Marvel Universe >> View Thread

Author
zeus


Location: Plano, IL
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


The only pre-Annihilation story of Starlord's that I have is the Starlord Special Edition comic written by Claremont. The marvel database wiki lists this as an alternate reality Starlord, but I didn't see anything there that precluded the story from happening in 616. When we meet Starlord in Annihilation, he's battle hardened, and regrets his actions as Starlord. It's all pretty vague. Is there any reason the pre-Annihilation Starlord stories we know HAVE to be out of 616 continuity?


Posted with Google Chrome 87.0.4280.142 on Linux
Grey Gargoyle


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


Yes, I'd suggest that you read the webpage that the Marvel Appendix has dedicated to the conundrum of the Three Jasons.
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/jasonspa.htm
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Earth-791

Claremont & Byrne story is easily one of the best but, without any doubt, it happened in a parallel reality.
https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Marvel_Preview_Vol_1_11

Anyway, neither Peter nor the original Jason have the same personality than their current mainstream versions.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 87.0 on Windows NT 4.0
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,228


Look at it this way.

Marvel had a continuity that had stood the test of time, with some minor exceptions like Teen Tony Stark. It was still a continuity free of reboots.

Around the time that Marvel gave Brian M. Bendis and Mark Millar, and Straczynski, and whoever did X-23 where she was a prostitute, etc., much freer reign with how the characters were depicted, around that same time the JLA/Avengers team up was wrapping up. At the end of that miniseries, the Marvel Universe was rebooted.

After that, Marvel stories went in a lot of different directions, some of which a lot of people haven't liked, but they have been a lot of fun.

My point is, the overall Marvel story that started with FF#1 ended with JLA/Avengers. Everything that came after that, that people called Nu-Marvel for a while, that is all a new version of Marvel with more fluid continuity and far fewer rules. And if you need a clear point for that split and an in-story reason for why that is, the JLA/Avengers miniseries is an excellent factor.

If you're skeptical, if you think I'm going a little overboard, OK, I understand. But after the recent Secret Wars event, where Beyonders and incursions destroyed reality and Doom became a Beyonder-god and welcomed all of the various alternate versions and different eras to exist simultaneously, and THEN rebooted the whole MU, by that point you have to admit it beyond a doubt. We are in a new and fluid continuity and therefore can more easily embrace and incorporate alternate realities and retcons.

So, the old StarLord stories had to be in an alternate continuity at the time. The way it is now though, they could even revisit those stories or bring in characters from them. That Starlord and our Starlord can team up now if someone wants to write that. At present, it can be in an alternate reality that is still part of the huge and cloudy current MU. DC has the same deal. I don't think it was wise for Marvel to become just like DC, because I loved that Marvel had a solid foundation and a firm basis for their universe.

But I'm not the guy making the decisions, and I can recognize that Marvel can be a lot more fun now without having any continuity to have to maintain,


Posted with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.90 on Windows 10
Ancient One 

Manager

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,613



    Quote:
    But I'm not the guy making the decisions, and I can recognize that Marvel can be a lot more fun now without having any continuity to have to maintain,


I have to disagree.

When I started reading comics the contemporary DC Universe was about 12 years old, and the Marvel Universe about 10. In particular (Because they were my two favourite series) the Legion was 10 years old, and the Avengers roughly 5.

I loved what I was reading in the books I was buying off the stands, and I wanted to know more. Had the Hulk really been an Avenger? What planet was Timber Wolf from? When did Black Panther join the team? Wait! Lightning Lad died? How? And how did he come back? A big part of the enjoyment of these comics was exploring the histories of the characters.

With no definitive history, that enjoyment is gone. There's nothing to explore. Nothing WORTH exploring.

It happened to me with the Legion. I followed the team diligently for 20 years. Then Keith Giffen threw the series' continuity out the window. The events of the last 30 years either happened differently, or hadn't happened at all. And I was done. All the time and effort I'd put in learning about the characters and situations was pretty much for nothing. I was being told to start again. No thanks. I stopped buying the book, and haven't bought it since.

