--- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W <show_me68508@...> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > =====  So how is that an example
> > of
> > > > comic-book
> > > > > > continuity that didn't last?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > > > I don't know. How is that an example of
> > comic
> > > > book
> > > > > > continuity that didn't last? 
> > > > >
> > > > > =====  Replace the word "last" with "work",
> > look
> > > > at what you said earlier, and you'll see what I
> > mean. 
> > > > My bad for picking the wrong word.
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > When I said, "Yeah, that didn't last," I was
> > talking about
> > > > Marvel's decision at the time of "House of M" to
> > leave it up
> > > > to the writers of the individual books to decide
> > whether or
> > > > not they would participate in the company-wide
> > crossover
> > > > event, instead of mandating that certain books
> > had to join
> > > > in. That's what didn't last. If that's not what
> > you were
> > > > referring to, but were referring to what I said
> > about how
> > > > "Secret Wars II" didn't work, I didn't say that
> > it was an
> > > > example of continuity that didn't work. The
> > continuity was
> > > > fine (if you thought it was fine - I skipped most
> > of it, so
> > > > I have no idea how it all held together).
> > >
> > > ====  The continuity worked, that was my point. 
> > Something that happened to one character in one series and
> > was referenced in another series that crossed over into
> > yet-another-series, it worked.  If you want month-by-month
> > continuity, "Secret Wars II" is possibly the greatest
> > achievement in that goal.  Which is the problem.  It's
> > "Secret Wars II".  Come on!!!  I was reading "Green
> > Lantern" during the "Crisis on Inifinite Earths" and didn't
> > get as much a sense of what what was going on in "Crisis" as
> > I did in "Secret Wars II", and Hal, John and Guy were a lot
> > close to the climax of "Crisis" than anyone else, what with
> > their awesome fight on Qward happening just as the Earth-2
> > Superman blew up the Anti-Monitor.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > I wasn't reading "Green Lantern" at the time, so I can't
> > comment on it. But I was reading "Daredevil" at the time of
> > "Secret Invasion," and Daredevil was fighting Skrulls in
> > "Secret Invasion," but there was no sign of the Skrulls, and
> > no mention of them, either, in any of the issues of
> > "Daredevil" that came out at the time. And, in my opinion
> > (regardless of whether or not I was enjoying the
> > then-current storyline in "Daredevil"), I thought that that
> > was just about perfect.
> >
> > > ====  "Secret Wars II" worked as far as people paying
> > attention month-by-month to their favorite characters.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > To see how badly those characters were being fucked around.
> > Not by continuity or a large, overarching story, but by bad,
> > stupid, terrible ideas and execution. 
>
> =====  Not disputing that.  But the continuity worked, and the people who were
into the continuity came away satisfied.  Or if they weren't, they bought comics
they didn't want to buy because it was part of a crossover they didn't like. 
They still had their favorite characters month-by-month.  That's what they
wanted.  The Spider-Clone Saga didn't come out of nowhere, and neither did the
incessant X-crossovers.
>
> > "Crisis" worked on a slightly-larger scale, for those who
> > didn't read it at the time, but were aware of it, and had
> > enough interest in the 50-year history of the DCU to look
> > back.  Twenty years later, superhero fans are stuck in the
> > results of "Secret Wars II" and "Crisis", which hurts both
> > sides, those interested in the month-by-month part (the kind
> > of people who spend decades asking where the Avengers were
> > when Galactus showed up), and in the long-term, who don't
> > give a shit about Spider-Clones or anybody other than Kara
> > Zor-El being Supergirl.
> > >
> > > > > > "Civil War" and whatever crossover DC's
> > up to
> > > > nowadays sure
> > > > > > seem to prove the opposite.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > > > They prove that people love giant
> > crossovers? 
> > > > >
> > > > > =====  That the companies believe they have
> > more
> > > > success with giant crossovers and stories aimed
> > at people
> > > > who remember all those old comics, "Civil War",
> > "Infinite
> > > > Crisis" and "All Star Superman" alike.  It's
> > tough to
> > > > enjoy some issues in "All Star Superman" when you
> > know the
> > > > reference" (the Bizarro issues come immediately
> > to mind, as
> > > > do a few others), and without those references
> > it's an
> > > > utterly stupid story that no one should care
> > about ever
> > > > again.
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > You do realize that there are a whole lot of
> > people out
> > > > their who disagree with you about "All-Star
> > Superman," but
> > > > you just continue to refuse to ackowledge them.
> > Because it's
> > > > all about you. (Hey, this is fun!)
> > >
> > > =====  What do they disagree with me about?  I
> > thought it was a great series, and I've recently re-read the
> > first 10 issues.  I can't find #11, so I've put off
> > finishing until I do.  The Bizarro story was stupid and
> > dragged on way longer than it should.  The follow-up story
> > about the Kryptonians was pointless.  It's basically
> > blowing up "Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow" into a
> > twelve-issue series [which they refuse to collect for the
> > trade] and expecting it to have the same effect that the
> > earlier story had in 1985.  I didn't mean "All-Star
> > Superman" as a stupid story en toto, just the 3-part
> > "Bizarro" story.  Could have given us one issue of Bizarro,
> > one issue of Mxyzptlk, and something that involved the
> > Earth-whatever-cube that Superman created in the final
> > issues.  You think the Bizarro story was awesome, fine,
> > let's hear your reasons.  It didn't do anything for me
> > because it was overly-long, complicated, hinged on
> > Bizarro-talk to
> > >  make
> > >  something happened, turned out to be meaningless
> > in the long run, and those insipid Justice League cameos
> > really got on my nerves.  "All-Star Superman" was awesome
> > from the first page to the last, and the circumstances it
> > came out in?  Where are those people who disagree with me,
> > and where do I find them?
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > The people for whom the references aren't an issue, one way
> > or the other.
>
> ======  Why were three issues set aside for Bizarro when only one issue was
set aside for Luthor, the guy who killed Superman and the guy who makes it a
point of equalling or besting this Clark Kent guy?  The references are the main
things that work for "All-Star Superman".

Rainmandu says:
We must not have been reading the same series, since Luthor was... Oh. Right.
You haven't read the whole thing. Way to shoot your mouth off about something
you haven't read through to the end. Heh. And the references are the main things
that work for YOU. But you go right ahead and keep refusing to acknowledge all
of those people... Double heh.

