Should Marvel establish set rules for characters?

I'm not trying to limit creativity or anything but it seems like different authors visions of the characters cause stroylines merely to undo the previous authors work.

One author decides he wants The Thing to be able to turn back into Ben Grimm, but because the next guy doesn't like that idea he removes the ability less than twenty issues later. And I know he's gained and lost this ability many times over the years.

One author wants Charles Xavier to be able to walk. Who knows how soon that will end with the number of times he's gained and lost the abilty.

One author sees Dr. Doom/Kang/Magneto as the FF/Avengers/X-men's greatest enemy but an honorable foe who respects them and given the right circumstances can even be allied with them. An enemy who if victorious would show respect to a fallen enemy The next sees Doom/Kang/Magneto as a powermad lunatic who merely wants to slaughter his enemies and revel in their misery and tapdance on their graves.

<snip examples dealing with Ben Grimm's status, Prof X's ability to walk and 'evil vs misunderstood' villians>

Most of the time I'd agree with you. I like consistency. Having two stories starring the same guy which contradict each other annoys me. But part of the problem here is defining just who is doing the right thing to the character.

For example- the Hulk. Just what is the Hulk? Ask 100 fans and chances are you get dozens of contradictory answers. He's gone from a grouch, to a childlike creature, to an engine of distruction. And all those versions have their backers.

So which version does Marvel set in stone? And what happens when a writer comes along with a perfect story idea based on one of the other versions?

While not a Hulk fanatic I have read a number of different takes on the character over the years- heck PAD even had multiple takes all by himself. And while they don't fit nicely into any attempt to create a single consistent Hulk- I'd rather see a dozen varied takes with hope I'll see one i like than seeing only one and risking it will be one i hate.

After all I know which writer is RIGHT and even Marvel can't make me accept a WRONG portrayal in other books as being the same character since i can always ignore those stories or use some other mind game to get around them. <g>.

It's the nature of the beast. To make any iron clad rules concerning different characters would, in fact, limit creativity.

-=t's the nature of the beast. To make any iron clad rules concerning different characters would, in fact, limit creativity.

-=[ The BlakGard ]=- 'Somewhere there's danger; somewhere there's injustice, and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!'

Not true! It seems to me that different authors think of an entirely new character and disguise them as an old character in order to get sales/respect or whatever. Eg. Thanos has generally been portrayed as a really thoughtful villain who is willing to put the effort in to obtain more power or allies if he believes he is about to battle a superior foe. A writer who decides that Thanos go toe to toe with the Hulk with no preparation for no good reason has clearly, in the guise of a Thanos-Hulk showdown, written yet another Thor-Hulk slugfest! That isn't creativity but cheating.

However, this is not to say that characters shouldn't grow naturally but if a writer wants a character to act in a completely different way without giving good reason, then they should simply use another character. Not try to push Thanos into Thor-size boots as in the example I gave!

Mike Hall

Of course, if the writer wanted to be REALLY creative, s/he could do what Stan Lee, Chris Claremont, Peter David, Pat Mills, and a host of others have done, and created new characters.

j.

[All original message content © 2003 by James Stephen Longo.

This post is intended solely for Usenet newsgroups. If you are reading it on another site, you should know that the author does not visit this site and is not likely to do so in the future, particularlyf course, if the writer wanted to be REALLY creative, s/he could do what Stan Lee, Chris Claremont, Peter David, Pat Mills, and a host of others have done, and created new characters.

j.

[All original message content © 2003 by James Stephen Longo.

This post is intended solely for Usenet newsgroups. If you are reading it on another site, you should know that the author does not visit this site and is not likely to do so in the future, particularly if the site is owned and/or operated by one Anthony Abby, with whom the author has serious philosophical differences. The author considers this potentially-deceptive practice to be ethically

But what happens when the grouch is starring a someone has an idea for the childlike creature and only uses a one issue bridge to change him into the childlike creature. And what if turnign him into the childlike creature undoes an excellent story turning him into the grouch just a few issues before.

Well, I'm not so much saying that they have to set a character in stone. But say someone once again gives the Thing the ability to turn back into Ben Grimm and the author changes. Tell the new guy going in he has to wait at least twenty five issues to undo it. Set a time limit. Dr. Doom went from helping the FF because it would show up Reed to trying to slaughter them and using an innocent child in the act in a mere thriteen issues.

Then you're not going to be able to get good talent on the books. 'I've got a great idea for FF. Uh, you mean I have to let the Thing be a transvestite vampire for my first 25 issues before I can change him? Hey, I, uh, I think I've got a call on the other line. Let me just...' [click]

No one's going to write a version of the character they don't like for TWO YEARS. As a result, you'll only ever get that one version of the character, anyway, since you'll only get writers who like that version on the book. You might as well set it in stone anyway.

Dave Doty

It happens. The alternative is to force a writer to deal with 'problems' that he didn't create. Either the prior writer has to end the story by undoing it or the next writer has to work out a better bridge just to tell HIS story (when the bridge itself is only taking away time from his story concept).

But with the Thing a lot of people see the core of the character as tied to his inability to become human. So if my ideas for the Fantastic Four revolved in part around Ben's frustration at being the Thing, you'd want me to write 20+ issues of filler before getting to that (pry more since I'd want to downplay Ben's being able to change since it undercuts the idea he has years of frustration from being the Thing).

My heart bleed, etc.. Sorry, but doesn't that just sort of come with the territory? Say I have a story that I think would make a great episode of the tv show 'Continuing Drama #2268' where the character of X must come to grips with the emotional ramifications of past incident Y. Only the Powers That Be say to me, hey, nice story, only one problem. X has already come to grips with Y. It occured during last season's sweeps. It's dealt with already, move on, your story, no matter how good taken in isolation, no longer fits with the character and the character's story arc (at least not without some *major* revisions). Them's the breaks.

Has Waid's run on the FF really required that the Thing not be able to change back and forth? I mean *really* *required*.

Ciao,

The obvious question there would be who let the Thing get turned into a transvestite vampire in the first place.

Major changes to characters shouldn't be made lightly, no matter who the hot writer of the month it is who says, 'Ooo, ooo, why don't we take character X and do Y for a Bold New Direction.'

I *liked* Ben Grimm being able to change back and forth. Another writer wants to change that back? Okay, I'll get over it, eventually, but can we at least get the reset done in a storyline that isn't so insultingly idiotic (and not quite so soon that it seems as if those at Marvel are just thumbing their noses at you and saying GOTCHA)?

Ciao,

But again, the writer could always just create new characters. In the first Marshall Law series, it was obvious that the three main characters were supposed to be Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman.

j.

[All original message content © 2003 by James Stephen Longo.

This post is intended solely for Usenet newsgroups. If you are reading it on another site, you should know that the author does not visit this site and is not likely to do so in the futureut again, the writer could always just create new characters. In the first Marshall Law series, it was obvious that the three main characters were supposed to be Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman.

j.

[All original message content © 2003 by James Stephen Longo.

This post is intended solely for Usenet newsgroups. If you are reading it on another site, you should know that the author does not visit this site and is not likely to do so in the future, particularly if the site is owned and/or operated by one Anthony Abby, with whom the author has serious philosophical differences. The author considers this potentially-deceptive practice to be ethically