Why should I invest myself in reading stories in an episodic medium if two years down the line I'm going to be told those stories never happened, or don't matter?

The constantly morphing universes of modern Marvel and DC hold no interest for me. It's not that you can't tell good stories in such a framework, it's just that I don't care about them.

Without the bedrock of continuity, they're building their houses on nothing but shifting sand.


Posted with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.90 on Windows 10
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,228


Now I have to disagree, lol.

Not about the main points you make, about that I do agree. That's why I said I don't think it was a good idea for Marvel to adopt DC's fluid and constantly changing continuity style.

I do think that most things have a flipside, though. And the flipside here is that Marvel could do something like the Annihilation, Civil War or Sins Past, things that would not have worked in pre Nu-Marvel, and those are fun ideas that I enjoy.

You and I loved hearing about past continuity and finding those stories, and building our knowledge base with each new and fun discovery (I think the first such fun discovery for me when I was just starting reading comics was learning that there had been a team called the Defenders, and that it was the Hulk, Namor, the Surfer, and Dr. Strange).

But new readers will never do that. They can't. They can't tolerate the art or the dialog of older comics. Anything pre-80's is anathema to them. up to late 90's even. They aren't interested.

It's a new readership and it's multimedia and everything is online and easy to find. And if you don't want to read the stuff, you can just read about all of it on Wikipedia. The zoomers aren't going to spend 45 minutes going through dollar boxes. They aren't going to suffer through an Al Milgrom job or a Don Perlin job out of love for the story.

But onto where we disagree: Keith Giffen on Legion.

To me, Keith Giffen revelled in Legion history, he brought it all to life and had fun with it.

To me, it wasn't Giffen that threw out their continuity. That was DC's powers that be, and they did most of it when they acceded to Byrne's wishes and erased Superboy from Legion history, and then came up with that "pocket universe" thing that no one could ever like. Keith, after COIE, was just rolling with the punches as best as he could, and he still had a lot of fun with it and made it fun for me.


Posted with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.90 on Windows 10
Ancient One 

Manager

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,613



    Quote:
    Now I have to disagree, lol.


Lol! 'Tis the spice of life!


    Quote:
    I do think that most things have a flipside, though. And the flipside here is that Marvel could do something like the Annihilation, Civil War or Sins Past, things that would not have worked in pre Nu-Marvel, and those are fun ideas that I enjoy.


I can't speak for Annihilation, which I've never read, but the other two are poster children for why continuity should stand, in my book.
Civil War was a good idea, but a lousy execution, but Sins Past was just start to finish awful.


    Quote:
    But new readers will never do that. They can't. They can't tolerate the art or the dialog of older comics. Anything pre-80's is anathema to them. up to late 90's even. They aren't interested.


Oh, you'd be surprised. I'm active on Facebook groups dedicated to Epic Collections and Omnibus', and we have a good number of younger members who buy the silver and bronze age material and enjoy it, especially popular characters like Spider-Man and X-Men.

One of the things that's blown my mind is: The Epic Collection that practically no one wanted to get before it came out, has become one of the most popular series with members of all ages there. The Moench/Gulacy Master of Kung Fu run. It's everything that SHOULDN'T work for today's audience. Plot heavy, dialogue heavy and old style art. And yet it's sold (Within the group) on word of mouth, initially with old farts like me promoting it, but practically everyone who's taken a chance on it loves it. The 80's Moon Knight material has also proven very popular.


    Quote:
    It's a new readership and it's multimedia and everything is online and easy to find. And if you don't want to read the stuff, you can just read about all of it on Wikipedia. The zoomers aren't going to spend 45 minutes going through dollar boxes. They aren't going to suffer through an Al Milgrom job or a Don Perlin job out of love for the story.


