The Most Egrious Misrepresentation of a Character I Ever Saw Was...

[AngelJD]

This is something I think of whenever a new writer happens for characters I love. Characters whom I've been following and following character journeys, developments, cast relations, how they think when shown, and charazations.
Many times if it's not the main series writer I find the character might be presented/shown not accurately or altered in some way not following what I feel is the one individual in the multiverse character's continuity. There are workarounds but some necessities has to be established.

I think for every example we present WE MUST state what character but more importantly what Earth version of the character we are writing about as for example if I was writing about 'Gwen Stacy' of '616' Earth she will NOT BE the 'Gwen Stacy' of 617, 1610, or 65 or any other versions and each is a independent character. The fate or what a character version does has no real importance/dominance to another version.

I enjoy Earth-65 Gwen Stacy/Spider-Woman but when she is written by another writer outside of her own series not written by Jason Latour then things might be presented as I don't see as 'accurate assumption' of that one character's continuity.
I felt this way doing 'Web Warriors' series as in that team Earth-65 Gwen Stacy/Spider-Woman was apart of that team. To note that if that wasn't Earth-65 Gwen Stacy version then I wouldn't be worried for the character's continuity representation and developments as she would be a fresh new version from scratch with no continuity to challenge thus a new individual character and just with her my hopes/assuitions of characterization desires to be shown and also willing to see the unexpected and hopefully well writing individual.

In Web Warriors that Gwen was often presented as 'experienced and one of the best'. However in her own series she makes TONS of mistakes, has her emotions cloud her judgments, suffers somewhat from PTSD, still not quite as experienced as the other Spider heroes of the Multiverse, seeks mentorship with Jessica Drew and by others around her, and falls on her face many times. Now if it was presented that the other Spiders saw her and based on their own self doubts but also rising others up in putting themselves down they saw her in a positive light meanwhile Gwen also has the same negative thoughts about herself and raises the others up in her own head equally then it not a matter of 'accuracy' but a matters of shown purposely inaccurate perspective in story and characterizations. A case of 'grass/hero is greener/better on the other side' mental state the Spiders all seen to suffer from as they see themselves as mess ups.

Based on info given to us about character versions I either come with a series of hopes and expectations based on continuity or just based on hopes of how a character might be portrayed. If it's a new character with no continuity yet made then I still have hopes and expectations but if the writer does something different the character presented to be could still be wonderful in ways I didn't consider or just works once everything comes together in story.

I'm feeling this worry for Gwen Poole of 616 having enjoyed her series but most of all her developments that made her a responsible hero and cares deeply for others beyond herself and connections and smarts/thinking that was shown. I feel worry for her upcoming West Coast Avengers as the writer wasn't her main series writer and I fear she will be presented just like how many who didn't read her series might present her which is inaccurate 99% of the time.

For the upcoming Spider-Verse movie that Gwen Stacy/Spider-Woman ISN'T Earth-65 version so changes to her differ from the ones I would of placed on the Earth-65 can happen as this upcoming Gwen has no continuity yet presented to us but what was given in the website bios and trailers (not liking what I read in her bios however so I'm hoping against that info or a good twist happening). That said I still have certain hopes based on my own perspectives to this new version. This Gwen might not be a drummer and might instead be a 'geek gamer girl' and extroverted and hyper and that would be very different from the introverted brooding Rock drummer Earth-65 version and for me that is FINE. What I do hope is seeing what shaped this character version into who she is, how her powers work if different from Earth-65 version, her thinking and how it works and influenced her life choices, and finally that she is inexperienced and falls on her face equally as a the guys helping to teach each other while also still learning from each other and not a 'pro'. A strong likable character I can relate to or at least if I disagree I can STILL see where the writers were coming from and other might latch onto.

Some of the examples posted by others such as the cartoon versions and movies isn't really a 'misrepresentation' as it's more of a 'representation' that we didn't like and fear might affect how we could see other versions past and future. It's a small but still a big difference. Writers making fresh new versions and Earths are free from the chains of continuity and must focus on making a world, characters, developments, and overall story that is fantastic even if it might different from the various versions sources. These versions we have hopes and expectations influence/based on past/present versions but anything goes.

Writers when writing for a 'established' version character I hope will put in the time to research and greatly read the past couple of trades of the main series they were in and other books for contitlity and best representations they can do. But the matters of how they see a 'established' individual character version and how I see the same 'established' individual character version still might differ.

