Marvel Universe >> View Post
Post By
Evil G:DR

In Reply To
Nitz the Bloody

Subj: Re: Event Horizon
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 09:30:39 pm EDT (Viewed 17 times)
Reply Subj: Event Terminology
Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 07:00:18 pm EDT (Viewed 126 times)


      For God's Marvel events actually f***ing END anymore?

    To be fair, Dark Reign isn't an event so much as a line-wide re-branding, similar to DC's One Year Later. There isn't an actual " Dark Reign " event; the closest we come to that is Dark Avengers, which is positioned as an ongoing. The other stories branded " Dark Reign " don't have to tie-in beyond being in the present-day Marvel continuity where Norman is in charge.

    Contrast this to Civil War, which actually was an event in that it was a highly promoted mini-series dictating the directions of all its tie-ins ( and often doing so in a way that force writers to make apologies for, if not openly mock, Mark Millar's story ).

While you've correctly defined the difference between an actual crossover event, and the kind of "named era" we're seeing in things like "The Initiative" and "Dark Reign", I really have to be the one to stand up and say that I hate it when the tie-in books completely work against the main book by undermining it, from House of M tie-ins in which Our Lord Magneto is played as flat-out villainous in a missing-the-point way (and even contradict each other on whether Sunfire is good or evil), to Civil War tie-ins making the pro-registration side look far worse than the core book, to World War Hulk: Front Line flat-out stating that the heroes' evacuation of Manhattan left behind all the poor people and minorities on purpose.

If you're going to write a tie-in to a crossover, either get behind the main book, or don't write the tie-in at all. Undermining the main book like that is just hurts the overall storyline, and makes things woefully inconsistent, and there's usually no good reason for it at all. And no, "I don't agree with the politics of the pro-registration side" isn't an excuse for writing them as flat-out evil. You don't have to agree with the politics of a Green Arrow or a Hawkman to write them both as heroes at the same time in the same book.

Likewise, while the only outright mocking of anything from Civil War that I can remember is Slott's mockery of Penance, it's still the kind of thing that we shouldn't be seeing. If we're supposed to be taking the Big Event Storylines as a big deal, and whether the changes they bring are "the general public seriously thinks Norman Osborn is a hero" or "Speedball becomes self-stabby gimp boy", it just looks unprofessional if some other writer is taking shots at The Big Event Book, whether it's because he thinks it's stupid, or because he's bitter that they killed Hawkeye.

Back in the day, a Marvel writer would at least have the decency to write a mockery of DC's Events, and vice-versa, such as Claremont's 'Invasion' parody in UXM.

Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software