Just try getting hold of the three volumes of the Werewolf by Night Complete Collection, or the WbN omnibus. You have a hard time finding them at scalper's prices, and a near impossible task at cover. Perlin is the main artist on that series, yet we get as many younger readers demanding a reprint as older ones.


    Quote:
    But onto where we disagree: Keith Giffen on Legion.


(Dons crash helmet. Puts on boxing gloves)


    Quote:
    To me, Keith Giffen revelled in Legion history, he brought it all to life and had fun with it.


Giffen thinks it's the worst team in superhero history. He has no respect for it, the characters, their powers, the situations, and he's even derogatory towards it's fans.

I honestly believe he lobbied hard for the book when Levitz left believing that DC would let him do whatever he wanted with such a niche title. When he found out he was wrong he threw a hissy fit and left the book (Blowing up the Earth in a fit of pique as a final middle finger to editorial, the book and it's fans). Take a look at this interview with Giffen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTxnrms9C94&t=962s

It's hard to believe that someone this dismissive of everything about the Legion could ever have wanted to work on the book at all.


    Quote:
    To me, it wasn't Giffen that threw out their continuity. That was DC's powers that be, and they did most of it when they acceded to Byrne's wishes and erased Superboy from Legion history, and then came up with that "pocket universe" thing that no one could ever like. Keith, after COIE, was just rolling with the punches as best as he could, and he still had a lot of fun with it and made it fun for me.


The 'pocket universe' was probably the only way out of that situation while leaving the Legion's history intact. And it did remain intact. The Crisis hit in issues 16 - 18 of volume 3, and the Legion sails merrily on for over three and a half years unchanged. And it would have continued thus had it not been for Keith Giffen.

He admits in the above interview that he clashed with editorial from day one of his taking over the book. And within four issues he'd so angered the editors of the Superman books that they got an injunction against him using Superman in the book at all. Even retroactively.

What the hell did he want to do to Superman that made the editors take such a drastic step?

No, Giffen was the prime mover in destroying Legion continuity.


Posted with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.90 on Windows 10
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,228


Thank you for that video! That was wonderful. So funny!

If you go to minute 45, Keith says that taking Superman out of legion history was entirely the Powers that be, not him.


Posted with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.90 on Windows 10
Superman's Pal

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,391



    Quote:
    I don't think it was a good idea for Marvel to adopt DC's fluid and constantly changing continuity style.

As a DC fan, I don't think it was good idea for DC either. Having said that, I always maintain that Crisis on Infinite Earths was one of my first exposure's to DC after I became a serious comic reader and I thought it was the greatest story ever told in comics. I can see why the old timers didn't like doing away with the multiverse at that time. But if you go back, even splitting their history into Earth-1 and -2 back in the 1960s was a serious retcon of printed history that didn't make a whole lot of sense.

But once you go as big as you can with Crisis, which was really the biggest publishing event they ever did and I'm not sure anything they've done since as really ever topped it, I think it's foolish to keep trying to repeat it. And rebooting the entire company just to satisfy one or two creators who don't want to do their homework or "be held prisoner by all the bad stories of the past" seems foolish.

I'm never in favor of cancelling a series to make way for the remake, because it limits story possibilities. With continuity you can tell new stories or build upon old ones. If you get rid of the old ones, you have just halved your story possibilities.


    Quote:
    You and I loved hearing about past continuity and finding those stories, and building our knowledge base with each new and fun discovery (I think the first such fun discovery for me when I was just starting reading comics was learning that there had been a team called the Defenders, and that it was the Hulk, Namor, the Surfer, and Dr. Strange).


Even at DC I always liked when they would leave footnotes. When a character would appear there'd be a little box at the bottom of the panel saying "this character was last seen ..." and give the issue number. I hated when that went away. If they'd moved that kind of notation to the letters page I'd have been okay with that, but then they dropped the letters pages. Which was a sad day.