> > > > > > People hate this book, they hate the
> > crossovers
> > > > of this
> > > > > > book, they hate the books they would
> > ordinarily
> > > > never buy
> > > > > > but they're buying because of this
> > book.  They
> > > > wish the
> > > > > > crossover would end so they could stop
> > buying
> > > > this book and
> > > > > > these crossovers and the crossovers
> > they wouldn't
> > > > ordinarily
> > > > > > buy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > > > If that's the case, then it doesn't
> > prove the
> > > > opposite of
> > > > > > what I said, now, does it? 
> > > > >
> > > > > =====  That people were still buying the
> > > > book?  That they hated the book?  That they
> > hated
> > > > the crossovers with other books that they wound
> > up buying
> > > > and wound up hating and wished such things
> > wouldn't happen
> > > > so they could stop buying those books they
> > hate?  And
> > > > that doing such things 20 years ago validates
> > Marvel and DCs
> > > > current love of crossovers?  Um, no, you were
> > > > complaining about those buyers then and
> > complaining about
> > > > the companies now.
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > Not really complaining about those customers. I'm
> > a comic
> > > > geek, so I have some sympathy for buying a book
> > you're no
> > > > longer enjoying, or a crossover title you
> > wouldn't normally
> > > > buy, and you don't know why you just bought it,
> > and you're
> > > > not even going to read it. I was pointing out
> > that just
> > > > because a book is selling is no indication that
> > people are
> > > > loving it, or that they want more of it.
> > >
> > > ====  It does justify the people selling it.  It's
> > what they do, and people obviously want more of it.  I'm a
> > comic geek, so I have sympathy for it as well.  But the
> > company is looking at whether or not a book is selling. 
> > Marvel admits (now) they misjudged how many readers they had
> > in the uber-continuity era of "Secret Wars II", the people
> > who were buying all those crossover issues they hated of a
> > story they hate.  That's what drove me away from the mutant
> > titles too.  It doesn't invalidate the love of continuity,
> > or the desire for characters to stay the same over
> > however-many-appearances-they're-required-to-make.  Star
> > Trek, Harry Potter and James Bond fans go through the same
> > thing.  But they're interested in a particular franchise
> > and you and I are interested in the medium itself.  I
> > suspect -- without any evidence on either side -- that you
> > and I are more interested in the comic-book versions of
> > Storm, Wolverine, Colossus, Nightcrawler,
> > >  etc. than we
> > >  are in other versions.  We can agree to
> > disagree about Halle Berry (if we do, I'm not even
> > interested)
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > Well, since I don't know your opinion about Halle Berry, I
> > can't say for sure whether we agree or disagree. I think
> > she's a marginally talented, boyish-looking actress who was
> > completely and utterly wrong for the role of Storm. It
> > should have gone to Angela Bassett.
> >
> > but Storm Herself is something that we can't disagree as
> > much about.  If nothing else, one of us may be guiding her
> > career one day, and will have to justify it for an audience
> > who hates what we're doing.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > I'm divorcing her from the Black Panther and making her the
> > new Black Queen of the Hellfire Club. Because I'm tired of
> > bad girls turning good. It's time for some good girls to
> > turn bad. And not just to set up some redemption story down
> > the line. Nope. Make her bad and keep her bad. The way they
> > should have done with Jean Grey / Phoenix. 
>
> =====  Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere.  You can't escape Jim
Steinman.

Rainmandu says:
He's old. He can't run that fast.

> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > They're not to blame. They're giving the people
> > what the
> > > > people don't want, but the people keep acting
> > like they want
> > > > it, so what the fuck. It might do them some good
> > to note
> > > > that the more they give them the big crossovers,
> > the more
> > > > they're going to need to keep giving them the big
> > crossovers
> > > > to keep their sales up, because, each time they
> > do it,
> > > > they'll be losing more regular readers. Yes, it's
> > just like
> > > > drug addiction. Only for Marvel. They start out
> > doing it to
> > > > get high and feel good, they end up doing it just
> > to
> > > > maintain.
> > >
> > > =====  This has been going on since the 60's,
> > dude, where you been?
> > >
> > > > > > And, the larger point, with L nny and
> > Larry, it
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > work in retrospect.  Sue Richard's
> > "Malice"
> > > > incarnation
> > > > > > wasn't as good as Dazzler's, and means
> > even less
> > > > in the
> > > > > > long-term, except for the
> > long-forgotten
> > > > Hate-Monger
> > > > > > storyline.  So why bring it up?  Why
> > make such
> > > > a
> > > > > > big deal of her being turned to the
> > Dark Side and
> > > > then
> > > > > > mention in a caption that Reed Richards
> > has
> > > > defeated her and
> > > > > > turned her back and then the guy
> > responsible gets
> > > > killed by
> > > > > > some random person ["Scourge" I think
> > was his
> > > > name] saying
> > > > > > "Justice is served"?  It leaves the
> > fans of
> > > > > > three-or-four MU years confused and
> > uninterested,
> > > > defeats
> > > > > > the longer-standing MU fans, and does
> > nothing for
> > > > anybody
> > > > > > who reads this stuff as their first
> > experience. 
> > > > Unless
> > > > > > they like weird
> > > > > > >  people doing weird things with
> > no
> > > > believable
> > > > > > motivation (we're talking about
> > superheroes and
> > > > superhero
> > > > > > continuity, there is going to be that
> > aspect).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > > > If a new writer on FF wants to do a
> > story about
> > > > lingering
> > > > > > Hate-Mongerness in Sue Richards's
> > dreams, I have
> > > > no problem
> > > > > > with that. Well, I do, but a good
> > writer can
> > > > reference the
> > > > > > old story, and do it in a way that
> > works. But if
> > > > you're
> > > > > > writing a Spider-Man story, with Spidey
> > and the
> > > > FF teaming
> > > > > > up to do something that has nothing to
> > do with
> > > > > > Hate-Mongering Sue or any of the
> > side-effects of
> > > > that, why
> > > > > > bother wasting everyone's time and
> > putting stupid
> > > > speedbumps
> > > > > > in your story with Reed saying, "Sue?
> > What's
> > > > wrong?" and Sue
> > > > > > saying, "It's just... I don't know. I
> > feel..."
> > > > and Ben
> > > > > > saying, "I think she's still feelin'
> > the
> > > > side-effects o' the
> > > > > > Hate Monger's hate-a-ray" and Johnny
> > saying, "I
> > > > know you're
> > > > > > my sister, but I've got some smokin'
> > wood over
> > > > here. No.
> > > > > > Really. It's literally smoking."
> > > > >
> > > > > =====  Does anybody else notice that Rain
> > always
> > > > turns what he thinks is good for the characters
> > into
> > > > something about him, and it resembles a 70's porn
> > movie,
> > > > back when chicks didn't trust razors enough to
> > put them
> > > > between their legs?
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > Actually, it's not an example of what I think
> > it's good for
> > > > the character. It's just a silly thing to
> > illustrate a point
> > > > I'm making.
> > >
> > > ======  We're talking about heroes and icons, is
> > a silly thing to illustrate a point the way to go,
> > especially if you don't think it's good for the
> > character?  That's all I'm saying.  I'd rather not
> > see a 70's porn reference and think "Rain must have written
> > this issue".
> > >
> > > *Queen, "Bohemian Rhapsody", it always comes back to
> > The Source (if Jack Kirby will forgive me)*
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > It's just me entertaining myself and anyone else who's
> > entertained along the way. If I'm making the point that I
> > think that the current writer of "Daredevil" should get to
> > decide who Daredevil is dating, I might choose to say that
> > Matt Murdock could be married to Sue Storm's evil twin, who
> > happens to be a midget with Molecule Man powers. Because it
> > makes the point that, even if the idea is way the fuck out
> > there, I like the idea of reading an individual writer's
> > take on the character, and because I think it's funny. It
> > lightens up these often dry discussions. If you disagree,
> > you disagree. I would rather read Howard Chaykin's "Captain
> > America," regardless of how much continuity he ignores along
> > the way, than anyone else's "Captain America" that follows
> > whatever is currently going on with Steve Rogers and the
> > rest of the Marvel U.
>
> =====  I'd rather read Joe Simon's "Captain America".  Because he came up with
Captain America, and his 70-year later version will be more appropriate to his
character and the intervening decades than any Howie-come-lately.

