Marvel ruin another character (illuminati spoiler)

[JKCarrier]

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.

[tommyboy]

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.

[BlueBard]

If 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.

[Mowgli]

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.

[Bujin]

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)

[Ajax]

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]

[Podmark]

Uh Ajax, isn't the Beyonder a guy?

[tommyboy]

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.

[Ajax]

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)

[BlueBard]

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.

[Mowgli]

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.

[Alaric]

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.

[doctorchallenger]

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

[tommyboy]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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. 

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...

[crimsonquill]

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]

Bendis: 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]

NRAMA: 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.

[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]

[cripp12]

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. 

[BlueBard]

[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]

[crimsonquill]

[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

[Podmark]

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.

[tommyboy]

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]

*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:

[zuludelta]

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.

[Alaric]

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.

[zuludelta]

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.

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.   

 

[Alaric]

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.

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.

[zuludelta]

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.   

[B A D]

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

[cripp12]

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

[tommyboy]