What was odd that even sometimes after the Crisis they'd footnote a character's old Pre-Crisis appearances. I spent lot of time hunting through the LCS for back issues so I could see the backstory. I'm sure they stopped doing that because they'd rather the fans buy a new TPB of the same story.


    Quote:
    But new readers will never do that. They can't. They can't tolerate the art or the dialog of older comics. Anything pre-80's is anathema to them. up to late 90's even. They aren't interested.

The more exposed to it they are, the more they get used to it. As a child of the '80s really, I used to find it hard to watch stuff even from the '70s. I remember once trying to watch Dirty Harry so I could watch the whole series and I just couldn't do it. A few years later I watched it and didn't even notice any datedness. I can go back to the 30s now on film, and while I see the difference, it doesn't bother me.

Having grown up on 80s comics I found at some point that I could go back to the 60s without much shock, but Golden Age stuff seemed alien to me, the artwork and writing style. It's still not my favorite but I'm more used to it now. Anyone can get used to anything, I think.


    Quote:
    It's a new readership and it's multimedia and everything is online and easy to find. And if you don't want to read the stuff, you can just read about all of it on Wikipedia. The zoomers aren't going to spend 45 minutes going through dollar boxes. They aren't going to suffer through an Al Milgrom job or a Don Perlin job out of love for the story.

I shouldn't admit this but ... I did find some sites a while back for downloading old comics. I was able to go through tons of old stuff I'd never be able to track down at the LCS. Someone is obviously maintaining this stuff in digital form, and I'm sure at least some of them are Zoomers.


    Quote:
    To me, it wasn't Giffen that threw out their continuity. That was DC's powers that be, and they did most of it when they acceded to Byrne's wishes and erased Superboy from Legion history, and then came up with that "pocket universe" thing that no one could ever like. Keith, after COIE, was just rolling with the punches as best as he could, and he still had a lot of fun with it and made it fun for me.

Didn't Byrne even say that ditching Superboy was not his idea, that it came from above?

Did Keith even write LSH solo? I thought he was always co-writing with the Bierbaums, or were they later?



Posted with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.90 on MacOS X
Ancient One 

Manager

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,613



    Quote:
    Thank you for that video! That was wonderful. So funny!


You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed it.


    Quote:
    If you go to minute 45, Keith says that taking Superman out of legion history was entirely the Powers that be, not him.


Yes, but they took Superman away from the book *because* of him. He says it himself: "It got so fractious that they said 'That's it'"!

Editorial were quite happy with Levitz' solution. And they never said 'You can never even mention Superboy again'. The Crisis hits in issues 16-18 (Nov 85 - Jan 86), the pocket universe/Death of Superboy occurs in #37 and 38 (Aug/Sept 87). Even after that, Superboy is used as the motivation for the battle with the Time Trapper in issue 50 (Sept 88), and his statue shows up in the Hall of Heroes in #59 (Apr 89).

No, I hold Giffen fully responsible for the horrors of Five Years Later.




Posted with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.90 on Windows 10
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,228


>> As a DC fan, I don't think it was good idea for DC either. Having said that, I always maintain that Crisis on Infinite Earths was one of my first exposure's to DC after I became a serious comic reader and I thought it was the greatest story ever told in comics.


That's about the same as me then. I started reading DC comics a few months before COIE started and I loved it then, and I appreciate and love it even more now.

>> But once you go as big as you can with Crisis, which was really the biggest publishing event they ever did and I'm not sure anything they've done since has really ever topped it, I think it's foolish to keep trying to repeat it.

I was able to follow DC continuity up to the "New Earth" that was created after Infinite Crisis. But they threw THAT New Earth away VERY quickly. Whatever they have done since launching the New 52 as far as a Divergence and a Convergence and a New Earth and a Dark Metalverse and now this "Future State" thing... I don't know what any of that is, and I'm no longer invested enough to find out. DC was addicted to the attention they got from their reboots and they ended up in a state of permanent reboot, and nothing matters anymore. They just do whatever and they twist the characters to just be whatever.

