• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

It never happened...

Yes but those are two separate types of elements. The war stuff is to make the characters "relevant" to the time they were written/published. No different than clothing, hairstyles and music. "Window Dressing" is the term pros use. Doom's face is about the character.
 
I agree it's mainly just back-story but here's a side-question - are there any characters *should* be different in some way because their back-story has been bumped up the timeline?

That is to say, that their back-story relies on some historical event that they can no longer be a part of?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any character to which that rule would apply.
 
Steve Englehart was my favorite writer back in the day, so I was quite saddened when he left Marvel and his books were left (mostly) in the hands of inferiors. I had been especially psyched about his Occult History of America storyline in Doc Strange, so that would definitely be at the top of my list.

I also loved the reappearance of the Whizzer in modern continuity and the idea that he was the father of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. Of course, back then, we were still close enough in time to WWII to make that work.

I also remember when Spider-Woman was supposed to be an evolved spider. If I remember right, they abandoned that because Wolverine was supposed to be an evolved Wolverine and they didn't want to use the same gimmick twice (and why not? They re-use gimmicks all the time). Or maybe that was the other way around.

I thought it as the other way around and then they abandoned the evolved spider because it was just too creepy for the powers that be.
Could be. It's been a long time....
 
I agree it's mainly just back-story but here's a side-question - are there any characters *should* be different in some way because their back-story has been bumped up the timeline?

That is to say, that their back-story relies on some historical event that they can no longer be a part of?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any character to which that rule would apply.

The 1980s "Captain Atom" series was heavily tied to the year 1968, to a time-jump of 18 years that let the main character be approximately the same age as his children, to Southeast Asia, and, to a certain extent, the events of the Reagan administration. I'm sure there's a workaround or update that could be applied -- but it isn't as simple as just declaring that it was now the first Gulf War instead of Viet Nam.

This isn't quite the same thing, but at some point Namor is going to be too apparently young (even for an Atlantean) to have been plausibly born in 1920.

And of course, "Armageddon 2001" is problematic today.... :p
 
I agree it's mainly just back-story but here's a side-question - are there any characters *should* be different in some way because their back-story has been bumped up the timeline?

That is to say, that their back-story relies on some historical event that they can no longer be a part of?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any character to which that rule would apply.
Magneto, as he's supposedly a Holocaust survivor born in 1928.
 
I agree it's mainly just back-story but here's a side-question - are there any characters *should* be different in some way because their back-story has been bumped up the timeline?

That is to say, that their back-story relies on some historical event that they can no longer be a part of?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any character to which that rule would apply.

The 1980s "Captain Atom" series was heavily tied to the year 1968, to a time-jump of 18 years that let the main character be approximately the same age as his children, to Southeast Asia, and, to a certain extent, the events of the Reagan administration. I'm sure there's a workaround or update that could be applied -- but it isn't as simple as just declaring that it was now the first Gulf War instead of Viet Nam.

This isn't quite the same thing, but at some point Namor is going to be too apparently young (even for an Atlantean) to have been plausibly born in 1920.

And of course, "Armageddon 2001" is problematic today.... :p

Hah - I think the basis of Captain Atom would still be intact, he'd be part of an experiment in... em.. 1992 and leaped forward to now. Having said that, as far as I can tell from the most recent Captain Atom series, they simply threw everything out and started from scratch anyway.
 
I agree it's mainly just back-story but here's a side-question - are there any characters *should* be different in some way because their back-story has been bumped up the timeline?

That is to say, that their back-story relies on some historical event that they can no longer be a part of?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any character to which that rule would apply.
Magneto, as he's supposedly a Holocaust survivor born in 1928.


That is slightly more problematically because while they have de-aged Magneto a few times that all happened *after* the x-men form, if you work on the basis that the heroic age starts ten years ago* from whatever today is, he's what.. 70 when he first meets them. The other thing about sliding time-lines is that in both the DCU and the Marvel Universe, we are now at the stage were heroes emerged in the modern age *post* 911. The other oddity was that until they recently decoupled the Punisher from the Vietnam war (He seems to be a gulf war veteran), he was basically the first hero of the modern era.

