Have The Super Heroes Reverted Back To Form Approaching Secret Wars?

[jackolover]

2015

Peter Parker has achieved fame and fortune, how he started
Tony Stark has become the ultimate weapons manufacturer, after trying not to be
Reed Richards chases reward for his genius while his friends suffer
Steve Rogers suffers for his dogmatism in chasing the Illuminati
T'Challa has destroyed his country and now lost it
Thor lost his arm and is now as unworthy as when he started
Hank Pym is reduced to a psychotic where he began
Scott Summers is now a Magneto figure, something he was against
Stephen Strange now is in charge of an elitist group, the Black Priests, divorced from humanity
Daredevil has lost his right to be a Lawyer because he is a vigilante
Wanda has no credibility, after returning in Children's Crusade.
Hawkeye and Black Widow are back doing black ops and getting mind wiped to denial
Bucky Barnes is a disgraced Captain America and back to assassinating aliens this time

A coincidence that Marvel chooses to end their characters story as those stories started, the heroes debasing themselves and showing their true colours before Secret Wars?

What do I think happened in the intervening years from their origins to the 2000's?
They were the summer holidays, where the super heroes could bask in the knowledge that all they did was right, they had no commitments, and no responsibilities. College years, full of hope and self-righteousness, and immortality.

[HaveAtThee]

I just think that it's been a recurring trend at Marvel since around 03-04 to deconstruct their characters every so often, because it's seemingly the only story any of these guys can tell.

[616MarvelYear is LeapYear]

I am so very grateful to marvel comics that they have the courtesy to end the 616 marvel universe as the mainstream marvel universe.
No longer having so-called 'writers', like BMB, tossing his salad all over the 616 mainstream marvel universe

[vitruvian]

2015

Peter Parker has achieved fame and fortune, how he started

No. Peter Parker had a brief bout of fame and fortune before Uncle Ben died and he truly became Spider-Man as a superhero, and ever since he's been mostly struggling, so this would not be 'back to form'.

Tony Stark has become the ultimate weapons manufacturer, after trying not to be
Reed Richards chases reward for his genius while his friends suffer
Steve Rogers suffers for his dogmatism in chasing the Illuminati
T'Challa has destroyed his country and now lost it
Thor lost his arm and is now as unworthy as when he started

Not back to form for any of them.

Tony Stark remained a weapons manufacturer for years after becoming Iron Man, then wasn't one for years; it doesn't define him either way. The current turn of events could be seen as a return to the movie version's origins, but not 'back to form'.

Reed Richards was never chasing monetary reward, or even fame, and while his friends and family have suffered, he's never been the cause of that except the one time with the shielding.

Even if Steve is suffering for dogmatism, that would be a new thing, not part of either his origin or his usual state.

T'Challa neither started out nor spent most of his career having lost his country.

Thor didn't start out unworthy, as the first time we see him it's because Don Blake was worthy, and he wields the hammer just fine through most of his appearances.

Hank Pym is reduced to a psychotic where he began

No he didn't.

Scott Summers is now a Magneto figure, something he was against
Stephen Strange now is in charge of an elitist group, the Black Priests, divorced from humanity
Daredevil has lost his right to be a Lawyer because he is a vigilante
Wanda has no credibility, after returning in Children's Crusade.
Hawkeye and Black Widow are back doing black ops and getting mind wiped to denial
Bucky Barnes is a disgraced Captain America and back to assassinating aliens this time

Too tedious to go point by point. You don't seem to know what the phrase 'back to form' means, which is 'back to the way they usually are', not 'back to their origins'. In addition, you're just 100% dead wrong about the details of many of their origins or their usual status quos.

A coincidence that Marvel chooses to end their characters story as those stories started, the heroes debasing themselves and showing their true colours before Secret Wars?

Except they're not doing that, as detailed above, and even if they were reverting the characters to their status pre-origin, to characterize that state as their true colors is wrong. In addition, not all of these recent changes can be seen as debasement; e.g., what on Earth is wrong with Parker Industries doing research and development for both profit and the public good?

