Fantastic Four #2 SPOILERS

[U.N. Owen]

Easy fix for telling stories with Franklin: have him babysit Kobik. That way, his powers are less of a narrative noose and more like a necessity to deal with her.

[Crimz]

While I agree that Franklin should be weaker now that he can be more active in the FF's adventures. I think that a bigger problem is Reed's intelligence often saving the day.

When a threat is big it is usually down to Reed to create something to save everyone, I don't want that to happen too often. An easy fix is simply making everyone stronger so that they can tackle really big threats as a team instead of relying on Reed to magic up some device.

Also let the others take point in some adventures, not everything has to be at Reed's whim. Like, how about Johnny deciding where the team goes for an adventure? We saw aspects of this with Franklin creating universes and members of the Future Foundation having inputs in what should be there or where they should go. So hopefully we get some of that during this run with the main team.

[JKtheMac]

I must have phrased my point very badly, so apologies.

I didn't mean to suggest that stories should be based on power sets alone!

But I had a wry smile at your confidence that feats in line with power sets is not even a preference but a truism.

Am I imagining all those stories where the likes of Hawkeye, Batman, and Green Arrow go up against gun men, super villains, and monsters and survive?

Again it is not the same thing. A phenomenon that admittedly many fans do conflate.

A character with super strength suddenly seeming able to lift something much more heavy than he previously seemed to be able to lift is not the same as a character seemingly getting lucky dodging a bullet. Both can be handled well or poorly, the way they are handled can be similar to each other. But they are not the same issue.

When it comes down to it we can't define a feat based upon a story conflict unless the story is a pure contest of strength and that's not a particularly satisfactory story because there is no actual conflict. Most contests of strength have a reason. The circumstances shape the conflict.

Batman fighting a gang of gunmen is not a matter of working out the stopping power of bullets and the accuracy of the average henchmen's aim and matching it against Batman's reflexes, his martial arts knowledge, and his weapons training. It will come down to story factors, driven by character, situation, circumstance, tone, etc. etc.

Ideally the way the writer handles this is to frame the conflict with the overall tone of the story, which sets up expectations for the reader, he then carefully engineers and somehow espouses the situation, including otherwise intangible things like the emotional states of the characters, how driven the hero is, how ruthless and loyal the henchmen are. A good writer is not going to leave you thinking 'how did Batman manage that' instead he will make the reader respond to the circumstances and come away with a sense of satisfaction with how things transpired.

The problem is, when people don't respond they are too quick to fall back upon their own personal checklist of reasons why the story doesn't work. Reasons like power levels and plot immunity. These are not the actual reasons, they are missing the point. There has been a disconnect between the way the writer crafted the story and their enjoyment, and that may or may not be the writer's fault.

[CaptCleghorn]

I haven't read Slott's Silver Surfer run but at least he already has experience writing cosmic stories and even creating new abstract characters like the Queen of Nevers.

His Surfer made sense and was a critically acclaimed run. I should add my negative feelings about Slott's lack of ability to handle higher concepts as well as writers like Moore and gaimen (which, let's be hinest, is often expected). I felt Slott aimed very high and Surfer and although hie did a damn fine job, some of the deeper stuff seemed a bit too simplistic for me.

It;s possible this may play into his FF especially with universal creations and the relative moralities involved. I have no doubt Slott can do a very good job, but IMO, he could again be aiming higher than he can reach.

[JKtheMac]

His Surfer made sense and was a critically acclaimed run. I should add my negative feelings about Slott's lack of ability to handle higher concepts as well as writers like Moore and gaimen (which, let's be hinest, is often expected). I felt Slott aimed very high and Surfer and although hie did a damn fine job, some of the deeper stuff seemed a bit too simplistic for me.

It;s possible this may play into his FF especially with universal creations and the relative moralities involved. I have no doubt Slott can do a very good job, but IMO, he could again be aiming higher than he can reach.

I would take issue with the idea that we all have expectations that high. Slott wasn't trying to be deeply profound in Silver Surfer, he was being playful with high concept ideas, while grounding the story with the emotional ties he formed, in the same way RTD was on Dr Who who in turn was inspired by Marvel comics.

He seems to be doing a similar thing here. Playing with ideas like a personification of the heat death of the universe, while grounding the characters by emphasising their emotional and familial connections and conflicts.

[mrbrklyn]

You missed an opportunity to read how he wrote the Fantastic Four as Spider-Man supporting characters, Peter's stint in the Future Foundation from his perspective, and how he's practically an extended member of the family.

I didn't miss anything. His Spider-man was so bad, that it wasn't worth the time to read, so I gained my time back to read something of value, like Planetary.

[mrbrklyn]

I would take issue with the idea that we all have expectations that high. Slott wasn't trying to be deeply profound in Silver Surfer, he was being playful with high concept ideas, while grounding the story with the emotional ties he formed, in the same way RTD was on Dr Who who in turn was inspired by Marvel comics.

He seems to be doing a similar thing here. Playing with ideas like a personification of the heat death of the universe, while grounding the characters by emphasising their emotional and familial connections and conflicts.

Neil Gaiman he is not.

[mrbrklyn]

He already did this! Did you read the book?

Actually he didn't. Just suddenly, for no reason, without any explanation, and with no supporting plot, the powers just magically ran out.