* Yes I know that you can't get this stuff to add up and it makes no sense, it's impossible but we can still have fun discussing it.

Talking of WW2 - was there every an infinite formula or similar explanation for how Dum Dum Dugan is still running around kicking ass at the age of 90 or so?
 
Hah - I think the basis of Captain Atom would still be intact, he'd be part of an experiment in... em.. 1992 and leaped forward to now. Having said that, as far as I can tell from the most recent Captain Atom series, they simply threw everything out and started from scratch anyway.

If you consider the basis of Captain Atom to just be "guy who gained quantum powers during a tragic chrome-plating experiment", yes. But your question was about the character's backstory, which in this case was rooted heavily in that time and place. It's an example of what you said, which is why they threw it out.

That is to say, that their back-story relies on some historical event that they can no longer be a part of

I just realized something. An example of the flip side of that discussion is in your avatar. The "Watchmen" characters and their backstories rely so heavily on historical events that they would become radically different if they were bumped up the timeline-- but no one wants to rock the boat. Hence, we got a movie that was still set in the 1980s.

I'm still waiting for an explanation for Dum Dum, too.
 
The ultimate retcon...

Jean Grey as Dark Phoenix...or rather, not.

This is what started weaning me off comics in the first place. :klingon:
 
Hah - I think the basis of Captain Atom would still be intact, he'd be part of an experiment in... em.. 1992 and leaped forward to now. Having said that, as far as I can tell from the most recent Captain Atom series, they simply threw everything out and started from scratch anyway.

If you consider the basis of Captain Atom to just be "guy who gained quantum powers during a tragic chrome-plating experiment", yes. But your question was about the character's backstory, which in this case was rooted heavily in that time and place. It's an example of what you said, which is why they threw it out.

I guess so, they did that neat thing where he got a job in a 1960s shop. Something you notice about Captain Atom in his own comic is that he had a sense of humour something that never goes across in any of his other appearances.
 
Yeah, they kept referring to all his terrible jokes. They didn't even mention that in JLI and JLE. He was appearing there at the same time, and it would have been easy for those "humor" titles. I didn't follow most of his later appearances, but I take it he didn't crack any jokes there, either.

Funny, I didn't think his jokes were that bad. Guess that says something about my sense of humor.

The other poster is just referring to Jean's entire time as the Phoenix being completely retconned-- "it was a Phoenix-clone!". But CaptMurdock, that's not a good example. We're citing cases where plotlines or story elements (or backstory) go completely unacknowledged by later writers. Your example may be a case of clumsy retconning, but those events sure weren't ignored.
 
The big one that I've never seen reported on at all is the real death of Superman story...the 1988 death of Superman (some 4 years before Doomsday).

The origin of the story dates back to an Adventures of Superman Annual meant to be published in 1988. Unfortunately, the story was shelved due to the editorial decision to shy away from annuals (which is why there is a gap in annuals between 1987 and 1990). By the time annuals came back, they were parts of crossover events (Armageddon 2001), so the 1988 story remained shelved.

The 1988 story would later be published as a throw away special released to store shelves the week before Superman died in 1992's Superman #75. This special story is that of the modern Sand Superman, and it was originally designed to be the escape hatch in case the Clark / Lois relationship (dating / engagement / secret ID reveal / etc) didn't work out.

The modern Sand Superman story is much like the old story; an explosion of synthetic kryptonite causes irradiated sand to mimic and absorb all of Superman's powers; and Superman also found that this new creature was absorbing some level of his intelligence. At the story's climax, a powerless Superman fights the Sand Superman in the Fortress of Solitude. Superman realizes that the only way to beat the Sand Superman is to stop fighting and give the sand creature everything he's got; so Superman grabs the sand creature causing a massive explosion. We do not see the aftermath. The story ends with a rather ambiguous Superman / Luthor conversation in which Superman alludes to the fact that he won the battle by becoming the sand creature. The story is set before Clark and Lois began dating.

If you go back and look at stories between 1988 and 1992, you find several story situations that kept pointing at the Sand Superman door.

