Cap and Bucky's relationship retconned to childhood friends of same age?
It looks as though the 1000 special Marvel's produced couldn't go without yet more pointless retcons of the past, as Screen Rant's revealed is the case with Captain America and Bucky Barnes:
The friendship between Steve Rogers and Bucky Barnes is officially one of the most well-known, thanks to Marvel's Captain America movies. So it's no surprise that Marvel Comics just quietly changed the origins of Steve and Bucky, to better match the version seen in the MCU as opposed to the original comics.In that case, it can't be one of the most well-known at all, if they lack that much faith in themselves to leave the Golden Age origins alone. Obviously, they're relying on the perception no moviegoer will ever pick up the Golden Age Marvel Masterworks (as far as I know, no Epic Collection's been produced to date compiling the GA material) available to date, where they'd see a different story than what this new rendition is pretending to be canon, as explained in what follows:
To be clear, it isn't the kind of retcon that makes Captain America responsible for Wolverine like was recently revealed, throwing years of canon into question. Nor is it the kind of lighthearted Easter Egg that brings the worst Captain America movie into comic canon. Thanks to a flashback in the special Marvel Comics #1000, Steve Rogers was just slyly given a different origin story. One in which Steve Rogers and his friendship with James "Bucky" Barnes goes all the way... to the start. [...]And I wouldn't recommend anybody not in the know of Kirby/Simon's original tale take this at face value. It certainly shouldn't be accepted at the expense of what the original writers and artists worked hard to produce in their time. What they're doing, if it's really what it's assumed to be, insults the intellect of moviegoers as much as comics readers, making it look as though they have to accept every new modern rendition and retcon instead of the Kirby/Simon work.
The conclusion of the short story suggests that this is equal parts flashback, a strange premonition from young Steve about the decades-long chill in his future, a memory returning to Steve during that time on ice, or a conjured dream in the same frozen state. The truth of it is entirely ambiguous, but the scene itself isn't: it suggests that Steve Rogers and James Barnes were children together, before Steve's deficiencies were even noticeable. Something every fan of the original Captain America comics knows was NOT the case.
Even if the difference between Captain America and his young sidekick, Bucky, is just four years, this memory doesn't add up. But more importantly, it's always been canon that Steve Rogers became a hero during World War II, inspiring the young Bucky to train up as his eventual partner. Making them childhood friends, like this scene shows, erases all of that in favor of the MCU version--in which Steve and Bucky are implied to be friends from childhood. Unless Steve's frozen mind is creating a fantasy in which the two played as children, which... well, suggests a story that would need more than one page to explore properly.Thank goodness this is talking sense. If Marvel #1000's aimed at a wider public audience, as I've assumed, then this is not being fair to them, or Kirby/Simon. But then, Marvel hasn't been respectable of the 2 late scribes' memories for ages already. Maybe, in the end, it is just a dream sequence, but it's an awfully easy idea, and a far better one could've been a flashback to Steve's early life with his family in the pre-WW2 era. If the writers can only think of - and editors only allow them to - rely on obvious ingredients, then it's no wonder they fail to impress in the end.
Labels: bad editors, Captain America, msm propaganda
Bucky as kid sidekick was a blatant imitation of Robin; Captain America and Bucky were Batman and Robin draped in the flag. Kid sidekicks are out of fashion though, and it is morally questionable now to write stories about a grown adult taking a young kid into a battle zone with him and risking the kid's life on a regular basis. Kids did things like that under the occupation, as part of the resistance, or out of necessity (for a comic book version, see Magneto: Testament) but not as part of the American military. Steve was a super-soldier; Bucky was just an ordinary kid. Granted, it wasn't Steve's idea and Bucky blackmailed him into it, but still, the origin had to be tinkered with a bit.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:27 PM
"it is morally questionable now to write stories about a grown adult taking a young kid into a battle zone with him and risking the kid's life on a regular basis."