Rainmandu says:
The guys who created "Battlestar Galactica" were bested by the guys who undated
the series. Until the last two seasons. Ugh.

80's or 90's porn would be a better reference as far as what I expect from my
Captain America.

Rainmandu says:
Well, then you go right ahead and reference '80s and '90s porn. While I have a
certain affection for '70s porn, I think we all know that the best porn is today
porn.

Why insist on 70's porn?

Rainmandu says:
Why insist on not knowing where that apostrophe goes?

Because it's easier to get girls to stop shaving down there?

Rainmandu says:
There's too much shaving.

Joe Simon wouldn't be worried much about continuity either, but he created the
character, and I would see his version as definitive (even if I don't like the
results) a lot sooner than anybody else's.
>
> *Dream Engine, "What Part of my Body Hurts the Most"*

Rainmandu says:
I'm not looking for definitive. The characters are corporate mascots and
franchise figureheads. All I expect from that are good stories and good art.

Rainmandu

"Piece of Cake" - Magnapop

> > > > > > =====  So how is that an example
> of
> > > comic-book
> > > > > continuity that didn't last?
> > > > >
> > > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > > I don't know. How is that an example of
> comic
> > > book
> > > > > continuity that didn't last? 
> > > >
> > > > =====  Replace the word "last" with "work",
> look
> > > at what you said earlier, and you'll see what I
> mean. 
> > > My bad for picking the wrong word.
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > When I said, "Yeah, that didn't last," I was
> talking about
> > > Marvel's decision at the time of "House of M" to
> leave it up
> > > to the writers of the individual books to decide
> whether or
> > > not they would participate in the company-wide
> crossover
> > > event, instead of mandating that certain books
> had to join
> > > in. That's what didn't last. If that's not what
> you were
> > > referring to, but were referring to what I said
> about how
> > > "Secret Wars II" didn't work, I didn't say that
> it was an
> > > example of continuity that didn't work. The
> continuity was
> > > fine (if you thought it was fine - I skipped most
> of it, so
> > > I have no idea how it all held together).
> >
> > ====  The continuity worked, that was my point. 
> Something that happened to one character in one series and
> was referenced in another series that crossed over into
> yet-another-series, it worked.  If you want month-by-month
> continuity, "Secret Wars II" is possibly the greatest
> achievement in that goal.  Which is the problem.  It's
> "Secret Wars II".  Come on!!!  I was reading "Green
> Lantern" during the "Crisis on Inifinite Earths" and didn't
> get as much a sense of what what was going on in "Crisis" as
> I did in "Secret Wars II", and Hal, John and Guy were a lot
> close to the climax of "Crisis" than anyone else, what with
> their awesome fight on Qward happening just as the Earth-2
> Superman blew up the Anti-Monitor.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> I wasn't reading "Green Lantern" at the time, so I can't
> comment on it. But I was reading "Daredevil" at the time of
> "Secret Invasion," and Daredevil was fighting Skrulls in
> "Secret Invasion," but there was no sign of the Skrulls, and
> no mention of them, either, in any of the issues of
> "Daredevil" that came out at the time. And, in my opinion
> (regardless of whether or not I was enjoying the
> then-current storyline in "Daredevil"), I thought that that
> was just about perfect.
>
> > ====  "Secret Wars II" worked as far as people paying
> attention month-by-month to their favorite characters.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> To see how badly those characters were being fucked around.
> Not by continuity or a large, overarching story, but by bad,
> stupid, terrible ideas and execution. 

=====  Not disputing that.  But the continuity worked, and the people who were
into the continuity came away satisfied.  Or if they weren't, they bought comics
they didn't want to buy because it was part of a crossover they didn't like. 
They still had their favorite characters month-by-month.  That's what they
wanted.  The Spider-Clone Saga didn't come out of nowhere, and neither did the
incessant X-crossovers.

> "Crisis" worked on a slightly-larger scale, for those who
> didn't read it at the time, but were aware of it, and had
> enough interest in the 50-year history of the DCU to look
> back.  Twenty years later, superhero fans are stuck in the
> results of "Secret Wars II" and "Crisis", which hurts both
> sides, those interested in the month-by-month part (the kind
> of people who spend decades asking where the Avengers were
> when Galactus showed up), and in the long-term, who don't
> give a shit about Spider-Clones or anybody other than Kara
> Zor-El being Supergirl.
> >
> > > > > "Civil War" and whatever crossover DC's
> up to
> > > nowadays sure
> > > > > seem to prove the opposite.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > > They prove that people love giant
> crossovers? 
> > > >
> > > > =====  That the companies believe they have
> more
> > > success with giant crossovers and stories aimed
> at people
> > > who remember all those old comics, "Civil War",
> "Infinite
> > > Crisis" and "All Star Superman" alike.  It's
> tough to
> > > enjoy some issues in "All Star Superman" when you
> know the
> > > reference" (the Bizarro issues come immediately
> to mind, as
> > > do a few others), and without those references
> it's an
> > > utterly stupid story that no one should care
> about ever
> > > again.
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > You do realize that there are a whole lot of
> people out
> > > their who disagree with you about "All-Star
> Superman," but
> > > you just continue to refuse to ackowledge them.
> Because it's
> > > all about you. (Hey, this is fun!)
> >
> > =====  What do they disagree with me about?  I
> thought it was a great series, and I've recently re-read the
> first 10 issues.  I can't find #11, so I've put off
> finishing until I do.  The Bizarro story was stupid and
> dragged on way longer than it should.  The follow-up story
> about the Kryptonians was pointless.  It's basically
> blowing up "Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow" into a
> twelve-issue series [which they refuse to collect for the
> trade] and expecting it to have the same effect that the
> earlier story had in 1985.  I didn't mean "All-Star
> Superman" as a stupid story en toto, just the 3-part
> "Bizarro" story.  Could have given us one issue of Bizarro,
> one issue of Mxyzptlk, and something that involved the
> Earth-whatever-cube that Superman created in the final
> issues.  You think the Bizarro story was awesome, fine,
> let's hear your reasons.  It didn't do anything for me
> because it was overly-long, complicated, hinged on
> Bizarro-talk to
> >  make
> >  something happened, turned out to be meaningless
> in the long run, and those insipid Justice League cameos
> really got on my nerves.  "All-Star Superman" was awesome
> from the first page to the last, and the circumstances it
> came out in?  Where are those people who disagree with me,
> and where do I find them?
>
> Rainmandu says:
> The people for whom the references aren't an issue, one way
> or the other.

======  Why were three issues set aside for Bizarro when only one issue was set
aside for Luthor, the guy who killed Superman and the guy who makes it a point
of equalling or besting this Clark Kent guy?  The references are the main things
that work for "All-Star Superman".

