I’ve already aired my grievances against the ever-egotistical, ever-elitist, ever-demanding-that-you-share-their-exact-opinions-or-die Byrne/Jurgens Sycophants™. But the purpose of this rant is to vent my spleen against the hateful and insufferable group the Byrne/Jurgens Sycophants™ splintered off from…what DC Online’s Zugernaut aptly called "The Continuity Taliban®."
These are the guys who go beyond just demanding that Superman begin with Byrne and end with Jurgens, with nothing before or after those two men being allowed a fair shake. Oh, no. See, that’s what their SUBSET espouses. No, these guys take it even further by bleating, screeching, whining when a new comic even DARES to contradict a comic that was published years, even decades ago. These beat-offs bitch and piss about how writers and editors are "disrespecting and screwing up the reality" established decades ago by DOING NOTHING MORE THAN TELLING THE STORIES THEY WANT TO TELL. They expect—no, worse, demand—that each and every writer slavishly copy and conform to their pet continuity at all costs, no matter how much it stifles said writers or hurts their stories. To hell with quality and creativity, these assholes want stagnancy and mediocrity all because they can’t bear to have a story that doesn’t neatly fall in line with their rigid, lockstep continuity. (Kilgore can back me up on this; he knows exactly of what I speak.)
Obviously, the controversy over Birthright and the Byrne/Jurgens Sycophants™ demanding that any creators or fans who don’t worship or adhere strictly to the Byrne/Jurgens vision should be burned at the stake for heresy (one such zealot has been fouling this MB with his presence and arrogant dogma) played a part in my finally getting angry enough to vent against ultra-rigid continuity, but what really pissed me off raw was the ongoing pissing and whining their parent group has been doing over Matt Wagner’s Trinity. For those of you who’ve read it, it’s a great story. Between it and the much-disregarded Birthright we have a case for the best Superman stories of the year. But the Continuity Taliban® is screaming for Wagner’s head because his story allegedly contradicts the late-‘80s miniseries Legends. Over and over again, it’s the same ****ing thing: "This story is invalid because Wonder Woman didn’t meet Superman until Legends! Hey, this doesn’t adhere 100% to the first post-Crisis Batman/Ra’s meeting! This story conflicts with Wonder Woman #1! It’s an outrage! Wagner’s defiling Man of Steel by having Superman embrace his Kryptonian heritage and making the Superman cape a Kryptonian ceremonial robe, and he’s disrespecting it by having Bizarro still be alive! Wagner’s a dirty hack bastard because he isn’t conforming to every single detail that came post-Crisis! And his editor is lazy because he’s not forcing Wagner to slavishly copy and adhere to everything that’s been done post-Crisis! This story is inherently shitty because we can’t force it to fit in exactly with OUR continuity! DC has no right to publish this and Birthright without Elseworlds labels, because they’re both insults to the history created as of 1986!"
I just have to ask…WHERE THE HELL DO THESE PEOPLE GET OFF AT?!?! My God, they honestly don’t care if a story is good or not. They don’t even WANT the given story to be any good. All they want is for it to be something they can file into a straight line that can be followed without any deviation, and if it even slightly variates from the straight line these jack-offs bleatingly demand, they angrily shriek that it’s not fit to be published unless it’s slapped with an Elseworlds tag. These people—both the Continuity Taliban and their Byrne/Jurgens offshoot—don’t give a damn about quality, nor do they even want it. They want repetition. They want sameness and endless rehashes. They want mass-produced mediocrity that can be traced in a line without question. They just want lockstep, unswerving mediocrity that they alone can follow because they’re too stupid and selfish to accept creative freedom. Whenever a creator even DARES to show any kind of innovation or even just a fresh perspective, these assholes wave their beloved continuity as if it was a holy relic, screaming and wailing and doing damn near everything they can to stamp out said innovation or fresh perspectives. And I tell you, it’s maddening. Does anybody in their right mind really give a damn whether it was Dick or Jason who was Robin when Batman first fought Ra’s? Does anyone really give two shits when Superman and Wonder Woman first met? Does a normal person give a piss when Batman wore the plain black bat or the yellow halo on his costume? Does anybody honestly give a flying **** when Superman first got the Fortress of Solitude, or when he and Bizarro first clashed? NO! NOBODY WITH HALF A BRAIN CARES ABOUT ANY OF THIS SHIT! NONE OF THIS EVEN MATTERS IN THE SLIGHTEST! This stuff is all petty, unimportant details, all of which are expendable. But because this stuff was published post-1986, the Continuity Taliban® clings to it and bleats that it all be held as a sacred text.
