Rarely, almost never, and never: The plot techniques that are better off avoided

[KurtW95]

I was thinking to myself about how many characters aren't as fun as they used to be. A lot of that comes down to writing. But I think there are a number of plot devices that are used way too sparingly and can do serious damage. There are some that I think can work, but rarely. There are some that almost never work and should almost never be tried. And there are some that never work and shouldn't be considered

You are welcome to think of more, but these are the post devices I thought it.

Rarely: Creating a multiverse counterpart of an established character. Ideally, this should be no problem. But it becomes one if the new version replaces the old or manages to change the old version to match the new alternate version.

Rarely: Design changes. Design changes rarely work. Particularly if the character's suit is iconic. It can work. But if one is tried and it doesn't, it should go back rather than trying to make it happen.

Almost never: Characters getting married. If there were no plans to marry characters from the start, they shouldn't be progressed that far. These stories never end. And it's the duty of those in charge to preserve who they are and were. There are indeed times that it work. But those are few and far between.

Almost never: Characters having kids. Similar to characters getting married, but even more so. Now the character is saddled with a new character. And future writers will be stuck having to include the kid in stories and lose the dynamics from past stories, mostly because the former writer wanted to leave a lasting mark and went a lazy route.

Never: Killing off characters that you didn't create. Everyone knows that lots of characters don't stay dead. And that's honestly better than losing them all. If these characters were going to stay dead and it kept happening, we would be in trouble. Because all of the classic characters would be gone. And newer writers don't remotely have the talent to create characters that are as good. But going through the charade in the first place is dumb and should be avoided. Unless it's a house that you're not trying to even pretend is real. No one believed that Kamala Khan was going to stay dead. Why pretend otherwise?

Never: Changing a character's sexual orientation. If the creators didn't intend on doing it early on, it shouldn't happen. Doing so fundamentally changes a character and has become a tired gimmick. It also traps any future writers and silences fans who disagree with the change, not because of any bigotry, but because they think the character isn't being written like the character. There is no character who was retconned like this and it has been a benefit.

Almost never: Serious hero vs. hero battles. A trend that really started around Civil War and was copied endlessly. Partly because all of the villains were getting reformed. And partly because some of the heroes were now acting shady.

Almost never: Reforming villainous characters. I would agree that it worked well with Magneto. But pretty much no one else. And when every villain is now heroic. There are no more good villains. And the heroes have to fight each other.

Almost never: Creating legacy replacements and changing a character's codename and ID. These rarely work well. The best cases tend to revolve around the first character being anchored to an earlier time. Doing it in the present is cheap. Unless the character has already been using a ton of different names.

Never: Turning a hero into a villain. I cannot think of one time that such a plot device ended up well.

Almost never: To deconstruct. The problem when you keep doing it, you will end up at a place where there is no more character to deconstruct. And it is no longer fun. It can work on the occasion. But it shouldn't happen much now.

Almost never: Putting in a pop culture reference. The easiest way to make your comic dated in the future. Can work if it's truly a timely reference or subtle. But direct and on the nose should be avoided.

[Riv86672]

^^^I'm w. you on quite a few of these, esp. changing a character's sexual orientation. That one really irks me as it’s such a lame ass pandering low hanging fruit “look at us we’re woke” move.


Rarely: Changes due to movie synergy.

[KurtW95]

Rarely: Changes due to movie synergy.

I agree. 100%. There are some aspects that can be fun to add, but it shouldn't override canon.

[Anthony W]

I was thinking to myself about how many characters aren't as fun as they used to be.

When you say "how many" what you really mean is "all of them". Yeah I noticed it... about ten plus years ago.

[DanMad1977]

This applies only for corporate characters that are never ending.

If you have one creator in his own universe, most of these things do work. See Savage Dragon. He even killed his main character and it did work.

[Anthony W]

This applies only for corporate characters that are never ending.

If you have one creator in his own universe, most of these things do work. See Savage Dragon. He even killed his main character and it did work.

Which is why it's posted in the Marvel boards.

[Ultimate Captain America]

Shooting someone to "stop him without killing him", usually at the shoulder or the legs, on the wrong asumption that if you don't shoot at the famous organs (brain, heart, lungs, stomach, etc) then it's fine. Any shot, at any place of the body, can be lethal. If you shoot someone, at all, you're shooting to kill.

[DanMad1977]

I disagree a bit on the pop culture reference. Every time I read an older comic and stumble upon a dated reference it feels charming and you remember the times it was written.

What I dislike, but its just used temporarily is the body switch storyline. Or the shared body experience. It doesn't harm the story long term, because its almost always reverted after one or two issues, but I switch off when that happens, because I feel bored and annoyed by it.

The only time it worked for me, and you all can disagree, was Dan Slotts Superior Spider-Man (not the new one, the old one), because I hated how he wrote Peter Parker (and I am not a Slott fan, more like he is the second worst Spider-Man writer ever) but he wrote a damn good Dr Octopus.

[useridgoeshere]

I agree with killing characters and I'd extend it. Killing characters is a hack move when it's just for shock value.
Agree with multiverse counterparts.
Agree with hero vs hero, especially as so many of these heroes have strong positive relationships that have to be chucked.

I'm mainly a X-book reader, but some of these I disagree with.

- Design changes. I don't agree that these rarely work. I can't think of a situation where this is a problem. Unless you mean some kind of complete revamp with nothing of the former remaining. But every major character I can think of has had their looked evolved and it's worked out a lot of the time. Of course there are missteps, but that's more because they look dated. Just with the X-Men - Wolverine, Storm, Rogue, Scott, Magneto ... they've all had some great and pretty significant re-designs. Iron Man, Thor, Captain Marvel. Back in the day, Spider-Man's black suit was hot. Maybe you mean something else.

