemitic, and Hollywood is, statistically, more Jewish than most of the country (whether or not the highly popular "Jews run Hollywood" is true).

But I do think people should get a second chance if they truly ask for it.  I don't think people should get a second chance just because, though.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Gibson did a lot of apologising. He met with Jewish leaders and seemed to really work hard at making things right. And he appears to have cleaned up his act since then. But racists and bigots in Hollywood are a dime a dozen. There is no reason why that event should destroy him after so many years of making tons of money for them.

RDJ, I think k has been open about his past and has tried to make good. I don't know of any specific apology, but I'm sure it is out there.

Hollywood is a twisted, corrupt industry. And despite the revised history, the efforts to take down Gibson's career started before the slurs to the cops. That actually came after years of horrible things being said about him in the press, all surrounding his making The Passion. The slurs are just the easiest way to get the job done now. You suddenly have people saying that alcohol is like truth serum, revealing a person's true self. Anyone who knows an alcoholic knows that isn't true at all, and the concept would be taking down a lot more Hollywood personalities if it were.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

So for the next movie, should Captain America be given a boyfriend, or should he be a Hydra agent? The headlines and hashtags are all over the place this week!

Serious question though... for something like Agents of SHIELD or Daredevil, is there a reason why we can't see Avengers fighting in the distance? A lot of them are CG anyway, so the computer models exist. I can understand not being able to afford actors, but why not use the CG versions in creative ways, just to tie things together?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I can't believe anyone is taking this Cap has been a HYDRA agent all along plot seriously. It is so obviously a sting operation.

... well. I kind of like it as a story? I guess I've been reading comics so long that this sort of thing doesn't startle me at all anymore and I continue to enjoy seeing it anyway.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It is stupid in the sense that it essentially means that they're marketing him as a Nazi now. But yeah, it will be undone. It is kinda annoying how comic book writers will throw random stories out there with no intention of making them stick, just for the sake of grabbing headlines. But that is the business they're in.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

That comment strikes me, rather alarmingly, as someone reviewing the news coverage of the story rather than the story. As for the fact that this isn't a permanent change -- why would anyone want it to be? Ultimately, characters in comics loop back to where they started; it's a cycle of mythology/marketability.

It's just a question of whether this is a SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN type long-term story where Dr. Octopus controlled Peter's body for 20 months or if it's a SHADOWLAND type story where Daredevil was a cackling supervillain for all of 120 days before it turned out he'd been possessed by a demon.

It's a perfectly acceptable narrative technique to present a radically altered backstory and mission of the character that reveals them to be a traitor to everything they ever represented -- only to reveal that it's part of a ruse. Or that the Red Skull has used the Cosmic Cube to alter Cap's history to transform him from an enemy into an ally. And to follow up with a Captain America from the original timeline entering the story or Cap to reveal his secret plan, etc..

With SUPERIOR SPIDER-MAN, fans rioted over Peter Parker being killed off as though Marvel would permanently remove such a popular character from publishing. A year and eight months without Peter Parker was a way to examine his morality and purpose through the absence of both; Marvel's doing something similar with Cap and of course they're not going to give away the full story through interviews.

I see this as an interesting exercise: what if Cap's most positive characteristics were applied to villainy?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Yeah, I think its an interesting development, although I know virtually nothing about Captain America comics.

It's strange that people freak out if they do something crazy, and they freak out when things are boring.  Captain America won't stay evil, and no one that ever dies will stay dead.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It wasn't a harsh comment to make. Comic books are always publishing stories that will draw attention, only to reset them later. Sometimes it works, but it is usually just frustrating. I do like it when stories progress in surprising ways that stick... but even those are usually undone eventually. Barry Allen eventually came back. So did Hal Jordan. Barbara Gordon is walking again, right?

At some point you have to wonder why they undo things. By the time they brought back Barry Allen, the audience probably had no connection to him. I know that when I was reading comics, Wally was my Flash. Bringing Barry back was more jarring than it was exciting.

Or were you referring toy comment about marketing him as a Nazi? Because that part was about marketing, not story. It seems like a bad idea to have all of the "Captain America is a Nazi" headlines. Just like it was a bad idea to have headlines about Superman renouncing his American citizenship, whatever the actual story was.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

There have been hundreds of stories where Superman murders Lois or Spider-Man is killed stone dead or Daredevil goes insane or where Captain America is turned into a werewolf or a robot or dead -- well, maybe 10 or 20.

This fakeout of Captain America being evil and having been all along merely got published during a slow newsweek. Marvel consistently refused to refute the media presenting Cap and Spidey's deaths as permanent; Joe Quesada even went on Colbert to mourn Steve Rogers' death and present Colbert with Cap's shield.

The DAREDEVIL storyline, SHADOWLAND, had posters where a deranged Matt Murdock grinned murderously at the reader while the text read: THE BIRTH OF THE GREATEST VILLAIN OF THE MARVEL UNIVERSE (without any fine print to say that this would all be wrapped up inside four months with Matt back to normal right away). The hype is not the story. The hype should not be reviewed as the equivalent of the story. Of course things will go back to normal; the fun is in seeing how that can happen. Given that the characters can't change permanently, there's nothing wrong with making a meal out of changing them temporarily.

I think my trauma over SLIDERS is part of why I like how all these insane things can happen to superheroes in comics -- the idea that all these mutilating, destructive things can happen to these characters, and they can still come back.