The bottom line is, the Continuity Taliban® is full of shit. You want stuff that matters? THIS is what matters:
1. A baby rocketed from the planet Krypton shortly before it explodes, claiming his family and his people in its victims. (Note: This does NOT automatically mean that he was the ONLY one to make it out alive. The door’s open either way.) 2. Crash-lands on Earth and is raised by a Kansas farm couple. 3. Grows to manhood possessing powers far beyond those of mortal men, among them flight, nigh-invulnerability, increased speed and strength, and augmented senses. 4. Moves to Metropolis as mild-mannered working stiff Clark Kent, moonlights as a guardian angel in red and blue whose mission it is to protect and safeguard his adopted planet. 5. His primary enemy is Lex Luthor, a brilliant, evil human being without a shred of humanity in him.
Not enough for you? Let’s try this, then:
1. Young Bruce Wayne witnesses his wealthy parents being shot to death on the streets of Gotham City. 2. Vows to devote his life to making sure this never happens to anyone else. 3. Spends his youth training his mind and body to the peak of human perfection. 4. Gets inspired by the sight of bats to adopt a fearsome image in his war on crime, makes himself a bat costume. 5. Lives as a billionaire tycoon by day, vigilante by night.
Still not enough for you? Let’s try this, then:
1. An Amazonian princess grows to adulthood on Themyscira alongside her people. 2. Wins a contest designed to select an ambassador to the outside world. 3. Adopts a costume decorated with a stars and stripes motif, indestructible bracelets, and a magic lasso. 4. Moves to America and preaches peace thru the use of warrior tactics.
THAT’S IT. I just boiled down Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman to their essentials. THAT IS ALL THAT IS NECESSARY. Not the petty crybaby crap the Continuity Taliban® wails and pisses about. THESE are the essentials. So long as THESE are adhered to, nothing else matters. It doesn’t matter than Waid’s Krypton differs from Byrne’s or that Trinity and Legends have Superman and Wonder Woman meeting at different times. It doesn’t matter who was Robin when Batman first tangled with Ra’s. ALL THAT COUNTS IS KEEPING THE ESSENTIALS OF THE CHARACTERS INTACT. Let me give you guys a good example of this: Child of Dreams, the Batman graphic novel by Kia Asamiya. In that story, Batman’s implied to be approaching middle age, there’s no mention of Robin at all, Jim Gordon’s still the commissioner, and Batman alternates between wearing the black bat emblem and the yellow halo whenever the mood suits him. There’s absolutely no way this story can be sandwiched into the rigid, lockstep continuity demanded and championed by the Continuity Taliban®. But is it a good story? The best damned Batman story I’ve read in years, if you ask me. Can it be enjoyed by anybody, regardless of how familiar they may be with the character and his world? Hell, yes. Is it new reader-friendly? Indubitably. And it doesn’t carry an Elseworlds label on it at all (although I bet the Continuity Taliban® isn’t too happy about that). I wouldn’t be caught dead trying to sell an absolute newcomer to comics on the monthly books, but I WOULD direct a newcomer to complete stories that stand on their own merits REGARDLESS of whether or not they fit in continuity.
