But that's like saying Peter Parker shouldn't hold on to Uncle Ben's death because it happened so long ago. This massive retcon just feels like somebody saying Carol's powers shouldn't in any way, shape or form originate from some man's involvement. Nope, the men in Carol's life are worthless alcoholics or losers, they aren't strong like her and her super Mom.
So you're saying Mar-Vell's involvement in Carol getting her powers was much like, say, a radioactive spider biting Peter Parker or a particular chemical splashing across Matt Murdock's eyes? Sometimes the chance incident is important to the character's origin. How does flushing Carol's origin in favor of this one make her a better character? Why is eliminating chance in her origin so important?
And as far as I know you're right, nobody ever said that in regards to Carol. I don't care whether or not the original Captain Mar-Vell was a man, only that retconning Carol's origin is so unnecessary.
"So you're saying Mar-Vell's involvement in Carol getting her powers was much like, say, a radioactive spider biting Peter Parker or a particular chemical splashing across Matt Murdock's eyes?"
Actually, it's a lot like Daredevil's origin, in that the incident from the original story's been kept (the chemicals; Carol still got zapped by the Psyche-Magnetron or whatever it was called while in contact with Mar-Vell), only they've now added another layer on top of it (Stick's quasi-mystical training; this).
> How does flushing Carol's origin in favor of this one make her a better character?
It makes her origin more streamlined. It makes her less of a spin-off character.
> I don't care whether or not the original Captain Mar-Vell was a man, only that retconning Carol's origin is so unnecessary.
Whereas I don't care if a story's unnecessary. It's fiction; none of is necessary. I just care if it's harmful or not, and it isn't.
I really don't mind this retcon too much either, but...
What's wrong with being a 'spin-off' character? Lots of the best characters in comics (Scott Lang, Wally West, Kyle Raynor, Kamala Kahn, the various Robins, Robbie Reyes, Wasp) and beyond (Xena, Sarah-Jane Smith, Angel, Annabel) spun off from or owed their existence to another character.
The line of thinking that this is automatically better because now she doesn't "get her powers from some man" reminds me of why Mockingbird's rape was retconned, which (weirdly enough) somehow made that moment even worse.
Re: I really don't mind this retcon too much either, but...
Copying and pasting from what I said elsewhere in these responses:
Nothing wrong with derivative characters, but it's not a good look when pretty much *all* the major female characters are such while pretty much none of the male ones are. Wonder Woman wouldn't be Wonder Woman if her name was Superwoman
You have some valid points. Making Carol feel less like a spin off character is important, especially with the new movie coming out. It makes me wonder what they're going to do with Ms. Marvel thirty years down the road. Not trying to be snarky, just speculative.
I don't know if this new layer actually streamlines the origin. I suppose it just irks me that Mar-Vell is all but written out of it, the guy whose name she adopted. If they wanted to make her less of a legacy/spin off character then maybe they should have named her something else. It also felt weird that an Air Force colonel goes around with the name Captain Marvel.
Then again, Warbird and Nova both weren't exactly setting the world on fire, were they?
And no, it's not "harmful", I just think it's unnecessary overall.
The difference is that was a well-written story that drastically improved his character; this is just another example of Marvel editorial changing the comics to make them closer to the movies. It's not a writer trying to tell a good story, it's forced corporate synergy.
Eh, let's put all the cards on the table. Marvel has a woman character problem. The biggest problem they have is that they *don't* have a Wonder Woman. They only major female character they have that isn't derivative of another male hero is Black Widow. And her status is elevated because of the movies happening to pick her as an Avenger, not the other way around.
Wasp is derivative of Ant-Man. Rescue is derivative of Iron Man. She-Hulk is... well, duh. Captain. Marvel is derivative of Mar-Vell.
Scarlet Witch is kind of in the same boat as Black Widow, they're not derivative but they don't have a really strong catalog of stories to draw from, and Wanda suffers a lot from her adaptation -- it removed a lot of the 'magic' from her, at least so far.
Carol is their best bet, because her link - Mar-vell - is long dead, and her stories don't hinge on him being around. Her powers are strong, dynamic, so they'll play well on screen. She can hang with Iron Man, Hulk, & Thor power wise.
So yeah, reducing her link to Mar-vell even further *is* corporate synergy. But... I do think that they want Carol to be a big deal in the *comics* to, as we can see from the past *decade* of them pushing her since House of M. And to do that, she needs to be polished up a bit. She's got one of the *worst* backstories in comics as far as retcons, mind control, and comic weirdness.
So yeah, tweaking her origin a bit to make it more attractive lets them have other things to focus on than her and Rogue having a grudge match, or Marcus. She needs more back story to fill in her character.