> > > > > People hate this book, they hate the
> crossovers
> > > of this
> > > > > book, they hate the books they would
> ordinarily
> > > never buy
> > > > > but they're buying because of this
> book.  They
> > > wish the
> > > > > crossover would end so they could stop
> buying
> > > this book and
> > > > > these crossovers and the crossovers
> they wouldn't
> > > ordinarily
> > > > > buy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > > If that's the case, then it doesn't
> prove the
> > > opposite of
> > > > > what I said, now, does it? 
> > > >
> > > > =====  That people were still buying the
> > > book?  That they hated the book?  That they
> hated
> > > the crossovers with other books that they wound
> up buying
> > > and wound up hating and wished such things
> wouldn't happen
> > > so they could stop buying those books they
> hate?  And
> > > that doing such things 20 years ago validates
> Marvel and DCs
> > > current love of crossovers?  Um, no, you were
> > > complaining about those buyers then and
> complaining about
> > > the companies now.
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > Not really complaining about those customers. I'm
> a comic
> > > geek, so I have some sympathy for buying a book
> you're no
> > > longer enjoying, or a crossover title you
> wouldn't normally
> > > buy, and you don't know why you just bought it,
> and you're
> > > not even going to read it. I was pointing out
> that just
> > > because a book is selling is no indication that
> people are
> > > loving it, or that they want more of it.
> >
> > ====  It does justify the people selling it.  It's
> what they do, and people obviously want more of it.  I'm a
> comic geek, so I have sympathy for it as well.  But the
> company is looking at whether or not a book is selling. 
> Marvel admits (now) they misjudged how many readers they had
> in the uber-continuity era of "Secret Wars II", the people
> who were buying all those crossover issues they hated of a
> story they hate.  That's what drove me away from the mutant
> titles too.  It doesn't invalidate the love of continuity,
> or the desire for characters to stay the same over
> however-many-appearances-they're-required-to-make.  Star
> Trek, Harry Potter and James Bond fans go through the same
> thing.  But they're interested in a particular franchise
> and you and I are interested in the medium itself.  I
> suspect -- without any evidence on either side -- that you
> and I are more interested in the comic-book versions of
> Storm, Wolverine, Colossus, Nightcrawler,
> >  etc. than we
> >  are in other versions.  We can agree to
> disagree about Halle Berry (if we do, I'm not even
> interested)
>
> Rainmandu says:
> Well, since I don't know your opinion about Halle Berry, I
> can't say for sure whether we agree or disagree. I think
> she's a marginally talented, boyish-looking actress who was
> completely and utterly wrong for the role of Storm. It
> should have gone to Angela Bassett.
>
> but Storm Herself is something that we can't disagree as
> much about.  If nothing else, one of us may be guiding her
> career one day, and will have to justify it for an audience
> who hates what we're doing.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> I'm divorcing her from the Black Panther and making her the
> new Black Queen of the Hellfire Club. Because I'm tired of
> bad girls turning good. It's time for some good girls to
> turn bad. And not just to set up some redemption story down
> the line. Nope. Make her bad and keep her bad. The way they
> should have done with Jean Grey / Phoenix. 

=====  Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere.  You can't escape Jim
Steinman.

> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > They're not to blame. They're giving the people
> what the
> > > people don't want, but the people keep acting
> like they want
> > > it, so what the fuck. It might do them some good
> to note
> > > that the more they give them the big crossovers,
> the more
> > > they're going to need to keep giving them the big
> crossovers
> > > to keep their sales up, because, each time they
> do it,
> > > they'll be losing more regular readers. Yes, it's
> just like
> > > drug addiction. Only for Marvel. They start out
> doing it to
> > > get high and feel good, they end up doing it just
> to
> > > maintain.
> >
> > =====  This has been going on since the 60's,
> dude, where you been?
> >
> > > > > And, the larger point, with L nny and
> Larry, it
> > > doesn't
> > > > > work in retrospect.  Sue Richard's
> "Malice"
> > > incarnation
> > > > > wasn't as good as Dazzler's, and means
> even less
> > > in the
> > > > > long-term, except for the
> long-forgotten
> > > Hate-Monger
> > > > > storyline.  So why bring it up?  Why
> make such
> > > a
> > > > > big deal of her being turned to the
> Dark Side and
> > > then
> > > > > mention in a caption that Reed Richards
> has
> > > defeated her and
> > > > > turned her back and then the guy
> responsible gets
> > > killed by
> > > > > some random person ["Scourge" I think
> was his
> > > name] saying
> > > > > "Justice is served"?  It leaves the
> fans of
> > > > > three-or-four MU years confused and
> uninterested,
> > > defeats
> > > > > the longer-standing MU fans, and does
> nothing for
> > > anybody
> > > > > who reads this stuff as their first
> experience. 
> > > Unless
> > > > > they like weird
> > > > > >  people doing weird things with
> no
> > > believable
> > > > > motivation (we're talking about
> superheroes and
> > > superhero
> > > > > continuity, there is going to be that
> aspect).
> > > > >
> > > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > > If a new writer on FF wants to do a
> story about
> > > lingering
> > > > > Hate-Mongerness in Sue Richards's
> dreams, I have
> > > no problem
> > > > > with that. Well, I do, but a good
> writer can
> > > reference the
> > > > > old story, and do it in a way that
> works. But if
> > > you're
> > > > > writing a Spider-Man story, with Spidey
> and the
> > > FF teaming
> > > > > up to do something that has nothing to
> do with
> > > > > Hate-Mongering Sue or any of the
> side-effects of
> > > that, why
> > > > > bother wasting everyone's time and
> putting stupid
> > > speedbumps
> > > > > in your story with Reed saying, "Sue?
> What's
> > > wrong?" and Sue
> > > > > saying, "It's just... I don't know. I
> feel..."
> > > and Ben
> > > > > saying, "I think she's still feelin'
> the
> > > side-effects o' the
> > > > > Hate Monger's hate-a-ray" and Johnny
> saying, "I
> > > know you're
> > > > > my sister, but I've got some smokin'
> wood over
> > > here. No.
> > > > > Really. It's literally smoking."
> > > >
> > > > =====  Does anybody else notice that Rain
> always
> > > turns what he thinks is good for the characters
> into
> > > something about him, and it resembles a 70's porn
> movie,
> > > back when chicks didn't trust razors enough to
> put them
> > > between their legs?
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > Actually, it's not an example of what I think
> it's good for
> > > the character. It's just a silly thing to
> illustrate a point
> > > I'm making.
> >
> > ======  We're talking about heroes and icons, is
> a silly thing to illustrate a point the way to go,
> especially if you don't think it's good for the
> character?  That's all I'm saying.  I'd rather not
> see a 70's porn reference and think "Rain must have written
> this issue".
> >
> > *Queen, "Bohemian Rhapsody", it always comes back to
> The Source (if Jack Kirby will forgive me)*
>
> Rainmandu says:
> It's just me entertaining myself and anyone else who's
> entertained along the way. If I'm making the point that I
> think that the current writer of "Daredevil" should get to
> decide who Daredevil is dating, I might choose to say that
> Matt Murdock could be married to Sue Storm's evil twin, who
> happens to be a midget with Molecule Man powers. Because it
> makes the point that, even if the idea is way the fuck out
> there, I like the idea of reading an individual writer's
> take on the character, and because I think it's funny. It
> lightens up these often dry discussions. If you disagree,
> you disagree. I would rather read Howard Chaykin's "Captain
> America," regardless of how much continuity he ignores along
> the way, than anyone else's "Captain America" that follows
> whatever is currently going on with Steve Rogers and the
> rest of the Marvel U.

