Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 245
  1. #61
    Astonishing Member Lukmendes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crimz View Post
    Yeah they did switch up the roster from time to time and sometimes it worked really well. Like She Hulk replacing Ben was great and the time Reed was missing so Sue became leader.
    Toxic nostalgia is the right term for it because the current run removing the Future Foundation for no reason was big mistake that benefited no one and regressed the team.
    I remember seeing a few people kinda hyped for Slott writing F4 'cause his wacky ideas could bring cool stuff, but apparently what we got is rehashing old plots.

    Nostalgia doesn't benefit the team as whole but particularly Sue and Johnny. It leads to Sue being wallpaper and treated like a supporting character instead of one of the leads. It's the reason why she so underdeveloped for a character that's been around for 60 years. And for Johnny it leads to repetitive storylines and no real change or development.
    What, you're telling me that Johnny having a story where he matures, only to keep acting like a dickhead soon after for the 50th isn't interesting? .

    I think these things are the reason why Avengers and X-Men have overtaken them in popularity. There is nothing wrong with the concept of the FF but nostalgia and the "status quo" negatively effects the FF the most.
    X-Men surpassed F4 'cause of sheer writing quality the likes of Claremont brought, and having a lot of characters can help out 'cause it means the non popular characters can disappear pretty easily, so X-Men has an easier formula.

    Of course, having a small cast isn't really a problem, 'cause if that were the case, Superman would have fallen into irrelevancy before we even got into silver age, F4's main issue character-wise seems to be that, aside from Sue stopping being a "I just want to be a boring housewife" character, they didn't really evolve much as characters, which is the whole problem with this toxic nostalgia, it doesn't help that, a lot of the crazy stuff Kirby came up with is used by other characters, or teams, namely Doom, so F4 suffers because, the places they go and enemies they deal with aren't exclusive to them, and they're a lot more static as characters compared to other shit Marvel has, so that makes them look less interesting as a team, and it's a never ending loop 'cause nostalgia means they don't grow much as characters, so time advances and other writers take over and, F4's still not growing much 'cause since they never grew, next writers will likely keep it that way.

    And seriously, removing Future Foundation, unbelievable, I didn't even know that happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    From what I remember it was still 10x better than how Aaron handled Thor in Avengers.
    Low standard man, Aaron's Thor is just embarrassing, he might actually be worse than J'onn in his "Get jobbed by everything ever" era lol.

    I remember it was pointed out that Mjolnir recognized Black Panther as a reincarnation and it didn't attack him, and then another page has Mjolnir hammering Thor like he's a nail... Anyone has that picture? It was funny lol.

    I'd personally take wordy over decompressed if only because it seems to develop the characters and plots better.
    What, you're telling me that a story where nothing happens in one issue to the point it's ignorable, a 3 issues story being stretched into 20, to be problematics? .

    I think it's fine to switch out the core four every now and then but it will probably always go back to them in the end.
    That it will, just saying that F4 wasn't necessarily only going to have the 4 even before Future Foundation came along.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mik View Post
    I've come into comics more recently than others but I've never thought of F4 as more popular than Avengers. I don't think they have been the most popular since the 80s
    80's Marvel was all about X-Men and Spidey in popularity, F4 had largely lost their initial 60's popularity by that point, but I'd hard pressed to say Avengers were really above them back them, much less that above them.

    It's only stuff like the EMH cartoon and MCU that made Avengers popular and eventually into A-listers, before that, Avengers were so irrelevant that Marvel didn't even let Ultimate universe have a team with the name Avengers, and apparently Mark Millar had to really insist for them to be added into Ultimate universe at all, which, again, they weren't allowed to be called Avengers, and then Marvel decided to destroy the Avengers in 616 and make this other Avengers team with mostly more popular characters like Spidey, while removing classic team members like Thor and Wanda (Not to mention the whole thing about how Marvel just let Bendis fuck over her character), so yeah, Avengers popularity is very much a recent thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    It depends on the writer, a lot, I think.