We seen this happen on these fan forums where how two people see the VERY same character and interactions of what is happening in one issue can be very different. Same can happen for different writers and can be influenced or the thinking can go in different ways yet hold the same information gathered.

When writing in this very topic we must write more then stating a character was 'misrepresented' but MUST present the why and hows and give past info on that version that caused the feeling of conflitions of charazations we are complaining about due to disappointments.
If you write version 6872 Peter is different from 734 Peter then that isn't a good example as they are two different versions/character really. Peter of 6713 can only conflict with past info of 6713. You however can still say that there was no conflicts but still post disappointments of the overall results if you felt the movie,comic, or tv show failed in some way of your expectations or the writers tried something but missed or caused a plot hole that they missed/paradox or was lacking in showing how the individual character was influenced that they missed or didn't build upon enough.

[XPac]

it's the opposite of the mischaracterization of Hawkeye in West Coast Avengers.



which is entirely unrealistic given his classical abrasiveness and tendency to shoot from the hip. Clint escaped an abusive household. he should have been the fist to punch Hank square in the mouth. if they make up afterwards, that would be perfectly in character for Clint. the writers gave Hank a pass because they needed him to be usable for stories.

Yeah I think Austens portrayal of Clint in regards to Hank would have been perfectly fine if we had seen it immediately after Hank hit her. If anything it's more believable than what we actually got.

But what we saw in West Coast Avengers clearly conflicts with that.

[Nomads1]

Yeah I think Austens portrayal of Clint in regards to Hank would have been perfectly fine if we had seen it immediately after Hank hit her. If anything it's more believable than what we actually got.

But what we saw in West Coast Avengers clearly conflicts with that.

Not only in WCA, actually. Stern already wrote Hawk as rooting for Hank cleaning his act in his first act over at the main Avengers title. I guess it was seen as character growth and Hawkeye becoming more mature. plus, back than, merely a little over a year after "The Slap", it was not yet as big a deal as it became over the years.

Peace

[Michael Watkins]

They did all of the characters a disservice. If Hank and Clint had gotten into a brawl over it, that might have at least led to closure. I know how I would have written it. By sweeping it under the cover, they put an asterisk on Pym's career. Seriously imagine an enraged Clint telling Hank how he looked up to him and how, because of the abusive household he escaped, how disappointed he was. From there, all they need to do is imply that Hank got help. And it would be entirely in character for Clint to, then, ask him to join the West Coast Avengers. It would have ended there. Instead people try to say that it wasn't a big deal, it was an art mistake, he was insane, or Peter Parker hit Mary Jane. And the wound festers. If you think it's just forum posters, reread that exchange between Tony Stark and Pymtron.

[Chainsaw Vigilante]

How much time do you have? Would you like a post in novel form.

[Alan2099]

They did all of the characters a disservice. If Hank and Clint had gotten into a brawl over it, that might have at least led to closure. I know how I would have written it. By sweeping it under the cover, they put an asterisk on Pym's career. Seriously imagine an enraged Clint telling Hank how he looked up to him and how, because of the abusive household he escaped, how disappointed he was. From there, all they need to do is imply that Hank got help. And it would be entirely in character for Clint to, then, ask him to join the West Coast Avengers. It would have ended there. Instead people try to say that it wasn't a big deal, it was an art mistake, he was insane, or Peter Parker hit Mary Jane. And the wound festers. If you think it's just forum posters, reread that exchange between Tony Stark and Pymtron.

Hank being abusive was never a problem for anyone because it NEVER happened.

Hank wasn't abusive. He had a breakdown and went all supervillain. Then he hit another hero that was trying to stop him. Hero tend to hit each other when they get angry. Almost every single hero ever has done this. It's being abuse was something added later by people that don't know what they're talking about and hack writers.

Hawkeye better than anyone should understand a fall from grace and trying to be a better person afterwards.

[Michael Watkins]

Hank being abusive was never a problem for anyone because it NEVER happened.

it totally happened. Hank was abusive. what do you think inspired the characterization in The Ultimates?

Hank wasn't abusive. He had a breakdown and went all supervillain.

by that logic, Magneto was never a terrorist.

Then he hit another hero that was trying to stop him.

he belted his wife in the face when she tried to reason with him. if she were trying to stop him, she would have used her wasp blast. you used the term 'hero' to make it seem like it was business as normal. she was dressed for bed.

Hero tend to hit each other when they get angry. Almost every single hero ever has done this. It's being abuse was something added later by people that don't know what they're talking about and hack writers.

male heroes tend to not hit female heroes when they get angry.