=====  I'd rather read Joe Simon's "Captain America".  Because he came up with
Captain America, and his 70-year later version will be more appropriate to his
character and the intervening decades than any Howie-come-lately.  80's or 90's
porn would be a better reference as far as what I expect from my Captain
America.  Why insist on 70's porn?  Because it's easier to get girls to stop
shaving down there?  Joe Simon wouldn't be worried much about continuity either,
but he created the character, and I would see his version as definitive (even if
I don't like the results) a lot sooner than anybody else's.

*Dream Engine, "What Part of my Body Hurts the Most"*

--- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W <show_me68508@...> wrote:
>
> > > > > =====  So how is that an example of
> > comic-book
> > > > continuity that didn't last?
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > I don't know. How is that an example of comic
> > book
> > > > continuity that didn't last? 
> > >
> > > =====  Replace the word "last" with "work", look
> > at what you said earlier, and you'll see what I mean. 
> > My bad for picking the wrong word.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > When I said, "Yeah, that didn't last," I was talking about
> > Marvel's decision at the time of "House of M" to leave it up
> > to the writers of the individual books to decide whether or
> > not they would participate in the company-wide crossover
> > event, instead of mandating that certain books had to join
> > in. That's what didn't last. If that's not what you were
> > referring to, but were referring to what I said about how
> > "Secret Wars II" didn't work, I didn't say that it was an
> > example of continuity that didn't work. The continuity was
> > fine (if you thought it was fine - I skipped most of it, so
> > I have no idea how it all held together).
>
> ====  The continuity worked, that was my point.  Something that happened to
one character in one series and was referenced in another series that crossed
over into yet-another-series, it worked.  If you want month-by-month continuity,
"Secret Wars II" is possibly the greatest achievement in that goal.  Which is
the problem.  It's "Secret Wars II".  Come on!!!  I was reading "Green Lantern"
during the "Crisis on Inifinite Earths" and didn't get as much a sense of what
what was going on in "Crisis" as I did in "Secret Wars II", and Hal, John and
Guy were a lot close to the climax of "Crisis" than anyone else, what with their
awesome fight on Qward happening just as the Earth-2 Superman blew up the
Anti-Monitor.

Rainmandu says:
I wasn't reading "Green Lantern" at the time, so I can't comment on it. But I
was reading "Daredevil" at the time of "Secret Invasion," and Daredevil was
fighting Skrulls in "Secret Invasion," but there was no sign of the Skrulls, and
no mention of them, either, in any of the issues of "Daredevil" that came out at
the time. And, in my opinion (regardless of whether or not I was enjoying the
then-current storyline in "Daredevil"), I thought that that was just about
perfect.

> ====  "Secret Wars II" worked as far as people paying attention month-by-month
to their favorite characters.

Rainmandu says:
To see how badly those characters were being fucked around. Not by continuity or
a large, overarching story, but by bad, stupid, terrible ideas and execution. 

"Crisis" worked on a slightly-larger scale, for those who didn't read it at the
time, but were aware of it, and had enough interest in the 50-year history of
the DCU to look back.  Twenty years later, superhero fans are stuck in the
results of "Secret Wars II" and "Crisis", which hurts both sides, those
interested in the month-by-month part (the kind of people who spend decades
asking where the Avengers were when Galactus showed up), and in the long-term,
who don't give a shit about Spider-Clones or anybody other than Kara Zor-El
being Supergirl.
>
> > > > "Civil War" and whatever crossover DC's up to
> > nowadays sure
> > > > seem to prove the opposite.
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > They prove that people love giant crossovers? 
> > >
> > > =====  That the companies believe they have more
> > success with giant crossovers and stories aimed at people
> > who remember all those old comics, "Civil War", "Infinite
> > Crisis" and "All Star Superman" alike.  It's tough to
> > enjoy some issues in "All Star Superman" when you know the
> > reference" (the Bizarro issues come immediately to mind, as
> > do a few others), and without those references it's an
> > utterly stupid story that no one should care about ever
> > again.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > You do realize that there are a whole lot of people out
> > their who disagree with you about "All-Star Superman," but
> > you just continue to refuse to ackowledge them. Because it's
> > all about you. (Hey, this is fun!)
>
> =====  What do they disagree with me about?  I thought it was a great series,
and I've recently re-read the first 10 issues.  I can't find #11, so I've put
off finishing until I do.  The Bizarro story was stupid and dragged on way
longer than it should.  The follow-up story about the Kryptonians was
pointless.  It's basically blowing up "Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow"
into a twelve-issue series [which they refuse to collect for the trade] and
expecting it to have the same effect that the earlier story had in 1985.  I
didn't mean "All-Star Superman" as a stupid story en toto, just the 3-part
"Bizarro" story.  Could have given us one issue of Bizarro, one issue of
Mxyzptlk, and something that involved the Earth-whatever-cube that Superman
created in the final issues.  You think the Bizarro story was awesome, fine,
let's hear your reasons.  It didn't do anything for me because it was
overly-long, complicated, hinged on Bizarro-talk to
>  make
>  something happened, turned out to be meaningless in the long run, and those
insipid Justice League cameos really got on my nerves.  "All-Star Superman" was
awesome from the first page to the last, and the circumstances it came out in? 
Where are those people who disagree with me, and where do I find them?

Rainmandu says:
The people for whom the references aren't an issue, one way or the other.

> > > > People hate this book, they hate the crossovers
> > of this
> > > > book, they hate the books they would ordinarily
> > never buy
> > > > but they're buying because of this book.  They
> > wish the
> > > > crossover would end so they could stop buying
> > this book and
> > > > these crossovers and the crossovers they wouldn't
> > ordinarily
> > > > buy.
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > If that's the case, then it doesn't prove the
> > opposite of
> > > > what I said, now, does it? 
> > >
> > > =====  That people were still buying the
> > book?  That they hated the book?  That they hated
> > the crossovers with other books that they wound up buying
> > and wound up hating and wished such things wouldn't happen
> > so they could stop buying those books they hate?  And
> > that doing such things 20 years ago validates Marvel and DCs
> > current love of crossovers?  Um, no, you were
> > complaining about those buyers then and complaining about
> > the companies now.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > Not really complaining about those customers. I'm a comic
> > geek, so I have some sympathy for buying a book you're no
> > longer enjoying, or a crossover title you wouldn't normally
> > buy, and you don't know why you just bought it, and you're
> > not even going to read it. I was pointing out that just
> > because a book is selling is no indication that people are
> > loving it, or that they want more of it.
>
> ====  It does justify the people selling it.  It's what they do, and people
obviously want more of it.  I'm a comic geek, so I have sympathy for it as
well.  But the company is looking at whether or not a book is selling.  Marvel
admits (now) they misjudged how many readers they had in the uber-continuity era
of "Secret Wars II", the people who were buying all those crossover issues they
hated of a story they hate.  That's what drove me away from the mutant titles
too.  It doesn't invalidate the love of continuity, or the desire for characters
to stay the same over however-many-appearances-they're-required-to-make.  Star
Trek, Harry Potter and James Bond fans go through the same thing.  But they're
interested in a particular franchise and you and I are interested in the medium
itself.  I suspect -- without any evidence on either side -- that you and I are
more interested in the comic-book versions of Storm, Wolverine, Colossus,
Nightcrawler,
>  etc. than we
>  are in other versions.  We can agree to disagree about Halle Berry (if we do,
I'm not even interested)

Rainmandu says:
Well, since I don't know your opinion about Halle Berry, I can't say for sure
whether we agree or disagree. I think she's a marginally talented,
boyish-looking actress who was completely and utterly wrong for the role of
Storm. It should have gone to Angela Bassett.

but Storm Herself is something that we can't disagree as much about.  If nothing
else, one of us may be guiding her career one day, and will have to justify it
for an audience who hates what we're doing.