    I like how Waid wrote the FF's family dynamic.
    It might be just my impression but I get the feeling people overblow the nasty shit Reed does.

    I mean sure, we have shit like, Civil War, which siding with Tony to begin with was bad, cloning Thor was disgusting, but sometimes he's talked about like he's The Maker's evil twin.

    Not saying the guy's a saint, he definitely isn't, but I'm wondering if Reed is a character who goes on the "overhated" territory lol.

  2. #62
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    10,646

    Default

    I don't think he's overhated. He always seems like a jerk to me. And he's never really called out on it because his family keeps coming back to him.

  3. #63
    Extraordinary Member Revolutionary_Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,088

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukmendes View Post
    X-Men surpassed F4 'cause of sheer writing quality the likes of Claremont brought, and having a lot of characters can help out 'cause it means the non popular characters can disappear pretty easily, so X-Men has an easier formula.
    Well the X-Men sold its most comics in the late-80s when Storm was leader of the x-Men and you had new characters among the X-Men, the outback era and afterwards didn't feature any of the Original Five X-men.

    So it's not like Claremont's "formula" relied on safe, tried and tested.

    80's Marvel was all about X-Men and Spidey in popularity, F4 had largely lost their initial 60's popularity by that point, but I'd hard pressed to say Avengers were really above them back them, much less that above them.
    The F4 sold very well in the 80s under John Byrne and then after that it had runs like Walt Simonson's that had some notable issues and concepts. And certainly Mark Waid's F4 run and especially Hickman's made them work in a big way.

    It might be just my impression but I get the feeling people overblow the nasty shit Reed does.

    I mean sure, we have shit like, Civil War, which siding with Tony to begin with was bad, cloning Thor was disgusting, but sometimes he's talked about like he's The Maker's evil twin.

    Not saying the guy's a saint, he definitely isn't, but I'm wondering if Reed is a character who goes on the "overhated" territory lol.
    My feeling is that the Fantastic Four succeeded as a team and concept. Left to himself, Mr. Fantastic/Reed Richards would never have cut it as a popular solo hero and that's okay.

    To me Reed works best when he's square and not easy to like. He's not Mr. Charisma and he doesn't need to be, no more than Cyclops/Scott Summers. I don't like this idea that team leaders as a rule need to be the most interesting, coolest, and best characters which we see again and again with The Avengers in the MCU (Tony Stark) and so on. Reed works as part of a team where he gets to be the straight reliable anchor for the stuff going on with Susan, Johnny, Ben.

    That's how Hickman wrote Reed in his run (which is the most personally compelling Reed's ever been as a character, in my view). He didn't try and make Reed the coolest there is, or hippest that ever will be, but simply wrote a guy with ambitions that make sense ("Solve everything") coping with the limitations and duties to people around him.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Follow me at:
    https://elvingsmusings.wordpress.com/

  4. #64
    Extraordinary Member John Venus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,074

    Default

    I like Reed and the Reed/Sue relationship. I don't see it toxic or bad. Probably among the more nuanced and mature couples in comics.

    I always felt Reed was autistic-coded (maybe not intentionally by the writers but he can be interpreted that way). He can be hyper focused to the point where Sue and Ben can feel sidelined but he always comes back around to try and do right by them both. What differentiates him from Doom is that ultimately for Reed, what comes first is his family.

  5. #65
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    10,646

    Default

    The problem is his borderline sexist behavior is never really confronted. He acts uncaring and distant and Sue just stays with it. How's that a good relationship?

  6. #66
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    73,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lukmendes View Post
    I remember seeing a few people kinda hyped for Slott writing F4 'cause his wacky ideas could bring cool stuff, but apparently what we got is rehashing old plots.
    At times it felt like he was trying to write Spider-Man like he was in an FF book.
    Low standard man, Aaron's Thor is just embarrassing, he might actually be worse than J'onn in his "Get jobbed by everything ever" era lol.