And this is what the Continuity Taliban® refuses to see and/or accept. They’re so selfish, so stupid, and so egotistical that they think THEY ALONE should have the comics medium all to themselves. They see any story that doesn’t slavishly follow THEIR pet continuity as a personal insult, no matter how good the story is or how appealing it might be to a newcomer. In their eyes, continuity should be the slavemaster instead of the tool, and any story that doesn’t slavishly follow every dinky, insignificant detail of their pet continuity is to be held as an unforgivable heresy. It’s asinine, because the shit they get their panties in a bunch over is so superficial and superfluous that it can’t POSSIBLY have any effect on the essentials of the characters. It’s selfish and greedy, because they would rather hoard the medium all to themselves and thusly strangle it to death rather than allow newcomers and people who may not have read comics in years a chance to come in and hop aboard without being left bogged down in meaningless backstory that’ll only serve to turn them off. It’s close-minded and regressive, because in their quest to force comic companies to make every single story conform to one rigid, unbreakable, lockstep continuity, they’re really trying to promote stagnation and shut out any kind of freshness and/or innovation. And it’s infuriating, because their constant, never-ending screeches and bleats about how evil and "lazy" stories that don’t slavishly follow continuity are and their constant berating of anyone who doesn’t care about continuity and would rather just have a good story goes a long way to spoil people’s enjoyment of the stories. At this point, I really don’t give a shit whether or not a story rigidly conforms to every pissy-assed little detail in a comic published in 1986. I’m almost 25, I’m too old to care about useless crap like that. Continuity, as the Continuity Taliban® would have it, means nothing to me. I just want a decent story I can enjoy. But damned if the Continuity Taliban® will let anybody enjoy those kinds of stories. They just scream and wail so much that they actually manage to ruin the damned stories for me, no matter how good they are. And the more they shriek about "continuity, stability, and sameness" are the only things of importance in comics, the more I realize that they don’t give a damn about the medium at all. They’re only out to enforce their own agenda and shut everyone else out…and frankly, I’m sick to death of it. These assholes are perhaps the BIGGEST reason comics are dying, and their ego-stroking, self-serving tirades and campaigning against anything that counters THEIR pet continuity are going a long way toward ruining the industry and making things miserable for everyone else. I DESPISE these utterly, because they are the most selfish, intolerant, egotistical, stupid, ignorant, elitist "fans" I have ever encountered in my 5 years of being a ‘Net-head. I hate them. I hate them with a passion, and I would dearly love to see them get chucked out of comicdom on their fat, self-important asses and left out in the cold. (And if any such zealots are reading this post and are insulted by what I say…GOOD. You’ve had this coming for a long time, and I for one have had all I can take from you people.)
Back when he did his Sherlock Holmes stories, Arthur Conan Doyle pointed out that the inconsistencies in the stories were largely irrelevant: "I have never striven for accuracy of detail, so long as I hold my reader." To him, the inconsistencies didn’t matter; all he cared about was that the reader enjoy the stories. So it should be for comics, too. Whether a story is 100% compatible with another is irrelevant, it’s the QUALITY that matters. Why is this so ****ing hard for the Continuity Taliban® (as well as their Byrne/Jurgens offshoot) to understand?
Continuity doesn't stiffle creators, not at as long as DC has Elseworlds...
You want to do a story where Superman is the Easter Bunny, that's what Elseworls are for.
You want to do a story where Superman is surrounded by a 100 Kryptonians, that's what Elseworlds are for.
So stop your whinning and realize this already.
Back in your glorious Silver Age there was no such thing as Elseworld, so creators were forced BECAUSE of the format to tell all their alternate stories in the main titles, which is where the 'imaginary story' tagline came from.
Now creators, at least the smart ones that don't spend their entire day blaming Satan for coming up with continuity, can enjoy using not one but two areas of the DC Universe to tell their stories, either an Elseworlds or in continuity.
If a writer comes up with a good Batman story that doesn't fit in standard continuity then he can tell is as an Elseworlds without disrupting the main title.
Of course, there have been instances in the past when regular comics, those that publish only in continuity stories, publish a story set in an Elseworlds OR other kind of unlabled alternate reality. Batman Chronicles did this a few times.
But don't let reality hit you on the balls, go back to your whinning, all you're doing is repeating what those that hate continuity, both readers and writers, keep spewing.
Next time try to research what DC publishes before you condemn them for stiffiling creators.
As for your other half of the rant... to most people the basics of a concept aren't enough, it needs content.
Example:
Star Trek, the five year mission of the Starship Enterprise, right?
Not really.
For the Next Generation it was an ongoing mission.
Where No Man Has Gone Before became Where No One Has Gone Before.
The basics of a concept depend on the context and the content of the concept.
While the Silver Age Superman came to Earth in a giant blue baby bottle the modern age Superman didn't, he came in a birthing matrix.
For you that's not good enough, it's giant baby bottle or nothing.
YOU are the one that's obssesed with things being ONE way.
YOU claim that the basics are all that matter yet you whine and whine and bitch when those basics are complemented with actual details that go against your views of what the concepts should be.
I think my objection to the continuity-obsessed is when a writer/artist makes a mistake (i.e. a character is drawn incorrectly or placed in a story where he shouldn't exist), and fans want to retcon the entire history of the character to account for the mistake. Those people should just accept a mistake for what it is and move on.
quote:Originally posted by Snapman: I think my objection to the continuity-obsessed is when a writer/artist makes a mistake (i.e. a character is drawn incorrectly or placed in a story where he shouldn't exist), and fans want to retcon the entire history of the character to account for the mistake. Those people should just accept a mistake for what it is and move on.
