| The Carol Danvers paradox | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 10 2009, 11:36 PM (2,823 Views) | |
| Ace | Mar 10 2009, 11:36 PM Post #1 |
Samurai
|
The Carol Danvers paradox. For a time I believed I had come across an irreconcilable continuity issue, a problem that just could not be solved, as mentioned in one of my earlier posts. Carol Danvers. In some stories she’s worked with Logan, in some she doesn’t remember who he is (even though those clearly take place afterwords). She also worked with Nick Fury in the CIA, before the formation of SHIELD. When SHIELD as it stands in current continuity is fairly old (Spider-Man’s parents were SHIELD agents, after all, making it AT LEAST 30 years old taking into consideration Spidey’s age of around 26 - 28). But wait, then there’s the fact that regardless of how you pull it Carol Danvers is over 50 years old. She was clearly at least 20 during her time with Nick and Wolvie in the CIA, before the formation of SHIELD, which again, was at least 30 years ago. Yet to look at her now, she’s 33 at most. The fact that Logan worked with Ben Grimm at the time is also paradoxical, and really just makes a big issue worse. How can a woman who has to be at least 50 to have worked with Logan look as young as she does now as Ms. Marvel? Before you say anything, keep in mind that she gained her powers from Captain Marvel only a few years ago in current Marvel continuity, so they couldn't have retarded her age. And there are additional issues. The current Ms. Marvel series is exploring her early life in the air force/etc, and they clearly show her family and colleagues to be within the same age range as she is now. What that means is that not only is Carol Danvers not the age she should be, but neither are any of the people in her life. I admit, I was stumped. It just didn't compute. No matter who I ran the numbers it didn't fit. It was fine when it was Wolverine and Nick Fury, they're practically ageless, but Carol, at the time was just a regular human being. ... Then I think I discovered a solution. We know Nick Fury was present during SHIELD's inception, though he wasn't the first director. It's possible that some time during his long SHIELD career Fury went on hiatus from the organization. Perhaps he took a temporary leave, for the purpose of the example lets say 15 years ago, and that's when he teamed with Logan and Carol in the CIA. At the moment, that's really the only thing that makes it all fit properly, as far as I can tell. It doesn't explain her memory lapses in regards to Logan, but it explains the rest. Edited by Ace, Mar 10 2009, 11:38 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| DiG | Mar 10 2009, 11:48 PM Post #2 |
Secret Agent
|
I admit I'm a little rusty on Carol Danvers continuity, but didn't she lose much of her memory when Rogue absorbed her powers back when they were arch enemies? As for her age, I simply chalk it up to "Marvel Time". I don't like it, but because Marvel doesn't want their characters to age, time keeps condensing. And that condensation wreaks havoc with strict continuity. I mean Dr. Doom, Reed Richards and Ben Grimm all were involved in WWII at one point. It's a shame, too. Because when I started reading comics in '70s, all of the continuity fit. And I've had to watch this slow descent into a chronological twilight zone. |
|
|
|
| Ace | Mar 11 2009, 12:19 AM Post #3 |
|
Samurai
|
She does lose some memories/experiences to Rogue, yes, but she doesn't recall that she's met Logan in a particular story long before she was ever a superhero or ever met Rogue. It's not just her age, it's everything about her past. It doesn't fit in line with the established Spider-Man, Wolverine, Nick Fury, and SHIELD histories. When it comes to the sliding timescale there's a lot that one can overlook or alter. So for example Ben and Reed may have been involved in WW2 at one point, then over time when that becomes illogical writers would have said Vietnam. And in present day they'll likely just write it off as a nondescript war. That doesn't cause too much havok, that's a very light adjustment. And in other scenarios they'll actually invent scenarios and continuity to make sense of things that no longer make sense. The infinity formula was invented to make sense of why Nick Fury hasn't aged, for example. Or even Wolverine's past. If we were still in the 80s, 90% of what we've seen in Wolverine: Origins wouldn't be possible chronologically because not enough time would have passed. But because it's 2009 they've had to invent stories and history to fill in those blanks. I think the above work, those are fine. You can make overall sense of those. The real discrepancies seem to be on an issue by issue basis most of the time these days. For example X-Factor. When the Messiah Complex tie-ins ended on X-Factor, they did a "6 months later" jump. Whereas Uncanny did a 4 week jump. And then somehow their Secret Invasion tie-ins take place at the same time. When it comes to ages and dates such as those in comics, it's best to ignore them. I recall back in the MechaniX limited series when they said Kitty was 28. That's not possible. If you actually follow the actual timeline you'll see that 12 - 13 years have passes since the Fantastic Four gained their powers, and 10 - 11 have passed since Peter Parker became Spider-Man when he was 15-ish. And Kitty was 13 - 15 when she joined the X-Men YEARS after that. So she's maybe 20 - 22, tops. So really, the best bet with any statements or narration saying that a character is a certain age, or that a certain amount of time has passed can be discounted in most circumstances. As they're more often than not false. |
|
|
|
| Templedog | Mar 11 2009, 12:24 AM Post #4 |
X-Men Chronologist
|
I thought Dr. Doom, Reed Richards and Ben Grimm were in Korea? I am not a fan of "Marvel time". Let our characters age and get married. |
|
|
|
| Ace | Mar 11 2009, 12:44 AM Post #5 |
|
Samurai
|
Ah you see, that's exactly my point. Templedog, you thought they were in Korea, DiG thought they were in WW2. While I don't know for certain, it's likely that you're both correct. It's very possible that it was originally WW2, and then over time, when that didn't make sense given the character's age they changed it to Korea. As for Marvel time and aging, well, I'm not really a fan of that. Do you know why Spider-Man can't have children? Because his enemies would, to put it bluntly, murder them. No one wants that. You can't get over that. That sort of thing would change everything for a character. Peter Parker would never be happy in any sense of the word ever again if his children were taken from him. (For the record, Norman Osborn did kill his baby once before, but he and Mary-Jane were lead to believe he killed her while she was unborn). I imagine you brought it up because of the erasing of Peter and Mary-Jane's marriage, that's the common reason for such a comment. I happen to agree with the writers that a married Peter Parker is a limited writing tool. Now, before you write off my comments, I ask you to consider the following: What can a married Peter Parker do that an unmarried can't? Taking out religious preconceptions a married and unmarried Peter Parker can both have sex, have children, live with a woman, have a longterm stable relationship. Regardless of if you think he should or not (that's up to your own personal philosophy), he's physically able to do those things. But what a married Peter Parker CAN'T do is see other women. And that limits the writers. With an unmarried but longterm dating Peter and MJ they can break up for a few issues and that allows a writer to play around with other female characters. Consider this: if a married Peter Parker kisses the Black Cat, he's a cheating loser, and no one wants to cheer that character on. In the past writers have wanted rid of the marriage so badly they've killed MJ off (always retconned afterwords), made her a smoker, said that's she's cheated on Peter, and were you aware that the Clone Saga was all about breaking them up? If either Peter or MJ turned out to be a clone, their marriage would be false. They ultimately went in a different direction, but that was part of the reasoning originally. I digress... there are valid reasons why characters can't age in real time: 1) Family and children are a villain target. It's one thing to lose a girlfriend, it's another to lose your children. 2) Writers actually lose the ability to tell certain stories when a character is married off and don't gain anything they couldn't have done without marriage. 3) In all honesty, a 45 year old greying Peter Parker isn't going to be able to fight villains anymore. He'd have to retire or seriously cut back his crime fighting. There's a reason 19 year olds play professional sports and 27 year olds retire, they can no longer keep up. ... Getting back on topic, as stated above most sliding timescale issues can in fact be written off with some clever retcons. The Carol Danvers paradox definitely seems more difficult than most however. Edited by Ace, Mar 11 2009, 12:47 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Templedog | Mar 11 2009, 12:55 AM Post #6 |
|
X-Men Chronologist
|
All good points, but I would just like to see my comic characters age. In my opinion it is the natural progression of a characters evolution. I am a big fan of John Byrne's Superman/Batman: Generations series, because it showed the characters age as the decades passed. Personal preference on my part, but I like to see my characters age. |
|
|
|
| Ace | Mar 11 2009, 01:02 AM Post #7 |
|
Samurai
|
A fair opinion as well. I generally turn to alternate reality tales for such stories. Bruce Wayne in Batman Beyond, Peter and Mary-Jane in Spider-Girl (and now in the Mr. and Mrs. Spider-Man backups in Spider-Man Family), The Dark Knight Returns, Spider-Man: Reign, the various Marvel The End series. I think we as fans also overlook the personal growth in comics. Sometimes we get so clouded by the fact that they aren't physically aging all that much that we become blinded to how much the characters have grown emotionally. Emma Frost went from one of the most fearsome X-villains to one of the most compelling X-Men. |
|
|
|
| Templedog | Mar 11 2009, 01:14 AM Post #8 |
|
X-Men Chronologist
|
Which I thoroughly enjoy. 
|
|
|
|
| Ace | Mar 11 2009, 01:27 AM Post #9 |
|
Samurai
|
I think we all do. I think I'd be devastated as an X-fan if they ever tried to change that. I know Grant Morrison things Marvel completely disowned him, but he has the biggest impact on X-comics since the introduction of Wolverine. Cassandra Nova, the Cuckoos, Emma Frost, Weapon Plus, Beast's cat-like form, and countless other elements have gone on to become absolute staples of the franchise. Back on the topic of character development: As I was saying, sometimes we overlook the personal changes for the physical. Because we don't see a fleck of grey in Tony Stark's hair we think he hasn't evolved. But then if you read back he couldn't be more different. Yes he made some morally questionable choices recently, but he's no longer a booze-hound, playboy, or warmonger and for a time took on the responsibility of the entire world. I admit comic books do have a habit of reverting to the status quo. Some day Nick Fury will run SHIELD again, Captain America will be Steve Rogers, Professor Xavier won't be shunned by the X-Men, etc etc. But most of the changes to the core of the characters, how they've moved past their handicaps and personal issues... there's personal growth even if it's not reflected externally. The point being, we may not see "aging" in the traditional sense, but most of the characters have definitely grown. |
|
|
|
| Templedog | Mar 11 2009, 01:38 AM Post #10 |
|
X-Men Chronologist
|
One of the reasons I get annoyed is because "Marvel time" makes creating an X-Men chronology infinitely more difficult for me. In addition the Spider-man "One More Day" storyline upset me a great deal. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Wolverine Past · Next Topic » |
7:58 PM May 18