As for Barry Allen, I already wrote about the necessity of bringing him back (and you responded to it!). To copy paste what I wrote:

DC has given no official statements on why they got rid of Wally West and brought back Barry Allen, but the reasoning seems self-evident to me. Wally West was too complicated a character for film and TV.

Wally's origin: Barry Allen is a police scientist who was doused in chemicals struck by lightning that gave him superspeed and then Barry's nephew was struck in a similar accident and became Kid Flash and then Barry died and Wally became the successor to Barry as the third Flash because there was actually a first Flash and who the hell would bother with any of this crap for a TV show or a movie?

All adaptations either used Barry's origin with Wally West's name or just used Barry. DC, realizing that it was only a matter of time before the Flash became a TV show or film, decided to get in line with what would be the most widely seen version of the Flash -- a Flash who is Barry Allen, police scientist. CSI with superpowers. Barry was brought back to life. His absence since 1986 was compressed to a year or two and explained with a cover story of him having been in witness protection.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I understand why they brought back Barry, but it was awkward for me to have the "real" Flash come back when the only Flash I'd really ever known was Wally. And the secondary Flashes were Jay or Bart. Barry was a legendary figure that I knew about but had no real connection with, so on some level, I probably resented him pushing Wally out of the way to come back.

And I agree that this is what comic books are. It always has been. I do like it when something big changes and doesn't just snap back to normal. Dick Grayson stopped being Robin and it only made things more interesting. At the same time, they can't constantly be changing things for keeps, because after 80 years, none of these characters would even still be around. Superman would be making out with Lois' niece while Lois died in an old folks home. To a certain extent, they do always have to snap back. So yeah, Captain America isn't really a Nazi and it's all a fake-out. We know that, just like we knew that the death of Superman wouldn't last forever. I agree that the worth of that story is in how they play it.

But it still doesn't make for a good headline. No matter how you cut it, it would be a huge PR nightmare to have Superman pretend to be a pedophile for a few months. We have some distance from the whole Nazi situation these days, but it is still not a good image. Putting the story itself aside and discussing this on a purely superficial marketing level, the image isn't a great one, probably for the same reason that people hate the idea of Superman killing Zod or Batman marking people for death. It might be perfectly solid storytelling, but the image doesn't sit well with some people.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well. Comics aren't really subject to conventional narrative or marketing rules for a variety of reasons. Crazy stuff like this is often necessary to keep the characters in the public view, even within the confines of publishing. When Captain America, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Superman, the X-Men, the Fantastic Four and Batman were created, their creators had no idea that they were starting a decade-spanning, serially ongoing, continuity based narrative with a floating timeline and a shared universe.

Eventually, the creators had to choose what they could change and what had to stay the same as they couldn't keep writing 60s era stories when in the 70s and 80s. Sometimes, the choices were effective. Sometimes they were a mistake. Sometimes, creators and companies stuck to their guns and carried forward, other times, they decided to use the flexibility of the medium to roll things backwards.

Spider-Man, for example, graduated from high school and went to university. With the X-Men, sales were low and Marvel cancelled the book, later reviving it with a largely overhauled cast that proved to be more popular than the first generation. Things changed for both Spidey and the X-Men: Peter Parker married Mary Jane and she got pregnant. With the X-Men, Jean Grey died, Magneto became a hero, Cyclops got married and retired, Professor Xavier left the X-Men in the hands of Magneto while he went off to space. Barry Allen died and Wally West replaced him. The feeling was that these characters would only ever exist in comic books, so comics were free to evolve and change and rework constantly, often making what would theoretically be irreversible changes.

In the 90s, however, Marvel started selling their TV and movie rights and suddenly, there became an urgent need to start rolling back all the changes; to make the comics reflect the default version that a TV show, cartoon or film would use. For the X-Men, all the changes were undone. Magneto reverted to villainy, Jean Grey was resurrected, Cyclops' wife was revealed to be some sort of demon queen and the clock rewound. The fact that previous comics had shown the X-Men to have outgrown this 'classic' situation was discounted.

With Spider-Man, Marvel attempted to retire Peter Parker and bring in a new Spider-Man, a clone named Ben Reilly. The sales crash made it clear that fans' loyalty was not to the costume and the name, but to the specific character, and Peter was reinstated with a time travel plot later undoing his marriage to Mary Jane.

With Wally West, DC saw which way the wind was blowing and decided to make their FLASH comics reflect any future TV show rather than see a TV show force their hand. When Wally became the Flash, the creators had no way of knowing that TV adaptations would be made, that superheroes could become filmable, that their third gen Flash would have a story too complicated to render onscreen.

All this experimentation, some incompetent and some brilliant, eventually made it clear: the comics would inevitably revert to the default status quo that a TV show or film would use. But in the 2000s, Marvel and DC began experimenting with making the kinds of massive changes they'd always had to roll back -- except this time, they would plan out in advance how the rollback would take place and make the experience a strong journey with some lasting effects here.

For example, Captain America was killed off and there was a multi-year story where we saw how the Marvel Universe coped without Steve Rogers and Bucky had to step up and grow a lot. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn took over the Marvel Universe. Eventually, Steve returned, toppled Osborn, but  Bucky remained Captain America until his Winter Soldier past was exposed and he stepped down. Things went back to how they started, but the circle was a fun ride.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Just an addendum -- I think comic writers from the 60s to 2000s didn't know what they could change and what they couldn't. They understood that when you write Superman, X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman, Green Lantern, etc., you are writing mythic characters, but what are the essential aspects of that myth that everyone associates with the character that a faithful film or TV adaptation would use? When these characters were created and when these characters were at the height of their publishing popularity, it was difficult to imagine them in any other medium -- or that adaptations would be the most visible, most prominent versions of these characters.