It is ironic because this FF story arc is written as badly as a new universe with more chocolate. It makes no sense, and doesn't work. 10 years from now they will be moaning about this to no end, wishing it never reached print.

[Prof. Warren]

I didn't miss anything. His Spider-man was so bad, that it wasn't worth the time to read, so I gained my time back to read something of value, like Planetary.

By your own admission, you didn't read it. So your opinion on ten year's worth of stories isn't worth considering.

Clearly the fans who did actually read it and helped make it a successful, decade-long run would disagree that it was "so bad."

Your personal choice to pass on Slott's Spider-Man is fine but don't pretend to be in an informed position to judge its worth.

[Prof. Warren]

Actually he didn't. Just suddenly, for no reason, without any explanation, and with no supporting plot, the powers just magically ran out.

Gee, it's almost like this might actually be an important plot point that is addressed as the story goes on.

[mrbrklyn]

Franklin is the problem that just won't go away. Way back when, Marvel writers deemed him an all powerful, cosmic entity that could reshape worlds and reality on a whim.

Slott HAS to do something that limits his abilities, else he overshadows every threat the FF faces. Why actually fight when Franklin can just 'wish it away'? At least he started something by having Franklin just lose the ability to create universes as some sort of burnout of that power - with no outside cause. There has to at least be some cost to his use of his powers.

That is largely true and Byrne dealt with it by just taking him away and leaving a new Franklin in his place. But his powers have ramped up, starting with his creating a universe in his closet... way back when. And it was never fixed because that particular storyline was intercepted by the onslaught all world saga that commandeered the Franklin story, so it has never been fixed.

So slott fixes this the same way he fixed the death of the FF? He snaps his fingers, and poof, claims it is all fixed and it all makes sense?

Here is fifty cents kid... go buy yourself a variant cover....


Oye!

[Triniking1234]

Making Franklin an active member of the team changes his role. If he is included in the FF exploits, and not just a tertiary character, it's inevitable that he'd be in the middle of a conflict where his presence alone is enough to turn the tide in the FF's favor. I'm just saying Slott has to put together stories that DON'T allow for the "Franklin can just reset everything" solution.

And yeah, previous writers have taken Franklin out of the box, then put him back in numerous times. Again - being able to reset reality is just something that can't be failsafe for every FF adventure going forward.

BAS, your complaint is based on

1) some imaginary pattern that every FF storyline that involves Franklin results in him using his powers in some reality-warping way.

2) trying to predict what Dan Slott is going to write.


Franklin's biggest feats since being an active character has being aging himself up, sending the heroes to Heroes Reborn and reviving Galactus to defeat Abraxas since he couldn't defeat Abraxas directly. Also he was an active member after he was aged to the teens by his grandfather and the writer avoided the same problems people are complaining about here.

[CaptCleghorn]

I would take issue with the idea that we all have expectations that high. Slott wasn't trying to be deeply profound in Silver Surfer, he was being playful with high concept ideas, while grounding the story with the emotional ties he formed, in the same way RTD was on Dr Who who in turn was inspired by Marvel comics.

He seems to be doing a similar thing here. Playing with ideas like a personification of the heat death of the universe, while grounding the characters by emphasising their emotional and familial connections and conflicts.

I'm certainly open to being misguided in my assessment of his Surfer. My exact phrasing is only an interpretation but he was using high concept ideas which generally are only used to such a degree by the deeper more intense stories. I think "aiming high" there is a fair assessment. Obviously, I have no clue as to Slott's intentions but he is a talented and knowledgeable enough writer to know what he was writing about.

In rereading my original post, you do have a good point. If I realie what it was i wanted to say, I'll rephrase.

[mrbrklyn]

Again it is not the same thing. A phenomenon that admittedly many fans do conflate.

A character with super strength suddenly seeming able to lift something much more heavy than he previously seemed to be able to lift is not the same as a character seemingly getting lucky dodging a bullet. Both can be handled well or poorly, the way they are handled can be similar to each other. But they are not the same issue.

When it comes down to it we can't define a feat based upon a story conflict unless the story is a pure contest of strength and that's not a particularly satisfactory story because there is no actual conflict. Most contests of strength have a reason. The circumstances shape the conflict.

Batman fighting a gang of gunmen is not a matter of working out the stopping power of bullets and the accuracy of the average henchmen's aim and matching it against Batman's reflexes, his martial arts knowledge, and his weapons training. It will come down to story factors, driven by character, situation, circumstance, tone, etc. etc.

Ideally the way the writer handles this is to frame the conflict with the overall tone of the story, which sets up expectations for the reader, he then carefully engineers and somehow espouses the situation, including otherwise intangible things like the emotional states of the characters, how driven the hero is, how ruthless and loyal the henchmen are. A good writer is not going to leave you thinking 'how did Batman manage that' instead he will make the reader respond to the circumstances and come away with a sense of satisfaction with how things transpired.

The problem is, when people don't respond they are too quick to fall back upon their own personal checklist of reasons why the story doesn't work. Reasons like power levels and plot immunity. These are not the actual reasons, they are missing the point. There has been a disconnect between the way the writer crafted the story and their enjoyment, and that may or may not be the writer's fault.

Very well said

[mrbrklyn]

Do you have reading comprehension issues?

That is a conversation killer...