tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105844689832543332.post1276664463101168323..comments2024-03-14T10:04:19.356-07:00Comments on NOT A HOAX! NOT A DREAM!: FANTASTIC FOUR #271Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14580725636327122073noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105844689832543332.post-2565660689105146052016-09-13T13:22:46.167-07:002016-09-13T13:22:46.167-07:00I think Byrne is okay naming characters' ages ...I think Byrne is okay naming characters' ages as long as those ages are then frozen forever and never changed. I believe he specifically declares She-Hulk to be 30 in his SENSATIONAL SHE-HULK run as well.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580725636327122073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105844689832543332.post-17211748037289314392016-09-05T09:39:37.086-07:002016-09-05T09:39:37.086-07:00I do hate that mullet — even more than I adore the...<br>I do hate that mullet — even more than I adore the Atlas-era monster pastiche.<br /><br /><i>// there are forty candles visible on Reed’s cake //</i><br /><br />Which makes more sense than the age of 42 listed on that reference sheet you linked to in the previous issue’s post, at least in terms of Ben’s age being given as 38, since the greater their age difference the less likely it is they’d be rooming together at college. It also makes Reed and Sue only about a decade apart, since a year has probably elapsed in-story from when that sheet was drawn up — although that year would eventually telescope down to a few months thanks to Marvel Time. Whatever the case, I recall being both shocked and impressed when this came out that Byrne would give the character’s age so explicitly on-panel.<br /><br>Blamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342343767763035991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105844689832543332.post-66698613117367522202016-07-06T09:37:30.012-07:002016-07-06T09:37:30.012-07:00Huh, I forgot about those flashback panels in the ...Huh, I forgot about those flashback panels in the Sin-Eater story! I'm going to have to look at those issues again.<br /><br />Interesting thoughts regarding the dueling mullets of Sue and Rachel. Another thread in the vast tapestry of the Byrne/Claremont feud?Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14580725636327122073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105844689832543332.post-25210409388899378652016-07-05T00:33:53.430-07:002016-07-05T00:33:53.430-07:00That this time, somehow, history would change itse...<i>That this time, somehow, history would change itself and John Byrne would not give Sue Richards that hideous mullet.</i><br /><br />The other prominent fe-mullet will be worn by no other than Sue's possible future daughter-in-law Rachel Summers. Knowing what Byrne thinks of the DoFP timeline not been eradicated at the end of the story, it could be read like a big FU of "you can't possibly dislike her now, John; behold: the mullet!" kind.<br /><br /><i>Honestly, at first I thought perhaps this was some old Silver Age story Byrne had dusted off and possibly re-inked and repurposed for a flashback</i><br /><br />I fell for it too, and for a long time had a misconception this was a clip-show-like re-usage from FF #1 or something, before they did the flight. Gormuu is so right there and mixable to the monster in FF #1 cover when working from memory.<br /><br />I liked the nifty flashback-y old-school panels in the Sin-Eater story when Spider-Man was rushing to save Betty Brand from him, too. We stopped having appreciative flashbacks of that kind when coming to the 90's, and instead started having newly-created nonsense characters retconned there.Teemunoreply@blogger.com