- Which characters have had their sexual orientation changed? Iceman is the only one I know and I think it's worked out well for him. Certainly hasn't damaged him in any way I can think of. And sometimes, it is fulfilling a desire that was impossible because of past bigotry, e.g., Rachel or Hercules. I do wish that writers would remember that bisexuals and pansexuals exist.

- Pop culture references are fun and entertaining. Stories can exist for today because that's when folks are reading them. Now, characters who are based in pop culture, like Dazzler, need some love to evolve, but I don';t see the problem with pop culture references in writing.

- Reforming villains: Rogue worked out. Long-term villains, I agree, but it worked with Hawkeye and a few other Avengers whose names escape me.

[ShatteredReality]

- Reforming villains: Rogue worked out. Long-term villains, I agree, but it worked with Hawkeye and a few other Avengers whose names escape me.

Dang, I can't believe you forgot about Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver!

[krazijoe]

Dang, I can't believe you forgot about Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver!

The Avengers seems to be Ex-Villain anonymous.

[KurtW95]

- Which characters have had their sexual orientation changed? Iceman is the only one I know and I think it's worked out well for him. Certainly hasn't damaged him in any way I can think of. And sometimes, it is fulfilling a desire that was impossible because of past bigotry, e.g., Rachel or Hercules. I do wish that writers would remember that bisexuals and pansexuals exist.

A number of characters have been changed; too many to count right now . And it did not work out in his favor. He has become a farcical stereotypical cartoon and shadow of himself. The other characters that you mentioned were not intended to not be heterosexual all those years ago. The head canon and imagined undertones do not change facts. It's only ever valid if the creators agree to it early on. Otherwise, it is a retcon and shouldn't happen.

- Pop culture references are fun and entertaining. Stories can exist for today because that's when folks are reading them. Now, characters who are based in pop culture, like Dazzler, need some love to evolve, but I don';t see the problem with pop culture references in writing.

Pop culture references can work if they are vague enough. On the nose references aren't just cringey, they quickly age poorly and date the story. You read those old stories and laugh. The only pop culture references, which should still be made sparingly and in a vague manner, that aren't bad are timeless pop culture references. James Bond, John Wayne, The Beatles, Marilyn Monroe, and Elvis come to mind. Who could've been mentioned in the 60s or now and people would still get it. Or franchises that have stood that test of time. Though still, it's better not to reference specific new installments that might be remembered badly.

- Reforming villains: Rogue worked out. Long-term villains, I agree, but it worked with Hawkeye and a few other Avengers whose names escape me.

Rogue was never intended to stay a villain and Hawkeye only appeared like three times prior to joining the Avengers.

[Psy-lock]

The other characters that you mentioned were not intended to not be heterosexual all those years ago. The head canon and imagined undertones do not change facts. It's only ever valid if the creators agree to it early on. Otherwise, it is a retcon and shouldn't happen.

Hercules was not created by Marvel and had several male lovers in the myths, of which most people probably weren't even aware of in the 60's. Other than homophobia, there's no reason not to correct the decades of straightwashing

And Rachel was pretty much confirmed by Claremont himself.

[KurtW95]

First of all, it seems as it a lot of that is due to modern interpretations stemming from one guy. I asked ChatGPT, in an attempt to get an unbiased answer with an unbiased prompt. And it said that his lovers were women and the men listed were platonic friends. If you can provide me with legit sources that aren't from people who just really want it to be that way, go ahead. But I think ChatGPT would say so, if it was indeed settled and clear. And you are ignoring what I said about creators being in agreement. John Byrne had a heavy hand in her character's creation and he never said so and responded when asked that Claremont liked to sneak his fetishes into his writing. You can pretend that it's straightwashing all you want, but it's quite the opposite. But there is a certain segment of fandom that has created head canons that they can do with any character there is. So, if a characters is retconned, there will be tons of people attempting to justify it. And it's become a very easy way to grab headlines and fawning coverage. And I repeat that this critique it is not because I oppose having characters that are not straight in comics. I simply oppose changing the orientation of an established character.

[Psy-lock]

First of all, it seems as it a lot of that is due to modern interpretations stemming from one guy. I asked ChatGPT, in an attempt to get an unbiased answer with an unbiased prompt. And it said that his lovers were women and the men listed were platonic friends. If you can provide me with legit sources that aren't from people who just really want it to be that way, go ahead. But I think ChatGPT would say so, if it was indeed settled and clear.

The main source for it is Plutarch - an ancient Greek writer. It's not a modern interpretation at all. You can find references to Hercules' male lovers in other old works, like Christopher Marlow's Edward II.

And you are ignoring what I said about creators being in agreement. John Byrne had a heavy hand in her character's creation and he never said so and responded when asked that Claremont liked to sneak his fetishes into his writing. You can pretend that it's straightwashing all you want, but it's quite the opposite. But there is a certain segment of fandom that has created head canons that they can do with any character there is. So, if a characters is retconned, there will be tons of people attempting to justify it. And it's become a very easy way to grab headlines and fawning coverage. And I repeat that this critique it is not because I oppose having characters that are not straight in comics. I simply oppose changing the orientation of an established character.

So...Byrne allegedly disagrees with Claremont's interpretation of a character they created together, therefore she can only ever be interpreted as straight? It makes no sense.