Don't you love irony?
In the Pre Crisis Wally West's eye colors shifted between green and brown.
Mark Waid used that 'mistake' to tell his Dark Flash story and to create Hypertime.
So it's ok for creators to use those mistakes to tell stories but it's wrong for readers to complain about the mistakes in the first place?
Well, the double standard is that it's ok for writers to do anything but when a reader complains he's comparable to a terrorist that rapes women and kills children, at least according to the above rant...
quote:Originally posted by Snapman: I think my objection to the continuity-obsessed is when a writer/artist makes a mistake (i.e. a character is drawn incorrectly or placed in a story where he shouldn't exist), and fans want to retcon the entire history of the character to account for the mistake. Those people should just accept a mistake for what it is and move on.
Shame on you, Snapman. You saw MOTA's brilliant argument against your "It's ok for creators to use those mistakes to tell stories but it's wrong for readers to complain about the mistakes" rant, so you edited your post and deleted the part about the creators, making MOTA look like a fool.
Well, let me tell you somthing, Snapman, your plan against MOTA won't work because we all know what kind of person he is and how much thought he gives to each one of his posts! You should feel ashamed of yourself, trying to damage the good reputation of a respected poster like that...
I think continuity can be a cool thing or an useless limitation imposed to creators, depending on how it's used. The DC Universe is too big to have a consistent continuity (unless the universe is rebooted often, but that would be even more confusing than a convulted continuity), so it's just silly to expect every detail to fit in, and it's even worse to restrict writers because of continuity.
Another silly thing is trying to mantain the current status quo of big character (a status quo that, ironically, wouldn't have been reached if a previous status quo hadn't been changed). Sticking to the same thing forever is fucking boring. Every idea, eventually, gets old. The Superman books are a proof of that. They started gradually gettting worse until they reached a point where they can't be enjoyed. The 99 "reboot" may have made things seem more fresh for a while, but, in the end, it was just the same thing, and the books ended up being even worse than the worst years of the Jurgens era.
Great thread by the way, King. Good stuff. If only more posters were like you. And might I say, your teeth are looking especially white today. Have you done something new with your hair?
quote:Originally posted by Wednesday: Great thread by the way, King. Good stuff. If only more posters were like you.
Somehow I don't think that would be a good thing....
quote:What's a Sycophant?
Someone who's obssessed with something to the point where it consumes them. In the case of my admitted heated rant, it's the ignorant, whiny, bleating egomaniacs who whine and cry about ultra-rigid continuity not being followed to the tiniest, most useless detail (and their offshoot, the zealots who loudly demand that everything must conform to Byrne thru Jurgens and that nothing before or after that has any merit).
In short, I have no use for such "fans," or their selfish, self-serving arguments.
quote:I think continuity can be a cool thing or an useless limitation imposed to creators, depending on how it's used. The DC Universe is too big to have a consistent continuity (unless the universe is rebooted often, but that would be even more confusing than a convulted continuity), so it's just silly to expect every detail to fit in, and it's even worse to restrict writers because of continuity.
Another silly thing is trying to mantain the current status quo of big character (a status quo that, ironically, wouldn't have been reached if a previous status quo hadn't been changed). Sticking to the same thing forever is fucking boring. Every idea, eventually, gets old. The Superman books are a proof of that. They started gradually gettting worse until they reached a point where they can't be enjoyed. The 99 "reboot" may have made things seem more fresh for a while, but, in the end, it was just the same thing, and the books ended up being even worse than the worst years of the Jurgens era.
Like I said, I honestly don't care about continuity anymore. Maybe when I was 9 or 10, I would have, but not at this point in my life. Whether or not a story is "in continuity" is meaningless. Further, it's stupid and pointless to demand that everything that doesn't fit into a rigid, lockstep, keep-everything-exactly-the-same-or-else continuity get slapped with an Elseworlds label. That's just retarded. In effect, you'd be demanding that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan be tagged as an Elseworlds because the "Space Seed" episode didn't explicitly feature a an encounter between Khan and Chekov. Then again, they never said Chekov WASN'T on the Enterprise at the time, so there still could have been a meeting between the two men, but in all honesty, does it really matter? No. Nicholas Meyer, the film's writer and director (he lost the script credit to Jack Sowards--long story), admitted that it was a continuity hiccup, but he pointed to Conan Doyle's comments regarding his gaffs on Sherlock Holmes as proof that little mistakes like that don't matter so long as the story is good.
