I was going to post that there was this nice write-up on HULK #80 over on aintitcoolnews.com. But for some bizarre reason, subsequent discussion of the review on that site has morphed into fans bìŧçhìņg about an issue of X-FACTOR I wrote in which it was revealed that–contrary to John Byrne’s story revealing Lockjaw was a misshapen Inhuman–Lockjaw was in fact a dog and the Thing had been hosed.
I was going to respond, but my attempt to do so was thwarted since I did not have an AICN account. When I tried to create one, I was referred to a page saying that the account process was screwed up and it asked for patience. Considering it hadn’t been updated since November of 2004, I’m figuring I won’t be replying anytime soon.
So if anyone who DOES have access to AICN wants to reprint this entry or refer people to this site, I just wanted to make things clear: For what it’s worth, I didn’t give a dámņ about the Byrne story one way or the other. I thought it wasn’t bad; not great, but not bad. It did, however, frost the flakes of several writers and the “X-Factor” editor, basically because Byrne’s story made the Inhumans look like áššhølëš. John Byrne, foremost advocate of adhering to creator intent, ignored not only sequences where Stan and Jack had the Inhumans referring to, and treating, Lockjaw as their pet or dog, but the subsequent decades worth of continuity that did the same.
So, since Quicksilver was going to be in “X-Factor,” the writers–and the editor in particular–asked me to take the opportunity to undo that development as quickly and simply as I could. I shrugged, said, “Okay, boss,” and did so.
Now Rick Jones laughing off the Skrull involvement in the Hulk’s origin during an issue of CAPTAIN MARVEL…that was all me.
PAD
• 
Dave F.
For crying out loud, it’s just a comic book story. It’s make believe.
Bringing Terry Schiavo into the discussion is ignorance, arrogance, or an inane attempt to try to make comics more important than they are. Leave the poor woman alone. Let her rest in peace.
Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with one’s feelings about Lockjaw is not to blame John Byrne, not to blame Peter David. Just blame Bush. 🙂
For crying out loud, it’s just a comic book story. It’s make believe.
Then why’s everybody making such a fuss about this issue in the first place? Continuity, retcons, and now “stetcons”…
Gee, maybe it’s because they like comics and bring meaning to it that otherwise might not be there. The darnedest things happen when people read. It’s harder than ever to get people’s imaginations revved up, then people like you come along and sh** on the whole thing. It’s infuriating.
Bringing Terry Schiavo into the discussion is ignorance, arrogance, or an inane attempt to try to make comics more important than they are.
Prove it.
Leave the poor woman alone. Let her rest in peace.
Somehow I think she’ll rest in peace no matter what anybody says. I’d say it’s almost impossible to do her any more harm. It’s nice to know she has a guardian angel like yourself looking out for her, though. Better late than never.
“Why would it make them look like áššhølëš? They were playing a practical joke. The FF book has had a history of Ben and Johnny playing practical jokes on each other, why not have others get into the act?”
Well, this was a practical joke played during a moment of emotional turmoil equivalent to Terri Schiavo’s situation, so maybe you can see how the context doesn’t work.
I don’t know. Some things are so bad that sometimes the only way some people can deal with them is make a joke about it. I’m a police officer and can tell you some really nasty stuff that became the source of gallows humor and even pranks amongst the brotherhood of the badge. Sometimes even at what would seem to a normal person as the wrong place and time. It kinda makes sense that guys who have seen things that are that much worse then what we see would have a sense of humor that is that much more warped.
So if a bunch of French dancing girls did the retcon would it be a can-con?
But if it had any reall artistic merit it would probably be a Cannes-con.
Just a thought.
But then again. For all of us completists, having to go buy new issues of something makes it a bit of a debtcon.
Oh…I could go on all day.
garbonzo
Oh, yeah….
It doesn’t make them look like áššhølëš either. There are things we do to each other that we would never do to a civi or some one we didn’t know. We would most likely end up in court over it ourselves. But there’s almost no prank too low when pulling it on “one of our own.” Thing was one of them. He wasn’t an Inhuman but he did more then his fair share of slogging through some kinda hëllš with them and on his own. Same thing. Same code of conduct. Same fair game rule for humor.
If it’s done in Japan it’s called Manga-Con. Or is that when you have to retcon a planet?
Getting back to cases..