For example, the shift from Barry to Wally -- this was DC Comics growing its universe, meeting the passage of time, and telling the next chapter in the legacy of The Flash. The Flash had started out as Jay Garrick, who was popular for a time but faded away. Then the Flash was revised into a new character with the same name and a similar costume and powers, Barry Allen. There was also the sense that Barry's character was a bit played out and dull.

With Green Lantern, sales had fallen on the title dramatically and DC sought to create a controversial, attention-grabbing storyline, so they had Hal Jordan become an insane mass murdering villain who destroyed the GL Corps and replaced him with a new Green Lantern named Kyle Rayner. This was DC attempting to progress into the 90s and create a GL who reflected young adult culture of the era -- soap opera with a 20something GL hanging out at his coffee shop angsting over girls.

However, the end result was that these updated for the 90s/next gen characters were too complicated in origin and backstory to bring to TV and film. It became necessary to roll back these changes and make Barry the star once more. With The Flash, all the next gen characters were unfortunately deleted. With GREEN LANTERN, the GL Corps allowed for all the next gen characters to stick around as supporting cast and in spin-offs while the core GL title focused on Hal Jordan once again. These were two instances where the changes were meant to be permanent, but over the course of several decades, it became clear that they had to be undone.

Grant Morrison, a very popular and inventive writer, attempted to do next-gen changes to BATMAN and X-MEN. With BATMAN, he introduced Batman Incorporated and created a global army of Batman and gave Batman a homicidal 10-year-old son. This was the evolution of Batman's storytelling engine. Unfortunately, it was an evolution based specifically on this particular writer's quirks and obsessions and without him, Batman Inc. faded away -- although the 10-year-old son remained.

With X-MEN, he attempted to replace the X-Men as a metaphor for the civil rights movement with a metaphor for youth culture. He replaced all the costumes with black leather, he had the X-Men revealed to the public instead of being an underground operation. While he did a great job, other writers couldn't quite capture the same tone and after he left X-MEN, the titles returned to the old civil rights approach -- although the X-Men remained publicly known and Cyclops and Emma Frost remained a couple with Jean Grey killed off and kept dead (but time travel brought a young version of her to the present day). In terms of evolving BATMAN and X-MEN to the next chapter, the changes were largely rolled back anyway for the next writer to come in with the default status.

It's only over decades that the essentials -- the defaults, the aspects the public associates with the character -- become clear. Superman will always be a reporter at the Daily Planet and his being a TV newsanchor was eventually undone. The Flash is Barry Allen, Green Lantern is Hal Jordan, the X-Men protect a world that hates and fears them, Batman fights crime in Gotham and not globally and Captain America fights Nazis. The writers can't be blamed for not being psychic or not realizing until the last decade that any changes to those essentials are only temporary. These temporary changes are generally to reinforce that those are the essential elements, sometimes through their absence.

So, right now, the style seems to be to execute GL/FLASH type changes by killing off Captain America and replacing him with Bucky or having Cap go evil, much like the Flash and Green Lantern -- but with the knowledge that this will be undone and to plan for that well in advance and making sure there's a decent story to be found there.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

All true. It's just sad when you love a character for a long time, only to have them brushed aside when the norm is reinstated. At some point, I think that the comic books and the tie-in movies or TV shows will have to find another way to co-exist. The shows and movies are usually telling stories from years ago, with characters at the beginning of the story. Comic books should be allowed to evolve. Maybe the solution would be to have versions of the books that tie into the movies/shows and versions that don't even try.

Part of the fun for me with BvS was that the two characters had reached a point where the movie could explore different angles, the way comic books do. They could throw in the Robin suit without necessarily explaining it, for example. Most of the other characters wouldn't be able to do that. We need origin stories and a chance to get familiar with the characters at their core, before we can get to some of the more interesting stuff that happens later. This is why I hope that the Batman movie will bring in Nightwing or Oracle. Everyone knows Robin and Batgirl, so they finally have a chance to tell the stories that they couldn't do before.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

This conversation reminds me of Supernatural (the finale for which I will be watching tomorrow night). The show has it's baseline story structure, right? After season five, things were shaken up. Dean was given a new lifestyle (meaning domestic, not that he turned gay or something) and Sam was without a soul.

Obviously, Sam needed to be restored to normal at some point. However, I was really, really hoping that they would allow Dean's life to progress and keep Lisa and Ben around for good. Dean matured into someone who wasn't into casual sex, and just seemed to become the next logical version of what that character should be. The same guy, but older, wiser and with his battle scars. I liked it. It was progress. It was good. It was a chance to really move the story structure into a new area and draw a line between the past and the future.

But at the end of the season, it was completely undone. Lisa and Ben had their memories wiped, so they have no clue that it ever happened (a huge violation, by the way) and Dean never wanted to speak about it again. Over time, he went back to being the more reckless, boozing, sexing guy that he was before. I still like the character, but it's a shame that they chose to undo that progress.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I always thought Dean should have been split in half; one version stays with Ben and Lisa and the other one goes off with Dean. Like on FARSCAPE!


I thought the finale was okay and they introduced a new situation for the next season. It felt a little (deliberately) anti-climactic, but that's okay. I enjoyed the ride. There were lots of nice, quiet character moments. I did think that Amara desperately needed more characterization in order to make her decision at the end more convincing, though.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I will post about Supernatural in a bit (typing with my thumbs now) but I wanted to point out an example of the bad publicity surrounding the Cap/Hydra decision.

