Quote: ManofTheAtom said: I enjoy it. I'm just capable of enjoying something different too. Unlike you, I like variety. This is not wether I like or don't like one version of Superman: I pretty much like them all. This is about you sticking to one version and insulting people who don't like it, or dare saying it should be left behind like all the other versions.
See, that's a bullshit statement.
If it were at all true then you'd be saying "gee, why do we need to alter ONE version to have more variants?
Wouldn't it be better to revive something like Superman Adventures, which offered a different version from Superman?
Add that to the Smallville comic and the regular comic and you have three different versions of the character, all with three different rules (Adventures had MORE Kryptonitans)".
No, instead you expect ONE version to be split into three different ones.
So don't say that you like different versions when the truth is that you want ONE version to be replaced with three others because you don't like that ONE version. (even though you claim you do...)
Quote: Betcha it was a mini, if it existed.
It did, it was called Crime Syndicate of America... I'm sure it was a comic.
Quote: I know. I was meant to be temporary then. I hope it isn't now.
I hope it is, there's still no fucking reason to have three different Supermen existing at the same time other than to please the more assnine of fans that can't let go of the 1960's...
Quote: FOR YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU. What works or doesn't work FOR YOOOOOOOOOOOU. You're not God.
NOOOO. What works for the CONCEPT.
Luthor in Smallville isn't necessary in the CONCEPT. It only makes idiots happy because that's how the comic was 40 years ago and that's how they want it to be forever.
Quote: ...eh?
Over your head just like everything else.
Try reading it slowly...
Quote: It does? So I guess I'm really lying. And I wasn't even aware of it. Hey, maybe Mark Waid is paying me to say this.
Seriously, this proves that the quick assumptions you make aren't (gasp!) always correct.
You claim one thing and then say another (look above)...
Quote: I don't think he SHOULD, or he SHOULDN'T, for me it works both ways. I'm open to change, I'm open to nostalgia (be it 60's or 80's nostalgia) but I'm not open to hypocresy.
It's one thing to be open to change and nostalgia... it's another when SA fuck heads keep insisting that Byrne killed Superman and that the 60's defined the character and anything that's different from that is wrong, as is everyone that likes it.
Quote: And obviously it'd be different from Man of Steel. Different. From. Man. Of. Steel. Aren't those words killing you inside?
You did read what I said, right? Or was that over your head too?
Try again...
Quote: You're actually saying that your opinions are undoubtable truths? You're fucking insane.
I'm saying that those comics are clear as water, for those that AREN'T hypocrates and pretend they're something they're not.
BR brings back elements from the Silver Age and Moore's Supreme was a fucking rip off of Superman.
Anyone with eyes can see that... anyone that doesn't is either blind or in denial...
Comics are like a Rorschach test; everyone has a different opinion on what they are and can be...