Explaining the Skrull/Jones bit. John Byrne did a Hulk Annual in which he did a few retcons to the origin, most notably removing the Soviet spy angle, and replacing it with Skrulls.
That goes back to my point on Man of Steel. It seems trendy to revisit the origins or milestone events for story material. In my view, MoS was perfect, it stuck to the basics. Writers want to compound the origins with new twists. I don’t think readers were crying out for a revised Spider-Man origin or make Krypton look like Legion of Super Heroes.
We’ll have a second shooter at the Wayne mugging, Billy Batson’s parents killed by Vandal Savage, or Krypton a human colony in the distant future where Jor-El sends his son into the past to become the man.. of.. tomorrow.
Gahhhh!!
If it’s done in Japan it’s called Manga-Con. Or is that when you have to retcon a planet?
No, I think that’s what they were going to call the systematic disassembly of everything Keith Giffen, J.M. DeMatteis, and Kevin Maguire worked so hard to do with the Justice League back in the 80s…and they figured it would be perfectly ironic*. Then they settled on “Countdown” and the rest is history.
(* Ironic because…okay, boy did this joke fall flat…one of that era’s bad guys was named Manga KHAN…ba-DUM-bum.)
Whee.
~G., who for the record liked Byrne’s retcon, but at the same time sees it as rather messy, and didn’t care that PAD stetconned the retcon
If it is a retcon that we are all worried about, does that make it a fretcon? Or is that what it is called when someone remakes a great song poorly? (eg. Madonna made a fretcon of American Pie)
And if someone doesn’t give a dámņ about the retcon, is that a Rhettcon?
Like Isaid, I’ve got a million of these, and nothing but time on my hands.
Hey, if it is done quickly, would that be a jetcon?
If it’s done in Japan it’s called Manga-Con. Or is that when you have to retcon a planet?
I thought it was an OAV.
I think garbonzo has the right idea…bravo/a, my friend.
When all is said and done, we’re talking about a six foot bulldog with a moustache and tuning fork on his head. That can teleport. Don’t worry about it.
Let’s make this a no-sweatcon.
Every new Transformers story that diverges further from original continuity would be a Decepticon, now wouldn’t it?
Also, the whole Jor-El sending his son into the past angle was how the Elseworlds “Red Son” ended, I think…
Considering that Reed and Ben used to have ties to WWII and no longer do, I suppose that the changes in their history are a vetcom! (Hey, SOMEBODY had to say it.)
I’m of two minds on the whole Lockjaw/deformed human debate. At the time, as a kid, I remember thinking that it was a pretty powerful story. But, in retrospect, it does make the Inhumans’ treatment of Lockjaw seem creepy, if not downright criminal. My own take on the whole situation is that Lockjaw LIKED being Crystal’s dog. For more on this, please see my 70,000-word fan fiction opus at http://www.superheroS&M.org(asm).
Actually…
I think since the whole flap is about a dog being changed into a human and then back into man’s best friend it’s a…
petcon.
Errr…
Or I could read all the posts and see that its already been done. *blush*
I’m such a poser.
I’m hoping that whenever PAD’s next super-secret Marvel project featuring Madrox and/or X-Factor hits the shelves, we’ll see the return of the mayo jar.
Of course, there also exist those cases where a retcon infuriates the fans so much that the fury generated can only mean that that you now have . . .
. . . wait for it . . .
. . . a Wrath-of-con.
🙂
“For crying out loud, it’s just a comic book story. It’s make believe.”
Thanks for the newsflash. Here’s another: I didn’t make a big issue of it in the first place. I griped about a comic on a message board, something I’m 99% sure everyone here’s done before, and Peter David challenged a few parts of the ensuing discussion in his forum. I responded to clarify. Pretty reasonable stuff from my point of view.
Why does everyone get so up in arms that we should discuss a story at some length? It might be high art, it might be low art, but if people wanna talk, what’s the harm? Are the 93 posts in the HULK #80 thread more acceptable because they were lighter in tone and not inclined to be critical? Do comic book discussions need to “hurry up and finish” because, I dunno, we’re supposed to be embarassed about the hobby we share?
I think I’ve kept on a pretty even keel here. I opened by asking for further clarification on the THING issue in question, I explained why I didn’t like the retcon when asked about it, and when someone erroneously claimed I brought up the Schiavo case to stir šhìŧ, I elaborated on my reasoning.