>>> Didn't Byrne even say that ditching Superboy was not his idea, that it came from above?

I think so. I may be bringing some of my bias into laying it all at his feet, but it really does seem like the kind of thing he really gets into doing, coming onto a title and throwing out it's past history, as if the talent handling the books before he came along just didn't matter.

>>> Did Keith even write LSH solo? I thought he was always co-writing with the Bierbaums, or were they later?

As I remember, right at first, the 5 Years Later relaunch was just Keith writing and then the Bierbaums came in and co-plotted with him, eventually taking it over right around the time they introduced the 2nd title for the batch of young Legionnaires clones.


Posted with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.90 on Windows 10
Daveym

Moderator

Location: Lancashire
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




    Quote:
    Yes, but they took Superman away from the book *because* of him. He says it himself: "It got so fractious that they said 'That's it'"!

I didn't take that away from that interview, and Giffen has talked about this elsewhere, he has always been clear on the fact he absolutely did not want to do that reboot in issue #4 onwards. He was ordered/forced to do it.
The problem as I understood it was Mike Carlin. Carlin was an excellent editor, but a very opinionated one. Being chief on the Superman books gave him enormous power and he had the power of veto over a book like the Legion where the use of the Superman/Superboy use was concerned. Carlin was also instrumental in ending the excellent Len Strazewski/Mike Parobeck Justice Society and no doubt what would happen to them In Zero Hour - https://www.cbr.com/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-13/

None of this is me saying I agreed with, or liked, a lot of Keith Giffen's decisions on that v4 Legion of Super-Heroes. Like you I think it is entirely fair to say he did indeed finally kill the Legion as any viable concern with that series, but whatever politics were going on when he began that series I am very confident the problems were coming from a place very similar to what Len Strazewski and Mike Parobeck had to contend with... you can't fight that sort of 'on-High' interference, especially from someone as vindictive as Mike Carlin clearly could be.



Posted with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.90 on Windows 10
Ancient One 

Manager

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,613



I didn't take that away from that interview, and Giffen has talked about this elsewhere, he has always been clear on the fact he absolutely did not want to do that reboot in issue #4 onwards. He was ordered/forced to do it.

Yeah, I'm with you all the way. Giffen was forced to do it. No question.

But *why* was he forced to do it?

Carlin took over the Superman titles in early '87, and for two years - two years - there's no problem with the pocket universe Superboy/Superman being part of Legion continuity. Then Giffen takes over and within four issues editorial is taking their toys away from him. So what was so different between Levitz' approach to the characters and Giffen's that they'd take such a drastic step?

What I'm saying is: If Giffen hadn't been there, if a different writer had taken over the series, a less contentious writer, a writer with more respect for the characters, I don't think the reboot would have happened.





Posted with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.114 on Windows 10
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,228


>>> What I'm saying is: If Giffen hadn't been there, if a different writer had taken over the series, a less contentious writer, a writer with more respect for the characters, I don't think the reboot would have happened.

OK, that is fine, but it is still entirely your speculation.


Posted with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.90 on Windows 10
Quantum


Member Since: Sun Dec 21, 2008
Posts: 2,228


Mike Carlin was one of Marvel's more public faces when I started reading comics in the mid 80's and I always thought he was a fun guy. But over the past few years I've decided he's a douchebag.

First, Byrne says that his bafflingly bad reboot of the Doom Patrol was enabled by Mike Carlin derping "Do you just want to "Man of Steel it?" which really doesnt work as a description of just throwing out all continuity and starting fresh when the rest of the universe ISN'T ALSO being rebooted.

2nd, an unpleasant interaction I had with him on Facebook.

Third, this thing about Strazewski and Parobeck's Justice League title?
Pffh, that's Strike 3. F that guy.


Posted with Google Chrome 89.0.4389.90 on Windows 10

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2021 Powermad Software