There's a story where Superman is battling the demon Blaze; she brags about her magic axe being Superman's doom due to his weakness to magic. Blaze strikes Superman with the magic axe only to watch it inexplicably break on Superman's chest. The only explanation we get is Superman saying, "Guess it wasn't as magic as you thought."

There's the "Time and Time Again" storyline in which a massive explosion causes Superman to absorb temporal energy; and explosions allow him to access the energy and time travel (just like an explosion was part of the catalyst for the power drain that created sand creature). Superman's costume also gets darker due to the effect of absorbing the temporal energy just as the sand creature's colors became darker as it absorbed more power.

Another story features Superman infected with some ancient virus that's killing him. As Superman gets near death, he takes on a sand like appearance; and he is cured by exposure to kryptonite doctor's brought in to weaken Superman's skin for surgery. The doctors are baffled at why the kryptonite saved Superman, and it is never explained. In fact, it is only the stories after the sand creature's place in continuity where we see that kryptonite no longer seems to rob Superman of any power at all; it simply causes him pain (likely because he psychologically believes it should cause him pain).

Then there is the Death of Superman story itself. I watched a QVC special at the time where Walt and Louise Simonson were helping sell autographed sets of the series. During the special, Walt opened the issue of Man of Steel that introduced John Henry Irons; Walt pointed out the page that seemed to show kind of transfer between Superman and John Henry Irons; Walt emphatically noted that this was important. Did I mention that Superman had been in a massive explosion just before grabbing John Henry? Later in the same issue, we see Irons rip the roof off of a moving car with his bare hands (no armor).

As the Reign of the Supermen came to a close, we see the return of the Superman who fought Doomsday; but he's powerless. The sun isn't giving Superman back his strength, and that only makes real sense if the sun isn't the source of his strength. Superman teams up with the other heroes and confronts the Cyborg Superman; the Cyborg rips open a hose spewing pure kryptonite radiation, but the Eradicator steps in to block the flow before it hits Superman. Power is transferred between the Eradicator and Superman; Superman suddenly gets his powers back. Green Lantern notes just a few pages later that there are massive levels of kryptonite radiation in the room; Superman is seen flying around in the green clouds with a smile on his face.

In the issues that followed, a robot at the Fortress of Solitude keeps trying to tell Superman that recent destruction at the fortress has uncovered something important he needs to see. Superman is too busy to pay it much mind. The storyline leads to November of 1994 with "Dead Again"; Superman finds a dead Superman body.

I believe this is where DC planned to reveal the truth, but they pulled back (instead making the story part of some nonsense Brainiac plot). Why would DC pull back?

Do you know what was happening at Marvel at this time? In October of 1994, Marvel had rushed together a story we know as the Spider-Clone saga; a story in which we discover the real Peter Parker had been replaced by a clone years ago. There was nothing to back this idea up; there was no years of planning in place; this Spider-man thing just appeared out of thin air. But it was a good way to beat DC's Superman story to the punch. I believe the Superman story was shelved because of the Spider-clone saga, but the story was not dead. DC appeared to be biding its time.

The Final Night event comes and Superman loses all of his power when the sun goes out. The sun comes back, but Superman's powers do not. Again, the sun is not the source of his power. Superman goes on a quest to try to regain his power, and he finds himself facing an alien electrical being. Superman wins the battle after surviving a large explosion. Superman's powers come back...for awhile. Then Superman starts turning into an electrical being.

Grant Morrison introduces us to the world of DC One Million. In his story, Superman leaves earth to wander the universe; during this time, Superman "absorbs" over a dozen new powers. Superman's appearance on returning to earth features a darker costume and glowing yellow eyes (much like the sand creature had at first).

During Infinite Crisis, Superman loses his powers in final confrontation with Superboy Prime. One year later, Superman's powers return. The powers only return after Lex Luthor collects all kryptonite on planet earth and stores it under Metropolis.

The real Superman died in 1988 and his body was left in the frozen debris of the first Fortress of Solitude. Until the time Flashpoint changed things, the Superman we read each month was the sand creature who simply believed he was the real Superman. Now...it never happened.

Did you also post this on Bleeding Cool?

It's a very interesting theory. Would DC have played such a long game?
 
