Comics XI: Modok's 11

[red snow]

Starlight is 100% not edgy and heartfelt, with gorgeous Goran Parlov art.

I may have to give this one a try. These days I just assume they are in the style he's now known for.

[GallowKnight]

I may have to give this one a try. These days I just assume they are in the style he's now known for.

You really should, I generally dislike most of Mark Millar's stuff but Starlight was awesome in every way. It was fun, pulpy and with a lot of heart and some gorgeous artwork.

[red snow]

You really should, I generally dislike most of Mark Millar's stuff but Starlight was awesome in every way. It was fun, pulpy and with a lot of heart and some gorgeous artwork.

If it's on Image's cheap paperback list, I'm sold.

I'm sure I'm not the only one following Marvel's "All New All different" launch which doesn't seem all new or all different but exactly the same as the last 4 year's worth of soft rebranding. Even their claims are identical eg the whole "we've had this planned for years and this will inform our books for x amount of years". How can they, if they are supplanted by your next bold vision 1.5 years later?

This link sums up the frequency with which they sell us this lie (just look at the frequency of the "relaunches")

here's some of the BS quotes coming out

"All-New All-Different Marvel is theoretically a once in a 75-year lifetime kind of situation." Tom Brevoort. Theoretically, I might exist in a corner of an infinite universe where I'm wolverine. I think that's as likely as Marvel not having a soft rebranding in the next 75 years. I can't include the past as it happened with "all new" a couple of years ago.

It just irks me that they churn out the same lines on an almost annual basis and expect people to scoop it all up. Maybe people do? The only thing they come close to being honest about is admitting they want to start doing "seasons"

[Little Valkyrie]

It just irks me that they churn out the same lines on an almost annual basis and expect people to scoop it all up. Maybe people do? The only thing they come close to being honest about is admitting they want to start doing "seasons"

The constant relaunching of continuous titles (Iron Man, Cap, etc.) really irks me, especially with the same creative attached. The 'seasons' idea is a fine one for things where a creator has a strong pitch and it's not something that's going to support a running ongoing with a hand-off to someone else. A third CAPTAIN MARVEL #1!!! with KSD still writing it is just gratuitous, and IIRC the data shows diminishing returns of the #1 bump.

Also, I'm so sorry Iron Man fans, you get Bendis. And "the movies aren't influencing the comics!" is clearly all lies.

[red snow]

The constant relaunching of continuous titles (Iron Man, Cap, etc.) really irks me, especially with the same creative attached. The 'seasons' idea is a fine one for things where a creator has a strong pitch and it's not something that's going to support a running ongoing with a hand-off to someone else. A third CAPTAIN MARVEL #1!!! with KSD still writing it is just gratuitous, and IIRC the data shows diminishing returns of the #1 bump.

Also, I'm so sorry Iron Man fans, you get Bendis. And "the movies aren't influencing the comics!" is clearly all lies.

I'm cool with the "season" approach if the writers are planning year-long stories that fit 2-3 tpbs. At this point though, a Marvel season is the "event" and the regular comic stories are what we'd call "filler" (even if the event material is more weak).

There's a lot of evidence showing diminishing returns on new number 1s. I think it's most telling by the 3rd 4th issue where numbers sink below the previous books issue 10/11. It suggests that the readers who were sticking with the book see it as a good jump off point. I guess the argument is that the relaunch boost allows them to print the next 8 issues though so it's a tricky one. I also see the logic in getting a new creative team if the current one isn't selling. There is a good exception to this rule though - Superior Spider-man. I wouldn't touch that book after "one more day" but the hook of otto-spidey got me to try it out and I enjoyed the book enough to stick with it afterwards. It's the best Spidey has been in a long while. Luckily for Spidey fans, he's back in Marvel's good books thanks to the Sony deal. He may not be the "centre of the marvel universe" any more (I don't think anyone actually believes that) but he's at least turning up in merchandise and not going to be marginalised. I just hope that Ultimate Spidey doesn't mess with what the regular book has going on.

Bendis on an Iron Man book is fine by me as it's a character I've little interest in outside team books. I can already see countless pages of 8 panel shots of Tony Starks head though. God knows who Starks parents will be under Bendis' writing (well, we know it'll be whoever MCU decide). I guess the good thing about the MCU influence is that there's no chance that Stark is actually the son of Scott and Jean from the 60s (or 80s - I give up trying to work out how Bendis writes the original X-men)

[john]

Surely now would be the ideal time to bring Spidey back to the forefront rather than concentrating on Iron Man. RDJ probably only has a few more movies in him and they could basically write a new Spider-Man story concurrently with the MCU for the forseeable future.

Marvel Studios is all about the long game but the comics just seem to react, or try to react, to what is trendy.