I’ll tell ya: in a few days, this will all be off my mind completely because it doesn’t matter that much to me…but it’s not a discussion I regret having. Most folks here were pretty reasonable, and I can aaaaaalmost buy the “gallows humor” notion the one guy put forward – but for the fact that it doesn’t fit the honorable (if somewhat archaic) traditions of the Inhumans.
Anyway, I think I’ve covered most of the ground I wanted to, so unless anyone’s got anything serious to bounce around still…peace out, y’all. I’m off to an untroubled sleep.
Bed-con.
-Dave
“Considering that Reed and Ben used to have ties to WWII and no longer do, I suppose that the changes in their history are a vetcom! (Hey, SOMEBODY had to say it.)”
Now, if somebody wanted to provide medical evidence to show that Lockjaw is, indeed, a dog, that would take a vetcon of a different type entirely, not to be mistaken with the retooling of a really bad Mark Hamill movie, which would be a Vette-con.
I also wonder if the sum total of the ways in which a character’s history has been monkeyed with could be called that character’s net-con…
Again, not to be mistaken with the net-con that would occur if I were to rewrite one of my earlier posts.
OK, I’m done for now… 😛
-Rex Hondo-
Tom Dakers wrote:
Egad, if we couldn’t use blogs like this, and message boards everywhere, to discuss the most minute and insignificant details of such things as movies, comic books, and the occasional real-life news story, why, there’d be no use for the internet at all.
Me: Video Games and Pørņ man. Games and pørņ…
And let us not forget the joys of on-line shopping. For the last three or four years, I haven’t had to so much as set foot in a retail establishment any time during the Christmas season. God bless Amazon!
my take on the Byrne story–it was powerful, had a great ending, showed a good deal of imagination…and was all wrong. It would have made a GREAT piece of fan fiction or maybe a WHAT IF but it never should have been presented as part of the actual continuity.
I had all of the INHUMANS comics (all what, 12 of them)and, while I can’t swear on a stack of bibles on this, I suspect that there must have been at least one point where if Lockjaw could have spoken, he would have (there was, for example, the time that Gorgon fell down the well and Lockjaw went to get help and all of the idiots just stood around and said stuff like “What’s the matter fella?” and “I think he’s trying to tell us something!”
As others have pointed out, it’s unusual for people in the Marvel Universe to have pets and it was nice for pet lovers to have a smart loyal DOG as a character.
As for Peter’s stetcon, it was probably the best solution to the problem.
So…back from my night of restless sleep. I know you were waiting with bated breath for these:
If the retcon deals with a powerful wizard from K’un Lun does that make it a Master-Con?
If we are confused by a very vague retcon does that make it an interpretcon?
And if the person who wrote the retcon used an AOL account with lots of little smiley faces, would that make it an emoticon?
If a little girl did the retcon (or if it involves de-aging several characters like in the recent Power-Pack series) then it would be a barretcon.
Alright. I will leave you in peace for a few hours. Let these soak in.
garbonzo
Sure, it could be a Wrath-of-con, but from Shatner’s point of view I think we can all agree that it’s a KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANcon.
I won’t get into which particular Lockjaw story (Byrne or PAD’s) was better as I haven’t read either in years, but I do strongly object to the idea that the Inhumans are jerks for treating Lockjaw — if a deformed Inhuman — like a pet. I mean, there’s great precedent for people treating their full-grown relatives who are mentally disabled like overgrown children. And they still at least resemble adults rather than a large dog (perception is everything).
As for HULK: CHAPTER ONE, what’s the problem with Skrulls that everyone seems to have? Skrulls are a major Marvel villain. It’s not like Byrne retconned Stilt Man into the Hulk’s origin.
Taking Marvel time into account, when CHAPTER ONE came out, it would have had to have been set just after or even well after the Berlin Wall fell. Having Igor, the big bad behind what happened to Banner, be a “commie” wouldn’t make sense. I thought making him a Skrull actually solved some problems.
The story itself I wasn’t crazy about, nor the art, but my problem wasn’t with Skrulls, per se.
Sure, it could be a Wrath-of-con, but from Shatner’s point of view I think we can all agree that it’s a KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANcon.