Well, TemporalFlux himself (or rather, the article he quoted) admits the Sand Superman story was published as a throwaway special, which means they can't be certain how many of their regular readers even saw it. To make it the linchpin of a massive "event" would be flat-out cheating the readers.

Yes, maybe it was intended to be the resolution for "Dead Again." It would have been better than the story we did get. But starting around that same time, the storytelling and editing were getting so over-the-top and incoherent that I quit reading within a year. If there were any plans for the Sand Superman, I doubt they lasted beyond this time. Maybe they were dropped for the same reasons that the titles all went to pot-- editorial shakeup or some such thing. How long was Mike Carlin the editor?

Regardless of the above, I do not believe DC was organized enough to remember for the next sixteen years that this was not the real Superman and to keep dropping hints to that effect. And if they had, when would they plan to reveal him? They had enough chances over the years.
 
Another one is Jim Starlin's Hawkman special from a few years ago, where he reveals that Carter Hall never existed, it was a false memory and that he was Katar Hol all along... it was never mentioned again.
 
Ha, REALLY? I assume this was his attempt to resolve Hawkman's history, but he went at it backward from everyone else.

Speaking of Starlin, his Cosmic Odyssey mini deserved to "never happen" due to the bizarre logic errors and out-of-character behavior. Somehow it gets referenced anyway... but people tend to skirt around the details, most of which still "never happened". Such as:

1) Did you know that the gravitational attraction of Sol, Alpha Centauri, and whatever stars Thanagar and Xanshi orbited around hold the entire Milky Way in balance, and that if you knock out any two of them, the galaxy will collapse in on itself? Darkseid established that this is the way our galaxy naturally works, not a result of anything in the mini. So it should still be true today. And since Xanshi's sun was destroyed during the mini, if you take out Sol or any of the others, the galaxy will collapse. How many times was this acknowledged during "Final Night"? :vulcan:

2) Jack Kirby established that the Anti-Life Equation allows control over all living things. Jim Starlin established that the Anti-Life Equation is ALIVE. It's actually the Anti-Life Entity, a giant Grim Reaper. Starlin apparently operated on the educated assumption that anti-life = death. I guess this was his way of putting polish on Kirby's Fourth World. Uhhh, Jim? Did you know Jack died not long after this was published? Don't kid yourself that this was coincidence.

3) Batman is willing to use guns as long as they're against inhuman alien monsters from Apokolips. I guess this one wasn't completely forgotten about. ;)

4) Earth established formal diplomatic relations with New Genesis.

5) Anti-life aspects are considered so powerful that it requires Superman and Orion to take one down. Martian Manhunter and Green Lantern fail to do so. Naturally, the team that is assigned to protect the Earth is... all available heroes on Earth, right? Nope, just Batman. Aided by... FORAGER! (who?) Orion actually points out that the team is grossly underpowered, but is shouted down. In the end, when Forager is killed and Batman breaks his leg, it turns out Orion was right... but no one ever admits that to him.

Okay, that last one doesn't count as a "never happened", but I couldn't resist.

I need to come up with a Cosmic Odyssey drinking game.
 
Ha, REALLY? I assume this was his attempt to resolve Hawkman's history, but he went at it backward from everyone else.

The exchange was actually quite funny and a bit meta, it went something like this -

Badguy: So you are an archaeologist and a historian, so how you've never noticed that your past life makes no sense and that you aren't actually mentioned in any history books.

Hawkman; Well.. em.. holy crap you are right, how come I never noticed that before.

Badguy; EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG!

2) Jack Kirby established that the Anti-Life Equation allows control over all living things. Jim Starlin established that the Anti-Life Equation is ALIVE. It's actually the Anti-Life Entity, a giant Grim Reaper. Starlin apparently operated on the educated assumption that anti-life = death. I guess this was his way of putting polish on Kirby's Fourth World. Uhhh, Jim? Did you know Jack died not long after this was published? Don't kid yourself that this was coincidence.

He uses this idea again in his "death of the new gods" mini-series that is suppose to lead into Final Crisis but because Morrison had no idea what was in the series does not link up in any way - moreover, Morrison wanted the New Gods not to be used anywhere before final crisis but referenced this series when saying how they were "passed around like syphilis".
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top