Today is Memorial Day. People are honoring those who gave their lives for our country and our freedom . I saw a post from Dallas Comic Con using an image of Captain America at a grave, to serve as their way of remembering... and the replies were "Hail Hydra".

We all know that it will be reset and the story may end up being great, but they needed to weigh it against the image that they want to put out there. Especially around Memorial Day, because so many people use him as their way for geeks to honor those who have fallen.

At the very least, it's release was timed poorly.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I dunno. I'm currently writing an action sequence where the sliders are investigating a series of peculiar suicides. It could come out in September near Suicide Awareness Day. Should any story that inspires negative emotions be barred from release because a story element designed to create conflict and evoke concern might come when somebody is conceivably having a bad day?

That said, comics, more than any medium, seem a little overfond of one particular narrative device -- the fakeout. I think of HEROES as a TV show that reflected comics' worst traits and the fakeout was one of the most overused devices on the show. Sylar is Peter's brother! Hal Jordan is a mass murderer! Daredevil has become a supervillain with an army of bloodthirsty ninjas! Spider-Man has been killed and replaced with Dr. Octopus! Professor X is dead! Cyclops is dead! Wolverine is dead! Peter has become a Sylar-esque serial killer! Nathan is dead! Mohinder is dead! Sylar is dead! Claire is dead! Peter is dead! Captain America is dead! Captain America has lost the super soldier serum and aged into an old man! Captain America is an agent of HYDRA! No, not really, just kidding.

The thing is -- even if Captain America were really turned into a HYDRA agent and this is how the writer is going to keep the character going forward -- some future writer would someday undo it. Marv Wolfman was pretty sure Barry was dead forever, Ron Marz declared that Hal Jordan should rest in peace, Marvel was certain Peter Parker's days as Spider-Man were done -- but the truth is that these characters carry on indefinitely and some nostalgic writer will hit the reset button eventually. It's so inevitable that writers have decided to set up and trigger their own reset buttons.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I just mean, Captain America has always been used as a symbol. That is how they have always wanted him to be seen, from the moment he punched Hitler in the face. He was the embodiment of what every American wished they could be. That's why people use him as the image they post on Memorial Day.

For that reason, I think it was bad timing. By this time next year, I'm sure everything will be fine. But right now, it sparked a lot of comments and I think it added to the negative feeling toward the story.

You know I'm not someone who thinks that every story should be safe an happy, or that every story should even make the audience feel good in the end (you've read my work!). I just think that the character needs to live up to their purpose. Cap's purpose for being is to be a symbol. I think that's why there has been so many negative reactions to this.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The fact that Cap has always been used as a symbol is actually a bit of a handicap with a character whose adventures have been running since 1941. It's a description of every Cap story for seven decades. Which would suggest that surely there's space for the one story where Cap's symbolism is corrupted and twisted and broken -- if only to see what would happen. And maybe it won't work, but the truth is that Cap has endured many, many bad stories over the year because he's a very difficult character to write. One more won't do him any harm, and there'll be another 70 years of stories of Cap as a symbol afterwards. You could suck out Steve's brain (which has actually happened a few times), shoot him dead (which happened in the same story), blow him up (happens every other month), send him to a rape camp (well, he's been in concentration camps), turn him into a computer (it happened!), leave him unstuck in time (happened), merge his consciousness with another person (in Cap's case it was the Red Skull) and cancel his comic (it happened twice) -- and it happens over and over and over again and he just keeps coming back.

You know, there was a long period -- a very long period -- when Oliver Queen was dead as a doornail. GREEN ARROW comics featured Ollie's son, Connor Hawke. From 1996 - 2001, Oliver Queen was gone. Now that era is just a footnote. Can you even imagine it? I was there and I can barely believe it ever happened at all.

It's kind of comforting. It's what SLIDERS couldn't give me.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

All true. However, Captain America only recently achieved a level of pop culture status, outside of the comic book fan community. It's still a relatively new relationship that he has with those people who came on board with the movies.

The story may be valid. We all know that it will eventually be undone (though some out there may not be aware of such things). But it is a risky move, to violate the character's core purpose in such a way. It has made for some bad press already.

I did know about Connor... which could lead me on a rant about the Arrow writers once again showing their lack of appreciation for the source material. But I won't do that.

At any rate, there is something that we might both finally agree on when it comes to comic book movies. X-Men Apocalypse.

Looks horrible. Didn't perform too well. I am not a fan of the X-Men movies in general, unless you count Deadpool. smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21


CAP #2 reveals that the Red Skull used the Cosmic Cube to alter Steve Rogers' memories to make him think he's an agent of HYDRA. SHOCK! GASP! ASTONISHMENT!

(Except that this was clearly set up in #1 with the presence of the Cube and its reality and memory altering powers being established -- meaning that the majority of those who torched Marvel, the writer and the story for #1's tale obviously hadn't read it and were lashing out with zero context and no meaningful information on which to build an opinion.)

And now follow the dumbass reactions from people claiming Marvel have reversed course in response to backlash -- except that comics tend to be written and drawn at least a COUPLE MONTHS IN ADVANCE AND THIS ISSUE SHIPPED ON TIME FOR GOD'S SAKE.


Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21


But then again, I've seen people say that they're still pissed and won't be returning to their subscriptions. So yeah, they should have known better.  But that doesn't change the fact that this was a pretty bad publicity stunt. They went out of their way to make it seem like this was for real and not any form of mind control, which was pretty much a lie. I don't think that did them any good.