Actually, I think it would be a retKHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN
One would think that all these bad “___con” puns would start making people sick, and thus creating an online retchcon.
FF#66, which introduced Kree Sentry #459, had a Lee/Kirby scene where Johnny is about to kiss Crystal and Lockjaw interrupts them by “licking Johnny’s face!” I don’t know that many humans who would have done that, but I’ve personally known several dogs who have done that to draw attention to themselves when they’ve felt “neglected.” IMHO, Lee/Kirby’s Lockjaw was a GIANT DOG with higher brain functions than the “normal” variety of canine(can you say “Krypto on steroids?”), John Byrne was re-writing history (as he did in the Man of Steel mini-series and the re-listed Superman series)while as telling a poignant tale about how some parents project their own feelings about life onto their children (not a crime to my knowledge), and Peter was re-re-writing it while telling a modern “let’s pull a prank on Ben” story that Lee/Kirby periodically had Johnny and Sue pull on The Think as well as nosy neighbors in the Baxter Building(does that make THEM áššhølëš as well?) with the added bonus of leaving open the question “Was Lockjaw in on the gag as well?” As usual, I believe that Peter left it open for the readers to decide.
Regarding Peter’s “stetcon” in Captain Marvel, Peter himself has stated in his BID column that he “imagines” Rick Jones to be the typical jaded comic book fan “who’s seen it all,” but in this case, he’s INSIDE OF THE COMIC as opposed to OUTSIDE. Not only does this illustrate how consistent Peter’s interpretation of the character has been over the years, it also gives his famous Vic Chalker-type spin on “how most comic titles from THE BIG TWO tend to ‘modernize’ their ‘origins’ every generation to pull in a new audience while ignoring their old one” by adding the demented but brilliant twist of offering “the opinion of someone who was there at the time.”
All I can say is “You’ve done it again, Peter m’man! Andy Kauffman would be envious!”
1>> I’ll tell ya: in a few days, this will all be off my mind completely because it doesn’t matter that much to me…but it’s not a discussion I regret having. Most folks here were pretty reasonable, and I can aaaaaalmost buy the “gallows humor” notion the one guy put forward – but for the fact that it doesn’t fit the honorable (if somewhat archaic) traditions of the Inhumans.
–Hey I completely understood the meaning of your original post buddy. Bringing up a real world issue to help illustrate your point made sense in that context.
I’ve gotta disagree about the “honorable” traditions of the Inhumans though. If Lockjaw was a deformed Inhuman, how was his treatment by the rest of the Royal Family honorable? They have *always* treated him like a pet, not an equivalent member of the family.
The prank explanation has far more elegance and allows the Royal Family to retain that honor you’re speaking of while also allowing a couple of them to have a sense of humor.
Tony
What I’m waiting for is retroactive continuity about the male lead in “Gone With the Wind” discussed at a hotel where people have panel discussions and costume contests.
Y’know, a Rhett-retcon con.
With all of this talk about retroactive continuity going on, nobody mentioned that Elektra was possibly the first example of this phenomenon and TPTB at Marvel weren’t annoyed in the slightest by this and Daredevil fans past-and-present didn’t cry out “Where the hëll did SHE come from?” I guess some ret-cons are more stylish (and profitable) than others.
“Of course, don’t even get me started on the bizarre series of events involving characters like Aquaman and Namor. I mean, talk about involed continuity and backstory. I’ve never seen a bigger case for a wetcon in my entire life.”
This made me bust out laughing. Unfortunately, I couldn’t explain to the other people in the room with me why I was laughing. Even if I could, there’s no way I could explain to these non-comics people why it’s funny.
1>> With all of this talk about retroactive continuity going on, nobody mentioned that Elektra was possibly the first example of this phenomenon and TPTB at Marvel weren’t annoyed in the slightest by this and Daredevil fans past-and-present didn’t cry out “Where the hëll did SHE come from?” I guess some ret-cons are more stylish (and profitable) than others.
–dude, the retcon involving Elektra occured at a time when the Internet didn’t exist. Given the situation, I’m 100% certain there were fans up in arms over it, just as there are people against certain retcons today. It’s just that we read how vocal people are today. Back then it was essentially letter’s columns.
I have almost zero interest in X-MEN related trades (save for Clairmont-Byrne-Cockrum, Morrison & MADROX), but I would really, really like it if Marvel reprinted X-FACTOR.