    I remember it was pointed out that Mjolnir recognized Black Panther as a reincarnation and it didn't attack him, and then another page has Mjolnir hammering Thor like he's a nail... Anyone has that picture? It was funny lol.


    (I hate this scene).
    What, you're telling me that a story where nothing happens in one issue to the point it's ignorable, a 3 issues story being stretched into 20, to be problematics? .
    Sometimes that feels like modern comics in a nutshell.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mik View Post
    The problem is his borderline sexist behavior is never really confronted. He acts uncaring and distant and Sue just stays with it. How's that a good relationship?
    I think his sexist behavior is more a thing of older comics that has probably been adjusted for the sliding timeline's sake and isn't true to the character.

    Sue stays with him because when he cares, he really cares, and he genuinely loves her. It's just hard for him to show it at times. Compared to everything else, for all his faults, Reed really tries with Sue in his own awkward and stoic way.

  7. #67
    Astonishing Member Nomads1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro/Brazil
    Posts
    3,379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    From what I remember it was still 10x better than how Aaron handled Thor in Avengers. And he used Cap and Iron Man well in my opinion. He did give us one of the most iconic Thor scenes:

    YES! I mean, how can something like this be wrong? Awsome take and an awsome scene. Truly historic. They should have used it in the film.

    I'd personally take wordy over decompressed if only because it seems to develop the characters and plots better.
    100% in agreement. True, there is a difference between wordy and exposition-heavy. I wonder why people always call nostalgia when you consider something old better than the crap you're getting now. Can't it be that you just liked the old stuff better and think the new stuff is crap, think that there are very few creators worth their salt working nowadays? Why is your opinion less worthy, or relagated to a simple childhood-like perspective?

    Peace

  8. #68
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    73,297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomads1 View Post
    YES! I mean, how can something like this be wrong? Awsome take and an awsome scene. Truly historic. They should have used it in the film.
    The fact that it wasn't in Age of Ultron is a crime.

  9. #69
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    10,646

    Default

    I realize it's from the 60s but I think the comics should try to lessen that about Reed. Because for me, that does seem true to his character, but he doesn't seem to evolve. Sue being bland doesn't help her at all in that respect

  10. #70
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    10,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomads1 View Post
    YES! I mean, how can something like this be wrong? Awsome take and an awsome scene. Truly historic. They should have used it in the film.


    100% in agreement. True, there is a difference between wordy and exposition-heavy. I wonder why people always call nostalgia when you consider something old better than the crap you're getting now. Can't it be that you just liked the old stuff better and think the new stuff is crap, think that there are very few creators worth their salt working nowadays? Why is your opinion less worthy, or relagated to a simple childhood-like perspective?

    Peace
    People criticize nostalgia because they feel it's holding comics back

  11. #71
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mik View Post
    People criticize nostalgia because they feel it's holding comics back
    People criticize nostalgia because a certain subset of fans use it as an excuse to justify boorish behavior and as an excuse for why they dislike a chatacter(usually a non white or non straight one) getting a push or development.

    There is some truth to the 'nostalgia holds comics back'argument, but I see that as more of a writer and editorial issue than fan issue.
    Last edited by king81992; 09-21-2021 at 10:38 AM.

  12. #72
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Posts
    10,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by king81992 View Post
    People criticize nostalgia because a certain subset of fans use it as an excuse to justify boorish behavior and as an excuse for why they dislike a chatacter(usually a non white or non straight one) getting a push or development.

    There is some truth to the 'nostalgia holds comics back'argument, but I see that as more of a writer and editorial issue than fan issue.
    Just to be certain, you're saying those obsessed with nostalgia are being boorish, or those criticizing nostalgia?

  13. #73
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    73,297

    Default

    Nolstalgia can be a double-edged sword, just as likewise not everything new or different is automatically either good or bad.