I don't think either side wins this argument.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I really don't know why this has shocked so many people; Marvel has been doing the "villain in disguise" routine with all of its heroes.  Superior Spider-man; Superior Ironman; Superior Hulk (Mr. Green) - now Cap is getting his turn.

My issue with Captain America continuity right now is that they had Red Skull steal the brain from Charles Xavier's dead body and transplant part of it into his head so that Skull can have mind control powers.  Besides being outlandish, it's just sad to think that's how Xavier has ended up.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Temporal Flux wrote:

My issue with Captain America continuity right now is that they had Red Skull steal the brain from Charles Xavier's dead body and transplant part of it into his head so that Skull can have mind control powers.  Besides being outlandish, it's just sad to think that's how Xavier has ended up.

This is a strange opinion coming from the man who wrote the (brilliant) story where Quinn becomes his own timer, a story that was clearly inspired by the loose rules of superhero comic books. As for Xavier, I doubt he'll stay dead forever. I imagine his situation will be something like taking over the Red Skull's body and remaking it into his own appearance, assuming he isn't revived via time travel or an alternate universe version whose memories get merged with the 616 Xavier (not that we use 616 anymore) or revealing that the Xavier who died during AVENGERS VS. X-MEN was an impostor or revealing that Xavier faked his own death and has been hiding in the X-Mansion basement to prepare for an alien invasion (again).

Informant wrote:

They went out of their way to make it seem like this was for real and not any form of mind control, which was pretty much a lie. I don't think that did them any good.


I don't understand how you could possibly ask a writer and a publishing company to work in the fashion you suggest. Cap's behaviour in CAP #1 was a mystery. This is god-damn serial fiction. Mysteries tend to be sustained over a period of time. The fact that they revealed all by #2 is already very fast.

Should CSI start putting all the answers to their mysteries in popup text at the start of every episode just in case the viewers find it too stressful to wonder who the murderer is? Should THE FLASH have had a post-credits segment after the Season 2 premiere to explain all of Jay's secrets rather than letting them come out in the story?

There's also the fact that CAP #1 was completely upfront and clear about what was going on. The issue explains that the Cosmic Cube has the power to alter reality and change people's memories. The issue shows us a version of Steve Rogers' backstory and childhood that has been altered and changed. The story could not have been any clearer THAT CAP'S MEMORIES ARE BEING ALTERED even if it only made it explicitly clear in dialogue in #2.

Again, your complaints are giving me the strong, strong indication that you have not read the comic book you're criticizing. The writers and editors were completely up front that CAP IS NOT BEING MIND CONTROLLED AND THIS IS REALLY STEVE ROGERS. His memories are being altered, which is a very different approach.

Cap's memories have been rewritten to make him think he's something he's not while leaving his free will and personality intact, so he's carrying out what he thinks is his lifelong mission (Hail HYDRA) while acting on his personal values and beliefs (teamwork, sacrifice, responsibility, freedom and protecting the innocent) -- but his tampered memories now make him think that fighting for HYDRA is the way he's always tried to fight for truth and justice.

That is what is so interesting about this story: what if Cap's heroic and admirable qualities were suddenly put on the other side of the war against Marvel's supervillains? HYDRA doesn't think of themselves as evil; they think of themselves as liberating humanity from their failings and weaknesses through technology and accepting the deaths of some innocents to save even more from themselves; what if Cap were manipulated to buy into that? Holy crap! How the hell can you critique marketing of a story properly if you don't read the story?!?!?

How can people claim it's unclear if AXANAR profits from their unlicensed STAR TREK films when the profit is shown on the AXANAR website??!!??

How can RussianCabbieLotteryFan declare that Laurel Hills should be removed from SLIDERS REBORN and isn't important to the plot when he read only 50 pages?!?!? (Spoiler alert: LAUREL IS QUINN'S DAUGHTER.)

How can ireactions claim to be paying tribute to Robert Floyd by writing a screenplay for Rob that Rob has no hope in hell of understanding!?!?!?!?

How can this bread claim to have one gram of net carbohydrates when it uses white flour!?!?!?!?

(Sorry. Sorry. Got a touch over the top here. Nothing but love for you Informant. Albeit with a touch of exasperation now and then. So it's exasperated love. I'm sure it's mutual. I'm going to go for a walk.)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I've been having the debate over whether or not altering someone's memories is a form of mind control since Willow altered Tara's memories and had sex with her. To me, that is rape. To others, it isn't.

I'm not criticizing the story. I'm talking about the interviews where writers swore that this wasn't a trick, or mind control or brainwashing. That is a lie. Altering someone's memories so that they will behave a certain way is clearly a form of mind control and brainwashing.

Writers and tv producers to this all the time, to sell the intrigue. But typically, fans don't react well to lies. Writers are better off being vague and evasive. Their interviews can hurt the way people read the actual story.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

(The following RAGE is strictly for comedic purposes and should not be taken seriously.)

I see no lies. Nick Spencer said: "This is not a clone, not an imposter, not mind control, not someone else acting through Steve. This really is Steve Rogers, Captain America himself." … m-brevoort

And what he said is correct. it isn't mind control. It's memory alteration. Mind control would be someone giving Steve instructions as to what to say and how to act and turning him into a drone. That is not what's happened here; Steve has been given a different history even though his personality has been left intact. His mind is not being controlled -- his memories have been revised. Why is the story so focused on the fact that this isn't mind control? Because that way, it's still possible to explore the Steve Rogers character in this sitaution. That is key to this story. He's been rewritten -- and turned loose in an act of spite by the Red Skull.