What do I think happened in the intervening years from their origins to the 2000's?
They were the summer holidays, where the super heroes could bask in the knowledge that all they did was right, they had no commitments, and no responsibilities. College years, full of hope and self-righteousness, and immortality.

You may think that... but you'd be wrong. It is most certainly not the case that they had no commitments or responsibilities, or that they were like the summer holidays for pretty much any of these characters. Pick any one of them, and I can point out plenty of instances of trauma, tragedy, self-questioning, and doubt throughout the stories of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, prior to the 2000s.

[Lady Warp Spasm]

No. Peter Parker had a brief bout of fame and fortune before Uncle Ben died and he truly became Spider-Man as a superhero, and ever since he's been mostly struggling, so this would not be 'back to form'.



Not back to form for any of them.

Tony Stark remained a weapons manufacturer for years after becoming Iron Man, then wasn't one for years; it doesn't define him either way. The current turn of events could be seen as a return to the movie version's origins, but not 'back to form'.

Reed Richards was never chasing monetary reward, or even fame, and while his friends and family have suffered, he's never been the cause of that except the one time with the shielding.

Even if Steve is suffering for dogmatism, that would be a new thing, not part of either his origin or his usual state.

T'Challa neither started out nor spent most of his career having lost his country.

Thor didn't start out unworthy, as the first time we see him it's because Don Blake was worthy, and he wields the hammer just fine through most of his appearances.

Agreed. It's true every so often one remakes or deconstruct the heroes in order to make them ultimately stronger (or hopefully tell a good story.)

[Mark]

I just think that it's been a recurring trend at Marvel since around 03-04 to deconstruct their characters every so often, because it's seemingly the only story any of these guys can tell.

As long as it sells they really don't have to work hard to tell any other type of story. Why paint the house a new color when the old color hasn't faded?

[MyriVerse]

No. Peter Parker had a brief bout of fame and fortune before Uncle Ben died and he truly became Spider-Man as a superhero, and ever since he's been mostly struggling, so this would not be 'back to form'.



Not back to form for any of them.

Tony Stark remained a weapons manufacturer for years after becoming Iron Man, then wasn't one for years; it doesn't define him either way. The current turn of events could be seen as a return to the movie version's origins, but not 'back to form'.

Reed Richards was never chasing monetary reward, or even fame, and while his friends and family have suffered, he's never been the cause of that except the one time with the shielding.

Even if Steve is suffering for dogmatism, that would be a new thing, not part of either his origin or his usual state.

T'Challa neither started out nor spent most of his career having lost his country.

Thor didn't start out unworthy, as the first time we see him it's because Don Blake was worthy, and he wields the hammer just fine through most of his appearances.



No he didn't.




Too tedious to go point by point. You don't seem to know what the phrase 'back to form' means, which is 'back to the way they usually are', not 'back to their origins'. In addition, you're just 100% dead wrong about the details of many of their origins or their usual status quos.



Except they're not doing that, as detailed above, and even if they were reverting the characters to their status pre-origin, to characterize that state as their true colors is wrong. In addition, not all of these recent changes can be seen as debasement; e.g., what on Earth is wrong with Parker Industries doing research and development for both profit and the public good?



You may think that... but you'd be wrong. It is most certainly not the case that they had no commitments or responsibilities, or that they were like the summer holidays for pretty much any of these characters. Pick any one of them, and I can point out plenty of instances of trauma, tragedy, self-questioning, and doubt throughout the stories of the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, prior to the 2000s.

Agreed completely. I'm not sure how jackolover could have read any books and though any of this was "back to form" or "back to their origins."

[HaveAtThee]

As long as it sells they really don't have to work hard to tell any other type of story. Why paint the house a new color when the old color hasn't faded?

I wasn't pertaining to sales. I'm just speaking from my own viewpoint.