Rainmandu says:
I'm divorcing her from the Black Panther and making her the new Black Queen of
the Hellfire Club. Because I'm tired of bad girls turning good. It's time for
some good girls to turn bad. And not just to set up some redemption story down
the line. Nope. Make her bad and keep her bad. The way they should have done
with Jean Grey / Phoenix. 

Not much different from Marvel justifying its "Secret Wars II" sales because the
sales are so high.  It costs them, in the long run, but that's what they're
about.  Hate the book as much as you like, so long as you still buy it.
>
> > > > You ever hang out with a drug-dealer who is so
> > repulsive
> > > > you hate having to see him and can't way to get
> > away from
> > > > him, but he's got the stuff you want?
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > No, but I used to date this girl...
> > >
> > > =====  What's the difference?
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > Exactly.
>
> =====  Exactly.
>
> > > >  [Ooh Ooh [/Gunther Toody] I just had
> > another idea for a
> > > > Dazzler story].  At the time, it was good
> > continuity
> > > > the way the audience liked it, and you prove it
> > yourself
> > > > with all the people who hated it buying it, and
> > the
> > > > crossovers, and the crossovers into comics they
> > didn't
> > > > usually buy, and wishing it would end so they
> > could stop
> > > > buying these comics.
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > No, they didn't like it. They bought it. It's not
> > the same
> > > > thing. Oh, it sure LOOKS like the same thing. But
> > it's not.
> > > > It's...
> > >
> > > ======  It's the Beyonder.  He's moving into
> > a new phase.
> > >
> > > > That's sick.
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > Yeah. That.
> > > >
> > > > I reached that point with the first
> > post-Claremont
> > > > X-crossover, gave every title on my list one
> > single issue
> > > > beyond that, and then cut them all off.  Except
> > Peter
> > > > >  David's "X-Factor" but he did quite a few
> > issues
> > > > after that, but it wasn't hard.
> > > > >
> > > > > =====  As much as "Secret Wars II" and its
> > > > crossovers sucked [and I, as a fan, am having to
> > fight with
> > > > myself to read the collected hardcover instead of
> > more
> > > > interesting books] it was continuity the way the
> > mass
> > > > audience wanted.
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > That's like saying that waking up with the
> > "ladies" of "The
> > > > View" taking turns grinding their pussies on your
> > chin is
> > > > group sex the way guys want it. Uh, no. It's
> > not.
> > >
> > > ======  If they still keep paying for it, and
> > paying for solo sessions with each of those ladies, why,
> > exactly, are the people offering these group sex sessions
> > the ones to blame?  We're coming dangerously close to
> > on-topic here, so think about your answer.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > They're not to blame. They're giving the people what the
> > people don't want, but the people keep acting like they want
> > it, so what the fuck. It might do them some good to note
> > that the more they give them the big crossovers, the more
> > they're going to need to keep giving them the big crossovers
> > to keep their sales up, because, each time they do it,
> > they'll be losing more regular readers. Yes, it's just like
> > drug addiction. Only for Marvel. They start out doing it to
> > get high and feel good, they end up doing it just to
> > maintain.
>
> =====  This has been going on since the 60's, dude, where you been?
>
> > > > And, the larger point, with L nny and Larry, it
> > doesn't
> > > > work in retrospect.  Sue Richard's "Malice"
> > incarnation
> > > > wasn't as good as Dazzler's, and means even less
> > in the
> > > > long-term, except for the long-forgotten
> > Hate-Monger
> > > > storyline.  So why bring it up?  Why make such
> > a
> > > > big deal of her being turned to the Dark Side and
> > then
> > > > mention in a caption that Reed Richards has
> > defeated her and
> > > > turned her back and then the guy responsible gets
> > killed by
> > > > some random person ["Scourge" I think was his
> > name] saying
> > > > "Justice is served"?  It leaves the fans of
> > > > three-or-four MU years confused and uninterested,
> > defeats
> > > > the longer-standing MU fans, and does nothing for
> > anybody
> > > > who reads this stuff as their first experience. 
> > Unless
> > > > they like weird
> > > > >  people doing weird things with no
> > believable
> > > > motivation (we're talking about superheroes and
> > superhero
> > > > continuity, there is going to be that aspect).
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > If a new writer on FF wants to do a story about
> > lingering
> > > > Hate-Mongerness in Sue Richards's dreams, I have
> > no problem
> > > > with that. Well, I do, but a good writer can
> > reference the
> > > > old story, and do it in a way that works. But if
> > you're
> > > > writing a Spider-Man story, with Spidey and the
> > FF teaming
> > > > up to do something that has nothing to do with
> > > > Hate-Mongering Sue or any of the side-effects of
> > that, why
> > > > bother wasting everyone's time and putting stupid
> > speedbumps
> > > > in your story with Reed saying, "Sue? What's
> > wrong?" and Sue
> > > > saying, "It's just... I don't know. I feel..."
> > and Ben
> > > > saying, "I think she's still feelin' the
> > side-effects o' the
> > > > Hate Monger's hate-a-ray" and Johnny saying, "I
> > know you're
> > > > my sister, but I've got some smokin' wood over
> > here. No.
> > > > Really. It's literally smoking."
> > >
> > > =====  Does anybody else notice that Rain always
> > turns what he thinks is good for the characters into
> > something about him, and it resembles a 70's porn movie,
> > back when chicks didn't trust razors enough to put them
> > between their legs?
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > Actually, it's not an example of what I think it's good for
> > the character. It's just a silly thing to illustrate a point
> > I'm making.
>
> ======  We're talking about heroes and icons, is a silly thing to illustrate a
point the way to go, especially if you don't think it's good for the character? 
That's all I'm saying.  I'd rather not see a 70's porn reference and think "Rain
must have written this issue".
>
> *Queen, "Bohemian Rhapsody", it always comes back to The Source (if Jack Kirby
will forgive me)*

Rainmandu says:
It's just me entertaining myself and anyone else who's entertained along the
way. If I'm making the point that I think that the current writer of "Daredevil"
should get to decide who Daredevil is dating, I might choose to say that Matt
Murdock could be married to Sue Storm's evil twin, who happens to be a midget
with Molecule Man powers. Because it makes the point that, even if the idea is
way the fuck out there, I like the idea of reading an individual writer's take
on the character, and because I think it's funny. It lightens up these often dry
discussions. If you disagree, you disagree. I would rather read Howard Chaykin's
"Captain America," regardless of how much continuity he ignores along the way,
than anyone else's "Captain America" that follows whatever is currently going on
with Steve Rogers and the rest of the Marvel U.