Any takers?
“With all of this talk about retroactive continuity going on, nobody mentioned that Elektra was possibly the first example of this phenomenon and TPTB at Marvel weren’t annoyed in the slightest by this and Daredevil fans past-and-present didn’t cry out “Where the hëll did SHE come from?” I guess some ret-cons are more stylish (and profitable) than others.”
First off, it was *far* from the first retcon. How about DC deciding that Batman and Superman had never killed despite their earliest appearances where they did just that? Or having Professor X replaced by the Changeling when it was decided that killing Xaxier was a mistake back during the first run of X-Men? I’m sure other people would come up with lots of other examples.
I think it’s as simple as this: No one minds a retcon if it’s done well or for a good reason or if it simply works. Yes, inserting Stick and Elektra into Daredevil’s past changes him but it doesn’t *exactly* contradict what we know and it adds depth to the character. Besides, it more fills in a gray area than it changes his past.
I know that’s subjective. For instance, I’m sure John Byrne believes that fans won’t mind his Doom Patrol series retconning all past DP stories out of existence because it’s “done well” and some will agree and some will not. But I think that’s the nature of these things. There will always be fans who buy into the retcon and those who don’t and the rules of thumb will probably continue to be, “Did the story that featured the retcon work? Did it take away/add something to the character that adds/takes away something that ruins the character? Does it leave the property better or worse than it was before?”
I had never realised that Lockjaw was supposed to be anything other than a big teleporting dog so I was a little surprised to find that he had ever been written as a deformed human. It does sound like it was an interesting twist to the story in which it occured, but generally I’d consider it a bad move.
But I’d like the chance to make my own mind up, so could someone please list the specific comics under discussion here?
As far as the history of retconning goes, I can place it to at least as early as 1942. In All Star Comics #8 in Wonder Woman’s first story it is said that once she leaves Paradise Island she may never return, but within months she’s running up frequent flyer miles between the USA and her home.
Beat that. :p
I, for one, liked both the original Byrne story and the Peter David followup. But, I do think that a better solution was available. Instead of Lockjaw’s speech being a result of a practical joke, why not have it be made by an Inhuman who had been given the unfortunate power of being ignored by everyone? He finally overcomes his power the one time by standing near Lockjaw, saying the line attributed to the big dog. We could find this out down the line. It wouldn’t have damaged the original story, and it would have made for a nice followup.
Ah well, that’s why I don’t write comics.
Wow, I realise that everyone has their favorite characters and some fans are continuity obsesed; but people getting upset about a Lockjaw stetcon/retcon just blows my mind.
Oh, all right, a few more posts…
Ray Cornwall wrote:
“Instead of Lockjaw’s speech being a result of a practical joke, why not have it be made by an Inhuman who had been given the unfortunate power of being ignored by everyone? He finally overcomes his power the one time by standing near Lockjaw, saying the line attributed to the big dog. We could find this out down the line. It wouldn’t have damaged the original story, and it would have made for a nice followup.”
Obviously I like the original story enough that I don’t want any retcon at all, and your patch doesn’t quite work because Lockjaw has a final, closing line a few pages later, buuuuuut…tonally and creatively, you’re very much in the ballpark of the kind of patch I think would’ve worked for me. Your solution would’ve kept any pre-established characters from looking like a-holes and even maintained something of the tragic tone of the original story. Not bad.
Lockjaw’s last line, by the way, occurs as he and Ben are finally leaving the Great Refuge after everything’s been settled. Ben tells Lockjaw that it’s obvious that it’s very painful for him to talk, but still, he has to ask why he’s never spoken in all the years he’s known him.
“Never had anything to say, Ben,” Lockjaw responds. “Never had anything to say.”
And they wink out with a teleport.
A really beautiful moment, the notion that the one time Lockjaw forced himself to speak was to save his most devoted companion, Crystal, in her greatest moment of need.
-Dave
“FF#66, which introduced Kree Sentry #459, had a Lee/Kirby scene where Johnny is about to kiss Crystal and Lockjaw interrupts them by “licking Johnny’s face!” I don’t know that many humans who would have done that, but I’ve personally known several dogs who have done that to draw attention to themselves when they’ve felt “neglected.””
Yay, someone finally answered the original question I posed! THANK YOU.