[red snow]

Surely now would be the ideal time to bring Spidey back to the forefront rather than concentrating on Iron Man. RDJ probably only has a few more movies in him and they could basically write a new Spider-Man story concurrently with the MCU for the forseeable future.

Marvel Studios is all about the long game but the comics just seem to react, or try to react, to what is trendy.

If we believe what they are saying I guess they've had this Iron Man plan for several years so they haven't had time to react to spidey going back to MCU. Yeah, right. Come Civil War - I suspect spidey will be getting a nice shove from MArvel.

I guess the other problem is that Marvel Studios doesn't give the comics that much of a heads up. Commentary on how Marvel sticking with Cap Falcon, female Thor etc as being indicative of where Marvel studios will go is a joke. It only holds water if Marvel studios have told them what is happening in phase 4 of the films and I don't see it. I don't think anyone is naive enough to think the current comics inform the films anymore.

[Winterfell is Burning]

So, I see that they are still keeping the stupid "Tony is adopted, and it just so happens that he's also the greatest genius engineer ever just like his adoptive father, even though the chances of that happening are the same as Isaac Newton adopting some random kid and that child growing up to be Albert Einstein, or Pelé adopting some random kid and that kid growing up to be Lionel Messi" thing, great.

Commentary on how Marvel sticking with Cap Falcon, female Thor etc as being indicative of where Marvel studios will go is a joke.

Yep. If you really believe they will turn Natalie Portman into Thor, there's a Bifrost to Asgard I'd like to sell you.

[Little Valkyrie]

So, I see that they are still keeping the stupid "Tony is adopted, and it just so happens that he's also the greatest genius engineer ever just like his adoptive father, even though the chances of that happening are the same as Isaac Newton adopting some random kid and that child growing up to be Albert Einstein, or Pelé adopting some random kid and that kid growing up to be Lionel Messi" thing, great.

I am legitimately surprised that they let Gillen run with that big of a retcon to Tony Stark's history, I admit.

It's not that the comics tell you where the studios will go at all--it's that when the studios decide things, the comics are deformed in order to match them, no matter the damage done to past continuity, good sense, or anything else.

[Jon AS]

So, I see that they are still keeping the stupid "Tony is adopted, and it just so happens that he's also the greatest genius engineer ever just like his adoptive father, even though the chances of that happening are the same as Isaac Newton adopting some random kid and that child growing up to be Albert Einstein, or Pelé adopting some random kid and that kid growing up to be Lionel Messi" thing, great.

To be fair, how well did Pelé's kids do as football players? The idea that two generations of Starks would be such unbelievable geniuses is pretty ridiculous to begin with.

On the other hand, supergeniuses are a dime a dozen in the Marvel universe, that has to significantly increase the odds for it, but then genetics would have little to do with it.

[john]

I haven't read that arc but i thought Tony was supposed to be engineered by some space robot or something to be the greatest technical genius of the world.

[red snow]

I am legitimately surprised that they let Gillen run with that big of a retcon to Tony Stark's history, I admit.

It's not that the comics tell you where the studios will go at all--it's that when the studios decide things, the comics are deformed in order to match them, no matter the damage done to past continuity, good sense, or anything else.

It makes me wonder if it was Gillen's idea or whether he was told to write it? It does seem to be on par with "what if Gwen Stacy had Norman Osborn's kids" kind of stupid and I'm sure it will be forgotten down the road.

To be fair, how well did Pelé's kids do as football players? The idea that two generations of Starks would be such unbelievable geniuses is pretty ridiculous to begin with.

On the other hand, supergeniuses are a dime a dozen in the Marvel universe, that has to significantly increase the odds for it, but then genetics would have little to do with it.

One of Einstein's adopted grandchildren wound up with a degree in medieval literature while the biological grandson became a physicist. So it's not impossible. It seems more usual for people to inherit their parents' wealth and access to power than being genetically talented a lot of the time eg the Bush family doesn't have a gene for being a good president.

I agree you probably need some kind of genetic spark or are at least more likely if both (I think it's important that both parents are similar for the genetic argument to have weight) parents have said trait. Having access to the best education and sport facilities probably counts for more as I think most people are capable of being pretty damn smart with the right encouragement and training. It gets even weirder if you take epigenetics into account - where it could be possible that the child of an adoptive child may inherit epigentic traits from their adoptive grandparents. That's still a weird part of genetics that's being studied and as far as I know it's more a response to environment but environment = where the people who raise you.

I think we've put more thought into the storyline in the last few posts than Marvel did though!

[red snow]

Curse GOT release day making double posts more likely!

[Jon AS]

I haven't read that arc but i thought Tony was supposed to be engineered by some space robot or something to be the greatest technical genius of the world.