And I have to agree with that. I don't care if Mark Waid changes things up from Byrne's version if it makes for a better story. I don't care if Wagner plays fast and loose with post-'86 DC lore in order to fashion a strong yarn that depicts DC's icons in their best light. And it doesn't matter to me if Kia Asamiya fudges with the Batman timeline a little to tell a story he's passionate about. IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. If the characters' essentials are messed with (*cough* Jon Peters and JJ Abrams *cough*), THEN I have problems with it. But as long as the essentials remain intact, who cares if they vary things or do away with meaningless details that don't do anything to impact the characters?
Just give me a good story, regardless of "continuity." The rest of that junk I can do without.
I'm sorry but there has to be a continuity in storytelling to keep "continuing readers/viewers" because the story "continues" to build a bigger picture month by month for existing fans. Learning more is what keeps fans interested in their favorite comic/tv show and it angers some of us when some writer undoes everything we've learned after years of devotion. But I agree with you Krypton King continuity should'nt hold writers back, although the best writers always seem to keep those stories that are hard to define (as to where they fit into continuity) ambiguous to continuity. Their stories always seem able to fit anywhere they want in the timeline/continuity. And to those idiots that say Trinity is out of continuity don't know anything because it is in continuity. Trinity is the post-crisis, post-zero hour First meeting of Superman, Wonder Woman, and Batman! Legends is before Zero Hour in the DC continuity!
Oh, before I go take a nappy nap and forget, a sycophant is a self-advancing flatterer. A boot licker, a brown noser, a yes man. As in...
quote:Originally posted by Wednesday:
Oops, sorry.
Great thread by the way, King. Good stuff. If only more posters were like you. And might I say, your teeth are looking especially white today. Have you done something new with your hair?
quote:Supposedly posted by Wednesday: Oh, before I go take a nappy nap and forget, a sycophant is a self-advancing flatterer. A boot licker, a brown noser, a yes man. As in...
quote:Originally posted by Wednesday:
Oops, sorry.
Great thread by the way, King. Good stuff. If only more posters were like you. And might I say, your teeth are looking especially white today. Have you done something new with your hair?
Just got back from another brief excursion thru the pits of Hell (or as they're also known, the DC Online MBs). After reading the latest screeches, bleats, and whinging (British slang for incessant whining) of the Continuity Taliban®, I still stand by every word of my initial post. These people are insane. Totally and completely insane.
It's a good thing Conan Doyle never worked in comics. He'd have been skinned alive for the inconsistencies and glitches in his stories. What a bunch of crybaby retards!
quote:Originally posted by Snapman: Damn, King! What're these people talking about now? More Trinity stuff, or what?
I can understand being bothered by these guys, but you're absolutely livid!
Chalk it up to the five or so years I've spent on the 'Net listening to people complain about continuity over and over again. Yes, the screeching about Trinity is part of it, but so's the big stink over Birthright, Superman/Batman, Loeb's Ra's stuff over in Batman, and anything else that isn't tied down. And lest we forget all the screaming and screeching over "R2K," which ended up being a red herring the whole time, or the attempts to ingrate elements of older eras into the present being met with screams of outrage and protest. Hell, the bitching about not wanting linkage and constant cross-title "events" to be put to rest was another case in point, complete with cyring about how "continuity" was being lost.
As time goes on, these guys just get louder, ruder, meaner, and more disrespectful of ANYBODY who's willing to cut creators some slack. So yes, I AM livid. I don't deny it. Years of listening to this crap has worn my patience thin.
quote: Hell, the bitching about not wanting linkage and constant cross-title "events" to be put to rest was another case in point, complete with cyring about how "continuity" was being lost.
Didio said that the new direction the writers have for Superman that is, thematically linked and a little more down to earth isn’t a six-month or year-long stunt. “This is the direction we’ll be taking Superman in from this time forward.”
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: Didio said that the new direction the writers have for Superman that is, thematically linked and a little more down to earth isn’t a six-month or year-long stunt. “This is the direction we’ll be taking Superman in from this time forward.”
HAHAHAHA
Heh, I don't think it's gonna be what you expect, MOTY.