Between your response and responses I’ve seen on a few other boards, I’ve come to the conclusion that Lockjaw’s past history does indeed put Byrne’s shock reveal into a gray area. One could still justify it with the notion that Lockjaw’s deformation also affected him mentally, such that he went on to assume more animalistic habits to suit his new body, but making that leap is probably reliant on how much one enjoys Byrne’s reveal. As someone wisely noted, we accept the retcons we like, grouse about the ones we don’t. For me, the story was simply so good that, yes, Lockjaw going a bit feral after the transformation is pretty much an explanation that works for me. Folks who don’t like it or who’re bigger fans of David’s writing than I am…their mileage may vary.
Whatever the case, I still think Peter’s solution was inelegant A) For reasons I’ve mentioned above involving the dire tone of the situation, and B) Because the supposed pranksters weren’t the only Inhumans present – the entire royal family was there, Blackbolt included! Were they all in on it? Did they have a big ol’ laugh afterword about how their prank subverted Inhuman tradition after putting Crystal through a living hëll over it? And did the pranksters follow Ben and Lockjaw when they we leaving to account for the finale where Lockjaw speaks a second time? Did their voice-throwing somehow reflect the movements of his mouth? So many problems…
However.
Believe what you want to. There does appear to be wiggle room, and it’s just as easy for me to ignore David’s story as…well, as it should have been for folks to ignore Byrne’s story originally rather than rewrite it.
-Dave
P.S. This is as good a place as any to say that, yes, I have problems with some of the retcons Byrne has done. I just wanted to keep the topic a little more focused.
“I’ve gotta disagree about the “honorable” traditions of the Inhumans though. If Lockjaw was a deformed Inhuman, how was his treatment by the rest of the Royal Family honorable? They have *always* treated him like a pet, not an equivalent member of the family.”
It works if you accept the possibility, noted in my last post, that Lockjaw’s transformation also pushed his mind in a more animalistic direction. I see him as largely becoming like a very intelligent dog in habit, finding his moments of clarity only in the most dire of situations (i.e. Crystal’s baby at risk).
“The prank explanation has far more elegance and allows the Royal Family to retain that honor you’re speaking of while also allowing a couple of them to have a sense of humor.”
Like I’ve said many times during this thread: the situation during which Lockjaw spoke was simply too serious for anyone to have contemplated a practical joke. We’re talking the life or death of Crystal’s baby and the beginning or end of the most solemn of Inhuman traditions. Those factors and the fact that the entire Inhuman royal family would’ve had to have been in on the “joke” (Crystal included!)…mean the prank explanation is a flop.
-Dave
“Wow, I realise that everyone has their favorite characters and some fans are continuity obsesed; but people getting upset about a Lockjaw stetcon/retcon just blows my mind.”
Got not particular love of Lockjaw if you can believe it – nothing beyond the fact that I’ve always thought all the Inhumans are pretty cool.
Nope, I just know a good story when I read it, and I’ve done nothing more than try to defend it. I honestly think it’s one of the best stories Byrne’s ever written, and he’s written some doozies. It’s up there with “Small Loss” in FANTASTIC FOUR, OMAC, NEXT MEN…stuff like that.
-Dave
How about the BABY does, indeed, have powers. The ability to cloud Inhuman minds AND super-ventriloquism (or animal possession).
Quicksilver is a jerk, pulling Thing’s chain, and none are the wiser that the baby has powers… until the next story when Ben… ah well, you get the idea…
Also, the whole Jor-El sending his son into the past angle was how the Elseworlds “Red Son” ended, I think…
Does anyone know this for sure? And who wrote Red Son?
I just took the ‘man of tomorrow’ line with the fact that Kryptonians look like humans. Milestone’s Icon had a different take on the last survivor.
About Superman: Red Son – Mark Millar wrote it and yes, Jor-El was actually shown as a descendant of Lex Luthor, who kinda sorta made the world a better place (the house of L, see?) and he sends Kal back to the past (which actually worked for me, tons better than Waid’s Birthright version did).
I seem to remember though that Millar acknowledged in an interview that idea wasn’t his. I believe it might have come from Walt Simonson but I’m not sure.