That's part of it, but there's a twist. If you can get past the fact that it's a massive retcon, it's actually pretty good IMO. But then I've decided that Gillen is one of the best writers of superhero comics I've stumbled upon so far.

One of Einstein's adopted grandchildren wound up with a degree in medieval literature while the biological grandson became a physicist. So it's not impossible. It seems more usual for people to inherit their parents' wealth and access to power than being genetically talented a lot of the time eg the Bush family doesn't have a gene for being a good president.

I agree you probably need some kind of genetic spark or are at least more likely if both (I think it's important that both parents are similar for the genetic argument to have weight) parents have said trait. Having access to the best education and sport facilities probably counts for more as I think most people are capable of being pretty damn smart with the right encouragement and training. It gets even weirder if you take epigenetics into account - where it could be possible that the child of an adoptive child may inherit epigentic traits from their adoptive grandparents. That's still a weird part of genetics that's being studied and as far as I know it's more a response to environment but environment = where the people who raise you.

Well, I don't want to diminish their intellectual accomplishments, but there is a difference between getting an academic degree, even in a field as hard as physics, and revolutionising the way we view the universe. Both Starks are clearly more in the latter than the former category.

I think we've put more thought into the storyline in the last few posts than Marvel did though!

Probably. It does seem to exist mostly for the twist ending (and to a lesser degree to reinforce the idea of Tony as self-made, rather than just born into privilege).

[red snow]

Probably. It does seem to exist mostly for the twist ending (and to a lesser degree to reinforce the idea of Tony as self-made, rather than just born into privilege).

I don't really see how being adopted removes his born from privilege status? I may be off with my Iron Man history but Stark still grew up as a billionairre, right? It's not like he was some street pauper who made his first dollar shining shoes and is now a world leading inventor?

Again I don't know much of the actual story but I'd be more impressed by the real Stark son getting to where he is if he wasn't brought up in a rich environment.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Well, I don't want to diminish their intellectual accomplishments, but there is a difference between getting an academic degree, even in a field as hard as physics, and revolutionising the way we view the universe. Both Starks are clearly more in the latter than the former category.

Yep.

.

I think we've put more thought into the storyline in the last few posts than Marvel did though!

Of course we did. That seems like Marvel's MO these days, with few exceptions.

[Jon AS]

I don't really see how being adopted removes his born from privilege status?

I meant privileged genetics (hey, if the X-Men can use that as a catch-all metaphor...), basically it means Tony isn't the offspring of a magical bloodline of supergeniuses, and given that I mislike the conceit of this kind of inherited inherent superiority I actually like that about the story.

Basically Tony becomes virtually indistinguishable from the artificial child with nigh-superhuman intellect that the Starks were supposed to have despite being the product of random chance like most people. That's a tremendous achievement, but it also shakes his self-image quite a lot and gives him an intellectual equal to play off of (incidentally, if the revelation of the story had been that Tony was genetically engineered to be superior, the boost to his ego would probably have made him insufferable; well, more insufferable...).

[Winterfell is Burning]

But if Tony is a supergenius, then he does have privileged genetics.

[Jon AS]

But if Tony is a supergenius, then he does have privileged genetics.

Partly, but that's not all there is to intelligence. Which is why, for example, IQ scores keep getting adjusted all the time: people in general are getting better and better at the kind of tasks used in the test, and that has nothing to do with genetics.

Plenty of examples of extraordinary people having rather ordinary offspring suggest that other factors can be extremely important, you can't just breed for intelligence, drive, ambition etc. (it would probably help, but the concept of eugenics is generally considered... problematic).

My point is: he doesn't have to be descended from a genius father to develop into the person he is (it's this idea that only a genius like Howard could have a son like Tony that I find objectionable, I think), particularly considering his intellect is effectively a superpower and there's plenty of superpowered people in the Marvel universe who have non-powered parents.

[red snow]

Partly, but that's not all there is to intelligence. Which is why, for example, IQ scores keep getting adjusted all the time: people in general are getting better and better at the kind of tasks used in the test, and that has nothing to do with genetics.

Plenty of examples of extraordinary people having rather ordinary offspring suggest that other factors can be extremely important, you can't just breed for intelligence, drive, ambition etc. (it would probably help, but the concept of eugenics is generally considered... problematic).

My point is: he doesn't have to be descended from a genius father to develop into the person he is (it's this idea that only a genius like Howard could have a son like Tony that I find objectionable, I think), particularly considering his intellect is effectively a superpower and there's plenty of superpowered people in the Marvel universe who have non-powered parents.

This makes more sense now.

Eugenics is problematic in the sense you probably need a fair amount of inbreeding for it to work. And we know how well that works.