"When asked about the multiple versions of Krypton (given the version in Birthright versus that seen in John Byrne’s Man of Steel, editor Eddie Berganza asked, “Are you enjoying it [Birthright]?” When the person asking the question replied with a “yes,” Berganza and Waid said, “There you go.”"
quote:Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk: Heh, I don't think it's gonna be what you expect, MOTY.
"When asked about the multiple versions of Krypton (given the version in Birthright versus that seen in John Byrne’s Man of Steel, editor Eddie Berganza asked, “Are you enjoying it [Birthright]?” When the person asking the question replied with a “yes,” Berganza and Waid said, “There you go.”"
Well, except for that piece of shit Mark Waid, the plans for Superman are awesome.
But see, here's the thing:
Waid's Superman is a damn Godman, with Godvision and some other shitty powers.
Didio has made it clear that the focus will more down to Earth.
The two don't go together so it doesn't really matter that much, you won't see the Stillbirthright shit...
I hope... even so, I'm gonna cover my eyes because King's probably gonna go on another 'DC sucks because they won't give me my SuperGod from when I was five years old' rants again...
Waid wasn't the point of my post. My point is that, apparently, Berganza learned a big lesson: good stories are more important than continuity. If Birthright is a good story but it fucks with continuity, so be it. The same goes for the other books: they will be so different from each other that they will contradict themselves (for example, on the way they show Lois, like DiDio said on Newsarama). I was kinda thrown off by Austen's decition of showing Lois as a bitch, but now I don't give a fuck, because it doesn't mean she has to be a bitch on the other books. And, yes, three Superman books will be linked... but they will be LEX LUTHOR, VIGILANTE and THE QUESTION.
quote:Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk: Waid wasn't the point of my post. My point is that, apparently, Berganza learned a big lesson: good stories are more important than continuity. If Birthright is a good story but it fucks with continuity, so be it. The same goes for the other books: they will be so different from each other that they will contradict themselves (for example, on the way they show Lois, like DiDio said on Newsarama). I was kinda thrown off by Austen's decition of showing Lois as a bitch, but now I don't give a fuck, because it doesn't mean she has to be a bitch on the other books.
I doubt Lois' personality will change from book to book.
I can't belive you'd actually like that! That's the most shitty style of writting there is!
quote:Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk: And, yes, three Superman books will be linked... but they will be LEX LUTHOR, VIGILANTE and THE QUESTION.
If continuity isn't so important then WHY the fuck make Birthright part of it?!?!
:)
If continuity isn't so important then WHY the fuck replace Man of Steel with Birthright?!?
:)
If continuity isn't so important then why is it the people that hate it that whine the most?
:)
And now, the linking doesn't stop with those three, it involves all the titles.
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: If continuity isn't so important then WHY the fuck make Birthright part of it?!?!
:)
If continuity isn't so important then WHY the fuck replace Man of Steel with Birthright?!?
Because it's a good story. It fucks with the old continuity, but it's a good story. So it stays. If a good story comes next year that fucks with Birthright but it's better written than it, then that will stay. People will start buying Superman not just because he's a cool character, but because there will be potential for telling good stories in his books.
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: If continuity isn't so important then why is it the people that hate it that whine the most?
You haven't been paying attention. And, what are you saying? What is this? This is clearly improvisation, my friend. You take ideas, put them out of context, and debate them. For example, when I meant that "continuity isn't important" I didn't mean that it wasn't a big deal. It obviously is a big deal. Instead of debating what I really meant, you debated a more literal meaning of the idea I expressed (not even a phrase I said; the idea I expressed).
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: And now, the linking doesn't stop with those three, it involves all the titles.
quote:Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk: Go back and re-read that part of the article. If you want, I can go back and look it up for you.
What is says is that Lois will be absecent in Action, giving Clark and Lana time to play 'homewreaker Superman'... ok, it doesn't say that but that's the gist of it.
quote:And why is that? What does Lois' personality have to do with the quality of the writing?
It's called characterization...
I can see how a Silver Age fan wouldn't know about that but it's a pretty basic foundation of good writting.
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: ]Yeah, if it didn't then Didio would have been more specific in his wording.
Plus Berganza has been hinting at the return of the linkage in a new form.
Still don't think so. We'll have to see.
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: What is says is that Lois will be absecent in Action, giving Clark and Lana time to play 'homewreaker Superman'... ok, it doesn't say that but that's the gist of it.