And also: at no point -- ever -- did the writers or editors say that Cap was now a full out villain and had been all along. Instead, what Spencer said on Cap being evil was, "That question will be answered, at least for the most part, in the next issue. That wasn’t something that we wanted to drag out." … llain.html

Editor Tom Brevoort also added, "No, Captain America is not a Nazi. I’m gonna say the same thing I’ve been saying. Captain America: Steve Rogers #2 will explain exactly why and exactly how we are where we are." … eader.html

I take no pleasure in saying this, but it seems to me that the only people lying would be the ones who refer to non-existent quotes like those morons on Twitter who think that CAP #2 was pulped, rewritten, redrawn and reprinted inside a month.

At no points did Spencer and Brevoort say that it wasn't "a trick" or that it wasn't "brainwashing" -- those are your words. Don't put your words in their mouths!

OMG, what a crime against literature to decline to spill the outcome of a story in interviews and instead let it emerge in the course of the next issue!

Greg Berlanti should also be deeply ashamed for killing off Jay Garrick and not immediately revealing in interviews that Jay isn't really dead or really even Jay. Agatha Christie should be executed for not putting the answers to all her mysteries in the introduction. JK Rowling should be shunned for waiting until the seventh HARRY POTTER to lay out Professor Snape's secret when she had an obligation to divulge all her twists and turns in the press! ireactions should kill himself because Laurel being Quinn's daughter isn't revealed until SLIDERS REBORN: PART 3 and maybe if he'd put that on the title page of PART 1, jackass supreme RussianCabbie would have held off on saying Laurel should but cut from the story based on the first 50 pages!

Kyle Andrews should be banished to a desert island with nothing but J. Michael Straczynski comics to read because FREEDOM/HATE didn't contain a bullet-point list at the end to tell me where the story's going!

... I need to lie down.

(Just being spirited, not really angry at Informant -- well, no angrier than my general state of anger at the human race. Sorry.)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Wait... didn't you ding Freedom/Hate (book one of six) for not providing adequate closure? So... there.

I still say that altering memories is a form of mind control. You're removing a person's experiences and decisions, and replacing them with stories and lies, so they will be what you want them to be. If I developed mental powers that allowed me to project thoughts into someone's head and I made them think that their friend is an enemy, or made a democrat believe they were republican, would that not be a form of mind control?

If you found out that someone had altered your memories of your life in order to make you what they wanted you to be, wouldn't you consider that mind control? It isn't just a matter of jumping when they say jump. It is about removing free will and what you've chosen up to that point.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

My criticism was that it wasn't a strong cliffhanger, not that it didn't provide closure.


I think mind control is a completely inadequate and imprecise term to describe Steve's situation, especially in a superhero comic book context where that term is used to describe turning someone into a drone, a puppet of another consciousness. Brainwashing would be closer (and was not ruled out), but even then, it's not entirely sufficient to capture the true horror of what the Red Skull has done.

I'd call it contextual behavioural modification where all of Steve's memories now have a purely additive but horrifically insidious and violating new element: he now thinks everything he ever did in over five decades of comics was part of a HYDRA operation. I'd call it a corruption of Steve's values, purpose, identity and twisting his life and mission into the reverse of everything he ever fought for -- while leaving his personality completely intact within this new life story in order to deepen the Red Skull's sadistic satisfaction in taking everything good about Steve -- his strategic brilliance, his self-sacrificing nature, his compassion for all, his belief in the power of ideas -- and make him think that the best way to use them is and always has been to work for HYDRA.

Again, there is a lot of nuance and subtlety in the writing. The Red Skull doesn't want Steve to be a puppet on a string. The Red Skull doesn't want Steve to be a robot. The Red Skull wants to corrupt Steve's essence and everything that gives him meaning by reversing his purpose while maintaining his nature -- in order to further make him suffer. It's a nuance, that, to be quite frank, is (a) completely in line with what Spencer and Brevoort said in the interviews and (b) invisible to people who DON'T READ THE GOD DAMN STORY WHILE HAVING NO ISSUE TEARING INTO IT!!!!!!

Uh. Is your new book out yet? I think I'll need to buy it and give it a glowing review just to balance things out a bit.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

ireactions wrote:
Temporal Flux wrote:

My issue with Captain America continuity right now is that they had Red Skull steal the brain from Charles Xavier's dead body and transplant part of it into his head so that Skull can have mind control powers.  Besides being outlandish, it's just sad to think that's how Xavier has ended up.

This is a strange opinion coming from the man who wrote the (brilliant) story where Quinn becomes his own timer, a story that was clearly inspired by the loose rules of superhero comic books.

lol  Well, there's fantasy science, and then there's the Nic Cage movie "Face Off".

With this Cap story, I can tell you where I think it's going to go.  The heroes find a way to save Cap by undoing every wish a cosmic cube has ever granted, but there is a cost.  Sam Wilson had his life changed by a cosmic cube; and if that's undone, who will he be?  I think Sam will end up being the one who has to make the decision; does he sacrifice himself to save Cap?  Changing Sam would leave only one Captain America in the Marvel Universe and give Steve his shield back; but Sam's noble decision will leave him as a new person who needs redemption.  It won't be a sacrifice of death; it will instead be a sacrifice that leaves a chance for Sam to find the heroes path again, and Cap will be there trying to help him find it.