I think the movie encouraged this, but really cleaning up her origin a bit and giving her backstory some pathos is probably a good thing that the comics should have been doing anyway since they want her to be a big deal. Having these bits in place *will* help smooth over the rougher bits.
Does Carol really have a strong catalog of stories to draw from?
And I don't think her backstory or her ties to Mar-Vell were holding her back from being a better character or more successful. Nor does this retcon change anything besides her origin, which was pretty simple already; her history with Rogue and Marcus is still there (and when was the last time she actually focused on either of them in her own series?).
Plus Carol wasn't a 'major' character until Marvel started making her one (she's really only a major character because Marvel says she is, her books aren't exactly flying off the shelves); if Marvel gave another female character her treatment, constantly giving her new series and putting her at the center of their big events, that character could easily have the same status that Carol currently has. There are other powerful female characters who Marvel could make a big deal too if they wanted to.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lordultimus) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
scans_daily2018-11-14 06:41 pm
no subject
no subject
> This massive retcon just feels like somebody saying Carol's powers shouldn't in any way, shape or form originate from some man's involvement.
I can get behind that. "It's important to the character of Carol Danvers that she gets her powers from a man" said no one ever.
no subject
And as far as I know you're right, nobody ever said that in regards to Carol. I don't care whether or not the original Captain Mar-Vell was a man, only that retconning Carol's origin is so unnecessary.
no subject
Actually, it's a lot like Daredevil's origin, in that the incident from the original story's been kept (the chemicals; Carol still got zapped by the Psyche-Magnetron or whatever it was called while in contact with Mar-Vell), only they've now added another layer on top of it (Stick's quasi-mystical training; this).
> How does flushing Carol's origin in favor of this one make her a better character?
It makes her origin more streamlined. It makes her less of a spin-off character.
> I don't care whether or not the original Captain Mar-Vell was a man, only that retconning Carol's origin is so unnecessary.
Whereas I don't care if a story's unnecessary. It's fiction; none of is necessary. I just care if it's harmful or not, and it isn't.
I really don't mind this retcon too much either, but...
The line of thinking that this is automatically better because now she doesn't "get her powers from some man" reminds me of why Mockingbird's rape was retconned, which (weirdly enough) somehow made that moment even worse.
Re: I really don't mind this retcon too much either, but...
Nothing wrong with derivative characters, but it's not a good look when pretty much *all* the major female characters are such while pretty much none of the male ones are. Wonder Woman wouldn't be Wonder Woman if her name was Superwoman
no subject
I don't know if this new layer actually streamlines the origin. I suppose it just irks me that Mar-Vell is all but written out of it, the guy whose name she adopted. If they wanted to make her less of a legacy/spin off character then maybe they should have named her something else. It also felt weird that an Air Force colonel goes around with the name Captain Marvel.
Then again, Warbird and Nova both weren't exactly setting the world on fire, were they?
And no, it's not "harmful", I just think it's unnecessary overall.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Wasp is derivative of Ant-Man.
Rescue is derivative of Iron Man.
She-Hulk is... well, duh.
Captain. Marvel is derivative of Mar-Vell.
Scarlet Witch is kind of in the same boat as Black Widow, they're not derivative but they don't have a really strong catalog of stories to draw from, and Wanda suffers a lot from her adaptation -- it removed a lot of the 'magic' from her, at least so far.
Carol is their best bet, because her link - Mar-vell - is long dead, and her stories don't hinge on him being around. Her powers are strong, dynamic, so they'll play well on screen. She can hang with Iron Man, Hulk, & Thor power wise.
So yeah, reducing her link to Mar-vell even further *is* corporate synergy. But... I do think that they want Carol to be a big deal in the *comics* to, as we can see from the past *decade* of them pushing her since House of M. And to do that, she needs to be polished up a bit. She's got one of the *worst* backstories in comics as far as retcons, mind control, and comic weirdness.
So yeah, tweaking her origin a bit to make it more attractive lets them have other things to focus on than her and Rogue having a grudge match, or Marcus. She needs more back story to fill in her character.
I think the movie encouraged this, but really cleaning up her origin a bit and giving her backstory some pathos is probably a good thing that the comics should have been doing anyway since they want her to be a big deal. Having these bits in place *will* help smooth over the rougher bits.
no subject
And I don't think her backstory or her ties to Mar-Vell were holding her back from being a better character or more successful. Nor does this retcon change anything besides her origin, which was pretty simple already; her history with Rogue and Marcus is still there (and when was the last time she actually focused on either of them in her own series?).
Plus Carol wasn't a 'major' character until Marvel started making her one (she's really only a major character because Marvel says she is, her books aren't exactly flying off the shelves); if Marvel gave another female character her treatment, constantly giving her new series and putting her at the center of their big events, that character could easily have the same status that Carol currently has. There are other powerful female characters who Marvel could make a big deal too if they wanted to.