Superheroes aren't real life, you maggot. It's fantasy.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:51 PM
Boy, someone has a really narrow conception of the bounds of reality! But, even if we grant you for the moment that Steve Rogers is not a real person (and bear in mind that the stories have shown him meeting Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller and punching Hitler, all of whom were unquestionably and verifiably real persons, therefore...) why should it be acceptable to write morally questionable fantasy stories?
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:14 AM
you really can't tell the difference between reality and fiction, can you ***-sucking maggot? You're like a secular version of the religious fundamentalists who think people are controlled by the entertainment they consume.
Everything has to be progressive propaganda to you or it needs to be destroyed much in the same way something has to praise the Lord or be destroyed to a religious fundementalist.
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:14 AM
Check out She-Hulk (2004) #2. It confirms that any marvel comic bearing the Comics Code of America seal (i.e. pre 2002) is admissible as evidence in any American court of law without need for further proof of its contents.
What more proof do you need of the reality of the characters?
Posted by
Anonymous |
1:12 PM
"Everything has to be progressive propaganda to you or it needs to be destroyed much in the same way something has to praise the Lord or be destroyed to a religious fundementalist."
That would honestly explain so much about Green right here.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:52 PM
Green never pretended he was impartial It is progressives who pretend they are non-judgmental and not religious (they pretend that they don't believe in anything).
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:01 PM
Many progressives are religious. The people picketing ICE are strongly rooted in faith communities, and refugees are finding sanctuary in churches. The social gospel has a long history.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:09 AM
Many progressives who observe mainstream religions are heretics who really believe in secular humanism who intentionally join religious organizations to preach the gospel of communism, feminism, etc.
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:20 PM
Green's problem is that he refuses to see any flaw in a conservative person while also seeing the worst in a liberal person. That kind of thinking has led to radicals leading both camps while eliminating any change of peaceful cooperation
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:15 PM
Speaking of the army, how come you never joined the armed forces where you live Green? Would've thought you would jump at the chance to kill all the Muslims you could find instead of being cooped up in a library.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:18 PM
Military service is compulsory in Israel, with a few exceptions such as for the ultra-orthodox Jews and Arab-Israelis; he emigrated while still young, so he probably did his period of service.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:17 AM
fyi, green, peaceful cooperation means you doing what us progressives want.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:20 AM
If an Israeli soldier killed all the Muslims he could find, he would be court-martialed. Inflamed rhetoric aside and whatever you think about their methods and tactics, it is an army, not a terrorist group.
Posted by
Anonymous |
9:21 AM
"If an Israeli soldier killed all the Muslims he could find, he would be court-martialed."
the reason why israel's army can't wipe out all the Palestinians is because Israel is highly dependent on international support.
If they are seen as ethnic cleansers that would be the end of international support
" whatever you think about their methods and tactics, it is an army, not a terrorist group."
The creation of Israel was never something legitimate in the eyes of Palestinans. To them, Israel is foreign occupier of their homeland.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:26 AM
"Speaking of the army, how come you never joined the armed forces where you live Green? Would've thought you would jump at the chance to kill all the Muslims you could find"
the assumption that all white christians want to kill as many Muslims as possible is absurd and shows that you're the one with the hatred in his heart.
people like you are the people who call everything European "white supremacy" and cheer when something bad happens to white people, like when a Christian church catches fire, or a tornado damages a "republican district" all while talking about multiculturalism and not being prejudiced. in other words, a typical progressive.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:37 AM
Hey, Green's the one who wants all Muslims dead. What's wrong with encouraging his bloodlust for this desire like that one guy wants?
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:51 PM
"people like you are the people who call everything European "white supremacy" and cheer when something bad happens to white people, like when a Christian church catches fire, or a tornado damages a "republican district" all while talking about multiculturalism and not being prejudiced. in other words, a typical progressive."
Got to admire the precision of those racist tornados that only hit white people.
Newsflash - Christian churches aren't necessarily white. And most violent attacks on Christian churches lately have been white men terrorizing black churches. Like Dylann Roof. Who thought he was fighting for white supremacy.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:13 PM