"Adventures of Superman writer Greg Rucka said that his title would focus on Clark Kent as the reporter. Kent will now be assigned the crime beat, working under a new editor other then Perry White. Changing his office in the Daily Planet for a cramped, smaller space near Metropolis’ central police station, Clark will now work 10 p.m. until 6 a.m., “chasing police cars.” Meanwhile, Lois will be assigned to covering the President for the Planet."
"Chuck Austen said that he aims to make Superman more street-level, and make his beat a little less glamorous. Mirroring what will be established in Adventures, Lois will often by busy, and as a result, Austen will rekindle the relationship between Clark and Lana Lang."
Actually, you were right about part of the Lois thing. I thought mirroring meant contrasting, but I've been told it's more like complementing. My mistake. Still...
"Something of growing concern was the writer’s view of Lois Lane. Rucka said, unlike others on the panel (referring to Austen’s statements that he sees Lois to be a goldigger and a bitch), he likes Lois. “These are two people in love who going to try to make it work…the more difficult the jobs, the more stress there is,” Rucka said. “I don’t think anyone has a tougher job than Superman, and Lois is a close second.”"
It's not something explicit, but there's clearly different views of Lois between the writers, and the Editors are obviously aware of this (it's their job to notice this kinda stuff), but, based on Berganza's quote I posted before, I don't think they care, as long as they give their writers libery. And that rocks.
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: It's called characterization...
Each book can have a different characterization of Lois. What's the point? Are these characterizations less valid because they contradict themselves? What if they are well written but contradict themselves?
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: I can see how a Silver Age fan wouldn't know about that but it's a pretty basic foundation of good writting.
Silver Age fan? Dude, I'm 18. I think the Silver Age comics are pretty enjoyable, and (like most people) I think the Silver Age version of Superman is the purest one, but I choose the Modern Age above the Silver Age. Mainly because of Moore, Gaiman, Morrison and Allred.
quote:Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk: It's not something explicit, but there's clearly different views of Lois between the writers, and the Editors are obviously aware of this (it's their job to notice this kinda stuff), but, based on Berganza's quote I posted before, I don't think they care, as long as they give their writers libery. And that rocks.
Dude, the only dissident voice is Austens. Even Didio said he loves Lois, the only one that thinks she's a bitch is Austen and with his attitude this guy's the Larry Hama of the group, he'll be gone less than six months into the relaunch.
quote:Each book can have a different characterization of Lois. What's the point? Are these characterizations less valid because they contradict themselves? What if they are well written but contradict themselves?
Characterization is what makes a character, they're not manequinns, you know?
quote:Silver Age fan? Dude, I'm 18. I think the Silver Age comics are pretty enjoyable, and (like most people) I think the Silver Age version of Superman is the purest one, but I choose the Modern Age above the Silver Age. Mainly because of Moore, Gaiman, Morrison and Allred.
None of those guys has ever written the 'real' modern age Superman, they've written about alternates, copies, or fanboy dreams of the 60's.
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: Dude, the only dissident voice is Austens. Even Didio said he loves Lois, the only one that thinks she's a bitch is Austen and with his attitude this guy's the Larry Hama of the group, he'll be gone less than six months into the relaunch.
That's one third of the regular books. His characterization of Lois will contradict the others. The editors are aware of it, but they let it happen because (...for some reason...) they trust Austen. Does this make all three books suck because the characterizations don't coincide?
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: Characterization is what makes a character, they're not manequinns, you know?
Yes, it makes a character, but, at least in comics, these characterizations never last forever. These are iconic characters we have here (even Lois). The writers can interpret these icons however they want. They can make good characterizations of their interpretations independently of each other.
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: None of those guys has ever written the 'real' modern age Superman, they've written about alternates, copies, or fanboy dreams of the 60's.
Superman/Green Lantern by Gaiman, a little book (maybe you've heard of it) called JLA by Morrison, Superman/Madman by Allred (an homage to the early 90's Superman with a Kirbyesque drawing style) and Moore... well, Moore refused to work for DC again, so he can't write Superman... at least not directly. All right. Now, what was the point of that...? I was just saying how I enjoy the Modern Age more than the Silver Age because of these guys. I never said that it's because of the work on Superman they've done (Gaiman because of Sandman, Allred because of Madman, Morrison because of Animalman and Moore because of... most of his work).
quote:Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk: That's one third of the regular books. His characterization of Lois will contradict the others. The editors are aware of it, but they let it happen because (...for some reason...) they trust Austen. Does this make all three books suck because the characterizations don't coincide?