    At the end of the day it's all in the execution.

  14. #74
    Astonishing Member Lukmendes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    Well the X-Men sold its most comics in the late-80s when Storm was leader of the x-Men and you had new characters among the X-Men, the outback era and afterwards didn't feature any of the Original Five X-men.

    So it's not like Claremont's "formula" relied on safe, tried and tested.
    Oh it definitely wasn't a safe formula, just that having more characters can make the team as a whole more interesting, also giving characters a break.

    Also, thinking better of it, I guess it was only an easier formula after stuff was established, 'cause coming up with so many iconic characters is definitely no easy feat.

    The F4 sold very well in the 80s under John Byrne and then after that it had runs like Walt Simonson's that had some notable issues and concepts. And certainly Mark Waid's F4 run and especially Hickman's made them work in a big way.
    Thanks for the info.

    My feeling is that the Fantastic Four succeeded as a team and concept. Left to himself, Mr. Fantastic/Reed Richards would never have cut it as a popular solo hero and that's okay.
    Specially under Lee and Kirby, while the scientist side was cool, it's more so because of the cool tech he came up with, his character was just a boring 50's sexist husband back then, he also seemed like he was an ass for no reason in random issues I've read, though maybe those ones could be him joking a bit.

    To me Reed works best when he's square and not easy to like. He's not Mr. Charisma and he doesn't need to be, no more than Cyclops/Scott Summers. I don't like this idea that team leaders as a rule need to be the most interesting, coolest, and best characters which we see again and again with The Avengers in the MCU (Tony Stark) and so on. Reed works as part of a team where he gets to be the straight reliable anchor for the stuff going on with Susan, Johnny, Ben.

    That's how Hickman wrote Reed in his run (which is the most personally compelling Reed's ever been as a character, in my view). He didn't try and make Reed the coolest there is, or hippest that ever will be, but simply wrote a guy with ambitions that make sense ("Solve everything") coping with the limitations and duties to people around him.
    Yeah, leaders don't necessarily have to be the best written character, or even the strongest character, being reliable and competent is usually the best reason for a character to be a leader.

    Also:

    He didn't try and make Reed the coolest there is
    I see what you did there .

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    At times it felt like he was trying to write Spider-Man like he was in an FF book.
    Which makes it surprising that Slott only wrote Spidey in like, one Future Foundation story?



    I meant the meme that was posted, showing both the Black Panther and Thor scenes, but thanks anyways.

    (I hate this scene).
    Aaron's showing how much he respects the character man .

    Sometimes that feels like modern comics in a nutshell.
    Bad pacing like this is part of the reason why I dropped ASM for a while once Last Remains was done.

    I think his sexist behavior is more a thing of older comics that has probably been adjusted for the sliding timeline's sake and isn't true to the character.
    I'm pretty sure older comics has a scene where he says Sue should just look pretty and stay on the kitchen, so yeah.

    Modern version of him, what I've seen definitely has him being an ass at times, but I don't really think sexism is one of his issues, 'cause at his worst he sounds like he doesn't respect anyone regardless of sex lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by king81992 View Post
    There is some truth to the 'nostalgia holds comics back'argument, but I see that as more of a writer and editorial issue than fan issue.
    Yeah, editorial nostalgia is what truly holds characters back, entire years of development can be undone for the sake of making the comic be closer to how it used to be, even if it comes at the cost of fucking over everything.

    Either that or just refusing to let stories go past a specific point of status quo 'cause the previous run was that iconic and editorial keeps it in that place.

  15. #75
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mik View Post
    Just to be certain, you're saying those obsessed with nostalgia are being boorish, or those criticizing nostalgia?
    I'm saying that boorish fans will justify their hang ups/ grudges against certain characters by using nostalgia as an excuse. These people aren't actually nostalgic, they throw the word out to mask their true intentions.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •