These past few years.... I have been scratching my head wondering.....
Is the art of research gone???
It seems that since.... lets say 2000 to give ourselves a round number..... it seems that many stories are poorly researched.
Too often we will see a story that pretty much ignores/contradicts what has happened before.
Or heck.... sometimes it ignores/contradicts what is happening at the same time.
The Absorbing Man is an obvious example of that. At the same time there was two versions of the Absorbing Man in two different comics at the same time. Although, after Secret Invasion, I am sure that now some will say that one of them was a Skrull. ;)
But in some cases..... those contradictions are done by the same writer.
For example..... in Avengers and New Avengers the chain of events, or continuity if you prefer between both title did not match.
So it is difficult to say that the problem is poor research in that case since both comics were written by the same guy.
Which raise the question.....
Is the problem really poor research??? Or is it something else???? Something deeper???
As I was flipping through the New Avengers: Illuminati TPB..... at first glace I saw what could be an example of both problems.
Lets start with what seems like an example of poor research
In the first issue, we see Tony Stark use some UBER martial art to beat the crap out of his Skrull captors obviously referring to the scene where Captain America teaches him some self defense moves. Heck he even refers to that scene by saying "Thanks for the combat training, Cap" (Iron-Man issue #125, 1979)
But in the same issue they keep on saying/showing that Tony needs his armor to survive. But that has not been true at the very least since Iron-Man issue #64, 1973.
I am still scratching my head at that one since anyone who read Iron-Man issue #125 whould KNOW that. By then Tony no longer needed his armor to keep his heart beating.
And since the story does refer to a scene in issue #125..... the writer MUST have read Iron-Man #125?? He SHOULD know that
Or am I missing something??
As for the other example that seems to be more then just poor research.
In the third issue (the Secret War one), Xavier is narrating something like...
"I could have stopped it."
"One psychic command and I could have made every one of them go to sleep."
Even Galactus?? Does the writer REALLY believe that Xavier could put Galactus to sleep??
Or Ultron??? A machine?? Even with ZERO research the writer should have known that one.
Right there.... it is some narration from Xavier that was poorly thought out.
And that is without taking into account that some like Iron-Man, Kang, and Doctor Doom most likely have some of their technology that would give them at least some protection against someone like Xavier.
Heck some such technology is established for Doctor Doom in the Graphic Novel "Emperor Doom". And even without that technology, Doom's will is still strong enough to resist Zebediah Kilgrave's power.
"Now Zebediah Kilgrave..."
"...Who deserves to rule?"
Love that scene.
So imagine how strong his will is WITH that technology.
So what really is the problem??
Or poorly thought out ideas/stories???
Can someone explain it to me as if I was 6 years old??
Although to be fair.... on the other end of the spectrum... you have writers like Busiek, Slott, Johns and others I fail to mention who seem to do their research. Who use continuity and what has happened before to weave some pretty awesome tales.
Although is it really because they did their research??
Or is it simply that they remember the stories that they have read as kids or even later in their life??
Let me know what you think.
I am curious to hear your thoughts on the subject.
Until next time.