They must be really wasted, lol.
quote:Yes, it makes a character, but, at least in comics, these characterizations never last forever. These are iconic characters we have here (even Lois). The writers can interpret these icons however they want. They can make good characterizations of their interpretations independently of each other.
Except for the last five years, the characterization had been in constant growth, it wasn't till Berganza took over that things started to lose control and, in some cases, go back to older, outdated guidelines.
quote:Superman/Green Lantern by Gaiman, a little book (maybe you've heard of it) called JLA by Morrison,
Silver Age Fanboy writting.
quote:Superman/Madman by Allred (an homage to the early 90's Superman with a Kirbyesque drawing style)
Alternate version of Superman more akin to the Sa.
quote:and Moore... well, Moore refused to work for DC again, so he can't write Superman... at least not directly.
He has to write knock offs.
Do you want to laugh you ass off about what another writer thinks of a Moore knock off? Go read the Veith interview about the new Question series.
quote:All right. Now, what was the point of that...? I was just saying how I enjoy the Modern Age more than the Silver Age because of these guys. I never said that it's because of the work on Superman they've done (Gaiman because of Sandman, Allred because of Madman, Morrison because of Animalman and Moore because of... most of his work).
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: Except for the last five years, the characterization had been in constant growth, it wasn't till Berganza took over that things started to lose control and, in some cases, go back to older, outdated guidelines.
Whatever. I haven't read that. Point is, characterization shouldn't be subordinated to continuity, and the people in charge of Superman realize that now.
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: Silver Age Fanboy writting.
All right. Your opinion. Now, what are your arguments to support that...?
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: Alternate version of Superman more akin to the Sa.
Ah, no. It was the Jurgens Superman. Allred said so himself. The only Silver Age thing was the drawing style, and some elements of the Madman world (heavily influenced by the Silver Age).
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: He has to write knock offs.
Yep, he wrote Supreme to tell a Superman story he had in mind.
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: Do you want to laugh you ass off about what another writer thinks of a Moore knock off? Go read the Veith interview about the new Question series.
quote:Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk: Whatever. I haven't read that. Point is, characterization shouldn't be subordinated to continuity, and the people in charge of Superman realize that now.
Characterization controls continuity. Writers who write poor characterization are lazy and see the characters as being manequinns.
Very silver age style writting.
quote:Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk: All right. Your opinion. Now, what are your arguments to support that...?
The story was too simplistic and had too much spandex, too much brawn and not enough brains.
quote:Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk: Where can I read that?
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: Characterization controls continuity. Writers who write poor characterization are lazy and see the characters as being manequinns.
Nope. Characters as old and as iconic as these can (and should) be reinterpreted. It's just a matter of when it happens. It makes no difference to me if all these interpretations are done at once. If they're good, they're good, period. You can't say "Oh, it's good, but it's not good because..."
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: Very silver age style writting.
You seem to be an expert on the Silver Age. So, a) You have read lots and lots of Silver Age comics, even though you don't like them (something I know you're capable of doing) or b) You haven't read more than me and you're assuming you know everything about it (other thing you're perfectly capable of doing).
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: The story was too simplistic and had too much spandex, too much brawn and not enough brains.
...
That describes every Rob Lefield book I've read (both of them!). Mike Allred puts a lot of thought and a lot of heart into what he does, and it shows. No brains? What about that scene with Madman and Superman talking about God? What about the fact that part of Superman stayed in Madman (something that, as I've been told, shows in the next issues of Madman)? What about the ending? Instead of defeating Mxyzptlk by fighting him, they defeat him in a much more creative and hilarious way. You think it's simplistic because of the art. This fits in with what I've said before in other topics. You stay with the way it looks it is and not with what it really is.
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=001284
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: The story was too simplistic and had too much spandex, too much brawn and not enough brains.
Wait, I just realize you said this about Morrison's JLA and not Allred's Madman. Sorry about that.
So Morrison's JLA is simplistic and has no brain? How about that... I thought the storylines were so complex that a lot of people need several reads to understand what the fuck happened! Do you think Rob Lefield would be able to write "Rock of Ages"?
Or were you referring to Gaiman's Superman/Green Lantern?
![[eh?]](images/icons/confused.gif){kind=icon}
![[eh... i dunno... ]](graemlins/ehidunno.gif)
![[...rassamnfrackin...]](graemlins/grumble01.gif)