Quote: ManofTheAtom said: I never said it's the best one, I said it's the one of consequoence and that it's an honest version of the origin.
I also said that origins don't define characters forever, they only serve to introduce the concept and the people involved in it.
Byrne's version of Superman evolved into the Stern/Jurgends/Simonson/Kesel/Ordway version long before Loeb and the others came along, it just happens that the Loeb/Waid/Casey/Kelly version sucks because it's more interested in reproducing the Silver Age out of sick nostalgia than in A) moving things forward and B ) being honest with the concept.
I can't be arsed to look up your posts, but they'd shock even you.
Quote: Not that a fanboy like you would understand. To you the only thing that matters is how "good" the story is, regardless of whether or not it doesn't fit the concept or the characters in it.
If someone told a story in which it's revealed that Spider-Man comes from the planet of the alien spiders, as long as it's "good" you wouldn't mind, right?
I like how you say "good" between quotes. It's like when G-man says "democratically elected" or "freedom of speech". Filthy little details.
No, I wouldn't like it as long as it's "good", I'd like it as long as it's good. Good means it's not just "good", it's good by any standard. Any one that makes sense, that is.
The quality of the story is all I care about, period. I know it seems shocking to you, but it's shocking to me that anyone could care about details like DECADES OLD CONTINUITY or CAPED DOGS. Only in comics we get guys like these.