About Superman: Red Son – Mark Millar wrote it and yes, Jor-El was actually shown as a descendant of Lex Luthor, who kinda sorta made the world a better place (the house of L, see?) and he sends Kal back to the past (which actually worked for me, tons better than Waid’s Birthright version did).
I seem to remember though that Millar acknowledged in an interview that idea wasn’t his. I believe it might have come from Walt Simonson but I’m not sure.
Geek minds think alike.
“First off, it was *far* from the first retcon.”
I didn’t exactly say that it was the FIRST retcon. What I said that this was POSSIBLY the first example of a retcon THAT COULD POTENTIALLY RAISE CONTROVERSY IN COMIC BOOK FANDOM to the degree that it’s being expressed here and on other BBSes. As was stated earlier and on Peter’s BID column, DC has constantly re-written Superman’s origin as well as early Superboy stories where he first travels to the 21st century to meet The Legion of Superheroes, only to find out later that they REALLY existed in the 31st century. Like the Elektra intro, I don’t believe that it raised a major stink among the majority of readers, but I could be mistaken. As the first respondent to my post said, the internet didn’t exist back then(perhaps that’s why Harlan Ellison refer to BBSes as “yenta boards”), so the DC and Marvel Letter Pages might have filtered out the more vocal dissenters. Any comic historians want to research that possibility?
“How about DC deciding that Batman and Superman had never killed despite their earliest appearances where they did just that?”
I was under the impression that when the bad guys died in those books, it was either because they fell of the roof during the struggle with the hero(as opposed to being “pushed off,” which would have been murder) or by other villains(Joe Chill, or one of the criminals involved in the Waynes’ murder, told a group of thugs that he was responsible for Batman’s origin and they killed him out of resentment for his also being indirectly responsible for their incarcerations as I recall). If anyone was responsible for setting the precedent for Superman taking a life, it was John Byrne in the re-listed Superman #22 where he executes three Kryptonian villains and goes through a Super-guilt trip afterwards. My chronology may be off, but I don’t remember any positive or negative comments one way or the other regarding THAT retcon.
Or having Professor X replaced by the Changeling when it was decided that killing Xaxier was a mistake back during the first run of X-Men?
One of the major complaints launched about the Chris Claremont years was that there was CONSTANTLY a reset button in place when either the fans or the editors didn’t like what he did or felt that something had to be done to rectify an “oversight” committed when the book was a bi-monthly and at “death’s door.” During several public appearances, Chris has said that he had no idea why certain decisions were made by the editors, causing the audience to laugh and applaud, creating the impression that he was just “doing what he was told to earn a paycheck.” That could be the most honest explanation of all, bringing me back to “profitability.”
“I think it’s as simple as this: No one minds a retcon if it’s done well or for a good reason or if it simply works. Yes, inserting Stick and Elektra into Daredevil’s past changes him but it doesn’t *exactly* contradict what we know and it adds depth to the character.”
If you can ignore the Conway/Colan storylines where Matt had romantic problems with Karen Page, Natasha Romanova, etc. and how it seemed convenient to insert an “explanation” as to why he has had these problems by inserting a “love interest” that Lee/Everett and Conway/Colan didn’t create but it happened during the “beginning” of his career as a crime fighter. After her “departure,” Matt pines for her, but it was not even hinted at before. Convenient and profitable, nice combination.
“Besides, it more fills in a gray area than it changes his past.”
I would have said that an argument could be made that it did BOTH if it weren’t for her being resurrected by her “creator” for financial reasons, but that’s just me.
“I know that’s subjective…But I think that’s the nature of these things. There will always be fans who buy into the retcon and those who don’t and the rules of thumb will probably continue to be, “Did the story that featured the retcon work? Did it take away/add something to the character that adds/takes away something that ruins the character? Does it leave the property better or worse than it was before?””
Or will this make money or will it won’t make money? Also, are the writers hindered by continuity or can they get a green light to divert from it or (better still) can we take steps in the story to eliminate it? I applaud Peter for doing that and NOT doing that at the same time. Another example of his enviable talent.
“I seem to remember though that Millar acknowledged in an interview that idea wasn’t his. I believe it might have come from Walt Simonson but I’m not sure.”
It was Grant Morrison’s
Two comments and a question:
“Stetcon” is a useful new word
Other “-cons” – maybe less useful … but fun
Was what Lando Calrissian did in “The Empire Strikes Back” a Han-con?