Hawkeye better than anyone should understand a fall from grace and trying to be a better person afterwards.

tell it to Mockingbird or Swordsman

[Alan2099]

it totally happened. Hank was abusive. what do you think inspired the characterization in The Ultimates?

Most of the characterization in the ultimates was the writer going out of his way to make everyone as edgy and unlikable as possible. Ultimate characterization is proof of nothing.

male heroes tend to not hit female heroes when they get angry.

This is basically what the argument always comes down to. It's not okay because she was a woman.

Just because Hank flipped out and was acting like a jerk doesn't mean they were in an abusive relationship anymore than a person going out and drinking too much on a weekend means they're an alcoholic. It was an one time thing that people try to make into Hank's entire character.

I notice your scans cut off right before Hank's robot attacks the entire team of Avengers. Do you mean to tell me that hank is in an abusive realtionship with Captain America and Thor as well?

[Michael Watkins]

Most of the characterization in the ultimates was the writer going out of his way to make everyone as edgy and unlikable as possible. Ultimate characterization is proof of nothing.

not even a lick of honesty. it's sad.

This is basically what the argument always comes down to. It's not okay because she was a woman.

it's not ok because she was his wife and wasn't fighting him. he, literally, had no reason to hit her.

Just because Hank flipped out and was acting like a jerk doesn't mean they were in an abusive relationship anymore than a person going out and drinking too much on a weekend means they're an alcoholic. It was an one time thing that people try to make into Hank's entire character.

they had a bad relationship full of emotional abuse that culminated in physical assault.

I notice your scans cut off right before Hank's robot attacks the entire team of Avengers. Do you mean to tell me that hank is in an abusive realtionship with Captain America and Thor as well?

I just pulled an image from google search. Hank is a traitor. he didn't hit Cap or Thor because he knew that they'd hid him back. he's a coward.

[Mike_Murdock]

This is basically what the argument always comes down to. It's not okay because she was a woman.

Just because Hank flipped out and was acting like a jerk doesn't mean they were in an abusive relationship anymore than a person going out and drinking too much on a weekend means they're an alcoholic. It was an one time thing that people try to make into Hank's entire character.

I notice your scans cut off right before Hank's robot attacks the entire team of Avengers. Do you mean to tell me that hank is in an abusive realtionship with Captain America and Thor as well?

Even if Hank hadn't hit Jan, he would still have been emotionally abusive throughout that issue and the story continually portrayed it that way (to the point that Tigra absolutely comments on it). Now I think even that was a product of mental instability, so that's important to keep in mind, but it's clear from the text that it's more than just hitting someone.

[ed2962]

What Chuck Austen did to Hawkeye and Hank Pym in his Avengers run. After being laid to rest decades before and Hank and Jan working out their issues and Jan forgiving Hank all of a sudden Hawkeye is written as always hating Hanks guts even though they had worked together and been friends for years after the "slap" incident. It came totally out of nowhere and was used ever since to destroy Hank Pym as a character and started the many many times since where Hawkeye is portrayed as an ******* like when he kills Bruce Banner in cold blood.

Well, Hank and Clint almost came to blows a few few times during the Roy Thomas run.

[ed2962]

They did all of the characters a disservice. If Hank and Clint had gotten into a brawl over it, that might have at least led to closure. I know how I would have written it. By sweeping it under the cover, they put an asterisk on Pym's career. Seriously imagine an enraged Clint telling Hank how he looked up to him and how, because of the abusive household he escaped, how disappointed he was. From there, all they need to do is imply that Hank got help. And it would be entirely in character for Clint to, then, ask him to join the West Coast Avengers. It would have ended there. Instead people try to say that it wasn't a big deal, it was an art mistake, he was insane, or Peter Parker hit Mary Jane. And the wound festers. If you think it's just forum posters, reread that exchange between Tony Stark and Pymtron.

I don't know that Clint looked up to Hank.

[Tony Stark]

If you think it's just forum posters, reread that exchange between Tony Stark and Pymtron.

What's going on with this?

[Captain M]

This is comics. Any character can be written and is being written the way current writers see fit.

Only characters you can expect consistent characterization are the ones that always have a solo and are always being written each month. Even then it won't be as consistent as you hope because creative teams change.

[The Negative Zone]

The Powerless story arc in Amazing Spider-Man where Spidey willingly gives up his powers. The character's always toyed and thought about giving up his powers, but I find it hard to believe he'd go through with it.