Of course, the above scenario opens up some unknown possibilities.  If you reverse every wish, then what about the other wishes that we may not even know about.  Marvel could see some reality shifting with other things changing too.  Maybe not big things, but stuff just around the edges.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

My new book comes out Monday! And before anyone claims that I went back and rewrote this one because of what you said about the first one... I didn't.
Feel free to post reviews on all of the major book reviewing sites! I'm hoping to promote Freedom/Hate through BookBub when book 3 comes out in November. But it is hard to get accepted to BookBub and I'm not sure that I will have enough reviews by then.

Sorry. Sidetracked...

I still say that it is a form of mind control. I don't think that a person would have to become a zombie to qualify. Robbing someone of their life experience and their beliefs, and implanting new ones is definitely a form of mind control.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

You know, if you haven't read the comic, you should really shut the fuck up about it seeing as you can't possibly speak to it with any knowledge. I've read the comic, I can say with authority that it's contextual memory alteration via -- wait, what?! What? Oh. … s/pageno=2

Uh. Writer Nick Spencer did a new interview where he talked about how the Cosmic Cube has altered history -- as opposed to memory. Reality has been rewritten to rework Cap's backstory into someone who has been a HYDRA agent all along. It's not memory alteration or mind control. It's time travel. I guess I misread the issue or misunderstood something or missed a line of dialogue.

Well. That was embarrassing. I guess having read the comic didn't help me much, either. Sorry, Informant. What a screw up!

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I haven't commented on this specific story!!!



I don't kown whether I should be arguing or agreeing anymore. I'm confused.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant won't like this: … n#/slide/1

Another traditionally redheaded character possibly race-swapped.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Argh. Because redheads are expendable. sad

Whatever. I think the Marvel universe is fading anyway. Doctor Strange looks really lame, and the problem that they're going to have with Spider-Man is that he has been adapted many times over the years, unlike most of the Marvel characters. If they just release a typical, unremarkable Spider-Man movie, people will just stay home and watch their DVDs. This is a problem that Warner Bros is facing with Batman and Superman.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think it's hilarious that Informant is so far up DC's ass that CIVIL WAR's 1.152 billion in box office and adoring acclaim with two second-tier characters is a fadeaway while BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN's 873 million and middling reception with two cultural icons is some sort of transcendent rise to glory.


(Informant is still a brilliant writer, novelist and critic.)

186 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-08-19 14:20:32)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

My question is why they need to raceswap Mary Jane at all.  Why not just make it a new character?  I understand having to raceswap Johnny Storm or Wally West, but is Mary Jane crucial enough to have to include?  The did MJ, they did Gwen.  Create a new love interest.  Denise.  She's in Peter's class.  She's smart and fun and beautiful.  Done.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I wasn't criticizing their profits. smile

I just think that they've reached their high point in terms of story and pop culture appeal. Doctor Strange may appeal to the comic fans who know the character, but as someone who doesn't, the trailer just looked like a lamer version of Inception to me. And while Spider-Man is a great character, I think that using him will be more of a challenge than people are expecting.

Ultron didn't impress people.
I don't know many who are excited over Thor 3.
At this point, I think Guardians 2 is their best bet.

And I am not up DC's ass. I can be just as critical of their work. I just usually like it more.

We do agree that I'm brilliant though wink

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Thor 3 is going to get some extra buzz because they're mixing in Planet Hulk.  That's a story a lot of comic people would love to see, and I bet it's something that gets more buzz from casual audiences than a normal Hulk sequel.

Civil War did better as an Avengers 2 than Ultron did so while Ultron wasn't that big of a deal, Civil War made up for it.

I expect Doctor Strange will do well.  Not as well as the others but as well as Ant-Man.  It will depend on word of mouth.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I guess we'll see what happens. Maybe I'm just burned out.

Planet Hulk... Not being a Marvel guy, this means nothing to me. I guess it will be a surprise!

A rare picture of gloom for Marvel in the press... … good.html/

I still disagree with some elements (Joss Whedon not being difficult to work with) but it is an unusually anti-Marvel tone.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Back to the "black Mary Jane" story. 

Is it racist to ask that they just create a new character?  Because I've seen that accusation in the past, and it's not something I really understand.  For certain characters, I get it.  If you're trying to generate diversity among an established group (say, the Fantastic Four), then you have to race-swap someone.  Adding a new supporting character and having them assist the Fantastic Four wouldn't work, and swapping out Johnny Storm for a new black character doesn't work either.

For some, the answer is easier.  Hal Jordan was white.  Guy Gardner was white.  Kyle Raynor was white.  DC wanted a black Green Lantern so they made one.  And now, thanks to the Justice League cartoon, John Stewart is just as popular as any other Green Lantern.  Same with Miles Morales.  Peter Parker dies in the Ultimate universe, and he's replaced with a young black/Hispanic kid.  Now most comic fans know who he is.  It worked.

In some situations, the situation is a bit more lazy in my opinion.  Barry Allen, Jay Garrick, Wally West, and Bart Allen have all been the Flash.  But instead of adding a fifth Flash as a black man, they race-swapped Wally.  It's been shown that if you attach a new character to an existing brand, the new character can be successful.  But instead of elevating the new character to prominence, they altered Wally.

Now I get the challenges of creating a brand-new superhero.  For the most part, there aren't many popular new superheroes (black, white, or otherwise).  Almost all the successful Marvel and DC heroes are decades old. 