Rainmandu

"Support System" - Liz Phair

--- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W <show_me68508@...> wrote:

> > Illinois has mandatory auto insurance for drivers. 
> > This has not resulted in SWAT teams kicking in doors of the
> > non-compliant to drag them off to gulags.  What happens
> > is that every year, in order to renew my license plates, I
> > have to show proof of insurance.  It's no different
> > from having to show a valid Social Security card when
> > applying for a new job, or having to show a picture ID that
> > matches your registration address when attempting to
> > vote. 
>
> =====  Illinois also has many people who do not buy auto insurance for various
reasons like they don't have an auto, and they are free to opt out because of
it.  There is no opt-out clause for the various Democrat health care bills. 
Even if an amendment is added (which the Democrats won't allow) that lets states
opt out,

Rainmandu says:
Didn't they just put that in one of the bills?

their taxpayers will still be paying for other states.  Excuse me, their legal
citizen taxpayers.  If it's so good, why does it need to be mandatory?

Rainmandu says:
I hate to say it, but Chris is right. Look, I'm for single-payer. If we're not
going to have that, then I want Medicare opened up for anyone who wants to sign
up and start paying premiums. That's right: paying premiums, just like with any
other insurance. It would provide a necessary service that the insurance cartel
is not providing, at a more affordable price, and opening up Medicare to
everyone would mean more money from young people (who choose to sign up), which
would go a long ways towards solving the financial problems of Medicare, since
restricting it to older people means that only people who tend to have more
health problems isn't smart business. If we're not going to do either of those
things, I can't support much of what the Democrats are proposing instead. Is
some of it better than what the Republicans are proposing? Sure. It's certainly
better than the batshit insane (and extremely dangerous) Republican idea of
letting people buy health insurance from other states, because, then, every
insurance company will just run to the state with the fewest regulations and
consumer protections, and the quality of health insurance would plummet even
further.

If you don't have a car, there is no reason you should have car insurance.  If
you have a body which might get sick or injured, you should be mandated to pay
money now in case something bad happens?  You don't have the freedom to say
"I'll take my chances"?  And you're worried about feudalism?

Rainmandu says:
The problem isn't that people don't want health insurance, it's that they can't
afford it. And, even if they can, there's no guarantee it will be there for them
when they need it. I think it was Larry's example, the restaurant where you pay
for your meal, and then you don't get your meal, and they ask you to leave? If a
restaurant did that sort of thing, they should be sued into debtors prison and
never allowed to open another restaurant. And the same standard should apply the
insurance cartel.

Rainmandu

"Alfie" - Lily Allen

> > > > =====  So how is that an example of
> comic-book
> > > continuity that didn't last?
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > I don't know. How is that an example of comic
> book
> > > continuity that didn't last? 
> >
> > =====  Replace the word "last" with "work", look
> at what you said earlier, and you'll see what I mean. 
> My bad for picking the wrong word.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> When I said, "Yeah, that didn't last," I was talking about
> Marvel's decision at the time of "House of M" to leave it up
> to the writers of the individual books to decide whether or
> not they would participate in the company-wide crossover
> event, instead of mandating that certain books had to join
> in. That's what didn't last. If that's not what you were
> referring to, but were referring to what I said about how
> "Secret Wars II" didn't work, I didn't say that it was an
> example of continuity that didn't work. The continuity was
> fine (if you thought it was fine - I skipped most of it, so
> I have no idea how it all held together).

====  The continuity worked, that was my point.  Something that happened to one
character in one series and was referenced in another series that crossed over
into yet-another-series, it worked.  If you want month-by-month continuity,
"Secret Wars II" is possibly the greatest achievement in that goal.  Which is
the problem.  It's "Secret Wars II".  Come on!!!  I was reading "Green Lantern"
during the "Crisis on Inifinite Earths" and didn't get as much a sense of what
what was going on in "Crisis" as I did in "Secret Wars II", and Hal, John and
Guy were a lot close to the climax of "Crisis" than anyone else, what with their
awesome fight on Qward happening just as the Earth-2 Superman blew up the
Anti-Monitor.

====  "Secret Wars II" worked as far as people paying attention month-by-month
to their favorite characters.  "Crisis" worked on a slightly-larger scale, for
those who didn't read it at the time, but were aware of it, and had enough
interest in the 50-year history of the DCU to look back.  Twenty years later,
superhero fans are stuck in the results of "Secret Wars II" and "Crisis", which
hurts both sides, those interested in the month-by-month part (the kind of
people who spend decades asking where the Avengers were when Galactus showed
up), and in the long-term, who don't give a shit about Spider-Clones or anybody
other than Kara Zor-El being Supergirl.

> > > "Civil War" and whatever crossover DC's up to
> nowadays sure
> > > seem to prove the opposite.
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > They prove that people love giant crossovers? 
> >
> > =====  That the companies believe they have more
> success with giant crossovers and stories aimed at people
> who remember all those old comics, "Civil War", "Infinite
> Crisis" and "All Star Superman" alike.  It's tough to
> enjoy some issues in "All Star Superman" when you know the
> reference" (the Bizarro issues come immediately to mind, as
> do a few others), and without those references it's an
> utterly stupid story that no one should care about ever
> again.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> You do realize that there are a whole lot of people out
> their who disagree with you about "All-Star Superman," but
> you just continue to refuse to ackowledge them. Because it's
> all about you. (Hey, this is fun!)

=====  What do they disagree with me about?  I thought it was a great series,
and I've recently re-read the first 10 issues.  I can't find #11, so I've put
off finishing until I do.  The Bizarro story was stupid and dragged on way
longer than it should.  The follow-up story about the Kryptonians was
pointless.  It's basically blowing up "Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow"
into a twelve-issue series [which they refuse to collect for the trade] and
expecting it to have the same effect that the earlier story had in 1985.  I
didn't mean "All-Star Superman" as a stupid story en toto, just the 3-part
"Bizarro" story.  Could have given us one issue of Bizarro, one issue of
Mxyzptlk, and something that involved the Earth-whatever-cube that Superman
created in the final issues.  You think the Bizarro story was awesome, fine,
let's hear your reasons.  It didn't do anything for me because it was
overly-long, complicated, hinged on Bizarro-talk to
  make
  something happened, turned out to be meaningless in the long run, and those
insipid Justice League cameos really got on my nerves.  "All-Star Superman" was
awesome from the first page to the last, and the circumstances it came out in? 
Where are those people who disagree with me, and where do I find them?