But my problem is with Mary Jane.  Mary Jane has been around for a while, and she's a key character in Peter's life.  But I don't know if she's crucial to the character of Peter Parker.  Yeah, he marries her in one continuity, but I don't think she *has* to be included for the character to work.  So why not do something different?  If they want Peter Parker to have a black girlfriend, that's great.  Comic movies do need more black women.

But why not create a new character?  Spider-Man: Homecoming is going to be a successful movie whether or not Mary Jane is in it.  It won't be made or broken by the female lead.  So why not try something new?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I don't think that it is racist. Comic book characters exist as images on a page. Certain elements of their look remain constant over the years because that is the only way for readers to connect to those characters. When they race swap, they remove everything that tells us who they are.

It doesn't always fail, but it fails more often than not. Race swapping is really no more viable than creating a new character. I think it does more harm than good, because it alienates the audience by showing them that the people creating the comic books don't respect the characters.

With TV shows and movies, I give a little more slack. I don't mind a black Perry White or an Asian Lana Lang (who was apparently playing white?). I just have to note that the redheads specifically are the ones that are swapped out. Maybe gingers don't sell well in foreign markets or something. It started off funny, but now it is just weird. I'm not going to stage a riot over it or anything, but it is weird.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

They clearly want to make a very diverse movie, and they should have just done Miles Morales.  It's the character and background they seem to want to portray, but I'm certain studios want the Peter Parker name recognition.  I don't think it's necessary to have the name, but studios latch on to stupid things because they think their consumers are stupid.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The name Peter Parker might sell.  Does the name Mary Jane Watson sell?  I'm sure some comic fans might be upset about a new character being invented, but they're seeing the movie regardless.  Non-comic fans won't know the difference.  They might've thought Gwen Stacy was a new character.

It's the same with Iris West in the Flash movie.  I know Iris is becoming like Nick Fury and known to new audiences as a black woman.  But other than its impact on Wally, who may or may not even appear in the DCEU, Iris has no impact on the story.  Barry's love interest could be a new character named Donna Williams and it wouldn't matter.

These are ancillary characters, and it really doesn't matter.  Even for main characters it doesn't matter.  It has always just seemed lazy to create diversity by race-swapping.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think that adding new characters is fine, but if you remove a character that fans want to see, you're just making another mistake. Barry Allen and Iris West may not be on the Clark and Lois level, but comic fans still know them and will reject something that is not a proper adaptation.

I like Iris on the TV series, but it was a mistake to cast another black actress in the role, solidifying that one image. New Wally was rejected by fans in the comics, but they are possibly locking themselves into that rejected version on screen.

The whole thing is a mess at this point. They're trying to force diversity instead of just being diverse. They don't need to be trying this hard. It is just creating more drama than is necessary.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think Jimmy Olsen was the ultimate in bad adaptation. They race swapped, while also completely reimagining the character in every possible way. And now when you question it, people assume you're just upset about his race. It actually irritates me when I can't just forget who he is supposed to be. It's one reason why the series as a whole is hard to swallow.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

When adapting universes that were created long ago, when all the writers were white and mostly didn't concern themselves with diversity, you either end up with unrealistically white casts or you have to make some adjustments.  Either course will draw criticism.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

As a Spider-Man obsessive, I cannot begin to express my complete and total indifference to Mary Jane being black. Mary Jane was created as a feminine representation of Stan Lee's extremely vague idea of what hippies were like, except his ignorance of drug culture led to him writing Mary Jane being a fountain of random non-sequiturs and making her name a euphemism for marijuana and presenting this as Mary Jane's natural personality whereas the hippies Stan based this character on were likely hallucinating on LSD and mushrooms.

Since then, Mary Jane has faded away and been replaced by various different characters with the same name and hair colour, so making Mary Jane black doesn't matter much to me when the original Mary Jane isn't in any way workable in this century.

198 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-08-21 10:22:03)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Again, I have no problem with Peter having a black girlfriend.  Or Barry Allen having a black girlfriend.  White male - black female relationships need to be represented because they're usually ignored in media.  It's a great way to add a level of diversity that no one else seems to be showing.

My point is that Iris West and Mary Jane Watson don't have character identification that's relevant.  Mary Jane is an actress and she's Peter's girlfriend.  Iris is a journalist and she's Barry's girlfriend.  Those are their two biggest descriptors.  So why not let Mary Jane (and Gwen) be students at Peter's school, but in this universe, Peter chooses someone else.  The idea that Mary Jane has to be white is just as laughable to me as the idea that Mary Jane has to be Peter's soulmate.

When you create a new character instead of race-swapping, you show that creating a new character works.  The new black girlfriend would join the ranks of new black characters that were created and stayed around despite the fact that their name wasn't one that was already popular.

It is odd that almost all the race-swapping is white to black.  Very few are white to Hispanic, and even less are white to Asian.  In fact, I can think of more Asian characters that were shown as white than the opposite.  The latest census shows that 13% of the US population is black, 5% is Asian, and 17% is Hispanic.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Hollywood is far more likely to turn Asian characters white than the other way around.  See Last Airbender, Starship Troopers, Aloha, 21, Argo, Edge of Tomorrow, Ghost in the Shell, The Hunger Games, Star Trek Into Darkness, and many others.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I think that making a previously Caucasian character black allows SPIDER-MAN HOMECOMING to get some media buzz, make some headlines, spark some chatter and raise the profile in a way the casting wouldn't if they cast Dove Cameron or Sabrina Carpenter to be Mary Jane.

(Yes, I watch LIV AND MADDIE and GIRL MEETS WORLD. Arrested adolescent here.)