> > > People hate this book, they hate the crossovers
> of this
> > > book, they hate the books they would ordinarily
> never buy
> > > but they're buying because of this book.  They
> wish the
> > > crossover would end so they could stop buying
> this book and
> > > these crossovers and the crossovers they wouldn't
> ordinarily
> > > buy.
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > If that's the case, then it doesn't prove the
> opposite of
> > > what I said, now, does it? 
> >
> > =====  That people were still buying the
> book?  That they hated the book?  That they hated
> the crossovers with other books that they wound up buying
> and wound up hating and wished such things wouldn't happen
> so they could stop buying those books they hate?  And
> that doing such things 20 years ago validates Marvel and DCs
> current love of crossovers?  Um, no, you were
> complaining about those buyers then and complaining about
> the companies now.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> Not really complaining about those customers. I'm a comic
> geek, so I have some sympathy for buying a book you're no
> longer enjoying, or a crossover title you wouldn't normally
> buy, and you don't know why you just bought it, and you're
> not even going to read it. I was pointing out that just
> because a book is selling is no indication that people are
> loving it, or that they want more of it.

====  It does justify the people selling it.  It's what they do, and people
obviously want more of it.  I'm a comic geek, so I have sympathy for it as
well.  But the company is looking at whether or not a book is selling.  Marvel
admits (now) they misjudged how many readers they had in the uber-continuity era
of "Secret Wars II", the people who were buying all those crossover issues they
hated of a story they hate.  That's what drove me away from the mutant titles
too.  It doesn't invalidate the love of continuity, or the desire for characters
to stay the same over however-many-appearances-they're-required-to-make.  Star
Trek, Harry Potter and James Bond fans go through the same thing.  But they're
interested in a particular franchise and you and I are interested in the medium
itself.  I suspect -- without any evidence on either side -- that you and I are
more interested in the comic-book versions of Storm, Wolverine, Colossus,
Nightcrawler,
  etc. than we
  are in other versions.  We can agree to disagree about Halle Berry (if we do,
I'm not even interested) but Storm Herself is something that we can't disagree
as much about.  If nothing else, one of us may be guiding her career one day,
and will have to justify it for an audience who hates what we're doing.  Not
much different from Marvel justifying its "Secret Wars II" sales because the
sales are so high.  It costs them, in the long run, but that's what they're
about.  Hate the book as much as you like, so long as you still buy it.

> > > You ever hang out with a drug-dealer who is so
> repulsive
> > > you hate having to see him and can't way to get
> away from
> > > him, but he's got the stuff you want?
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > No, but I used to date this girl...
> >
> > =====  What's the difference?
>
> Rainmandu says:
> Exactly.

=====  Exactly.

> > >  [Ooh Ooh [/Gunther Toody] I just had
> another idea for a
> > > Dazzler story].  At the time, it was good
> continuity
> > > the way the audience liked it, and you prove it
> yourself
> > > with all the people who hated it buying it, and
> the
> > > crossovers, and the crossovers into comics they
> didn't
> > > usually buy, and wishing it would end so they
> could stop
> > > buying these comics.
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > No, they didn't like it. They bought it. It's not
> the same
> > > thing. Oh, it sure LOOKS like the same thing. But
> it's not.
> > > It's...
> >
> > ======  It's the Beyonder.  He's moving into
> a new phase.
> >
> > > That's sick.
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > Yeah. That.
> > >
> > > I reached that point with the first
> post-Claremont
> > > X-crossover, gave every title on my list one
> single issue
> > > beyond that, and then cut them all off.  Except
> Peter
> > > >  David's "X-Factor" but he did quite a few
> issues
> > > after that, but it wasn't hard.
> > > >
> > > > =====  As much as "Secret Wars II" and its
> > > crossovers sucked [and I, as a fan, am having to
> fight with
> > > myself to read the collected hardcover instead of
> more
> > > interesting books] it was continuity the way the
> mass
> > > audience wanted.
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > That's like saying that waking up with the
> "ladies" of "The
> > > View" taking turns grinding their pussies on your
> chin is
> > > group sex the way guys want it. Uh, no. It's
> not.
> >
> > ======  If they still keep paying for it, and
> paying for solo sessions with each of those ladies, why,
> exactly, are the people offering these group sex sessions
> the ones to blame?  We're coming dangerously close to
> on-topic here, so think about your answer.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> They're not to blame. They're giving the people what the
> people don't want, but the people keep acting like they want
> it, so what the fuck. It might do them some good to note
> that the more they give them the big crossovers, the more
> they're going to need to keep giving them the big crossovers
> to keep their sales up, because, each time they do it,
> they'll be losing more regular readers. Yes, it's just like
> drug addiction. Only for Marvel. They start out doing it to
> get high and feel good, they end up doing it just to
> maintain.

=====  This has been going on since the 60's, dude, where you been?

> > > And, the larger point, with L nny and Larry, it
> doesn't
> > > work in retrospect.  Sue Richard's "Malice"
> incarnation
> > > wasn't as good as Dazzler's, and means even less
> in the
> > > long-term, except for the long-forgotten
> Hate-Monger
> > > storyline.  So why bring it up?  Why make such
> a
> > > big deal of her being turned to the Dark Side and
> then
> > > mention in a caption that Reed Richards has
> defeated her and
> > > turned her back and then the guy responsible gets
> killed by
> > > some random person ["Scourge" I think was his
> name] saying
> > > "Justice is served"?  It leaves the fans of
> > > three-or-four MU years confused and uninterested,
> defeats
> > > the longer-standing MU fans, and does nothing for
> anybody
> > > who reads this stuff as their first experience. 
> Unless
> > > they like weird
> > > >  people doing weird things with no
> believable
> > > motivation (we're talking about superheroes and
> superhero
> > > continuity, there is going to be that aspect).
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > If a new writer on FF wants to do a story about
> lingering
> > > Hate-Mongerness in Sue Richards's dreams, I have
> no problem
> > > with that. Well, I do, but a good writer can
> reference the
> > > old story, and do it in a way that works. But if
> you're
> > > writing a Spider-Man story, with Spidey and the
> FF teaming
> > > up to do something that has nothing to do with
> > > Hate-Mongering Sue or any of the side-effects of
> that, why
> > > bother wasting everyone's time and putting stupid
> speedbumps
> > > in your story with Reed saying, "Sue? What's
> wrong?" and Sue
> > > saying, "It's just... I don't know. I feel..."
> and Ben
> > > saying, "I think she's still feelin' the
> side-effects o' the
> > > Hate Monger's hate-a-ray" and Johnny saying, "I
> know you're
> > > my sister, but I've got some smokin' wood over
> here. No.
> > > Really. It's literally smoking."
> >
> > =====  Does anybody else notice that Rain always
> turns what he thinks is good for the characters into
> something about him, and it resembles a 70's porn movie,
> back when chicks didn't trust razors enough to put them
> between their legs?
>
> Rainmandu says:
> Actually, it's not an example of what I think it's good for
> the character. It's just a silly thing to illustrate a point
> I'm making.

======  We're talking about heroes and icons, is a silly thing to illustrate a
point the way to go, especially if you don't think it's good for the character? 
That's all I'm saying.  I'd rather not see a 70's porn reference and think "Rain
must have written this issue".

*Queen, "Bohemian Rhapsody", it always comes back to The Source (if Jack Kirby
will forgive me)*

> > =====  What's the difference between a healthy
> 20-year old who
> > isn't buying insurance and the mastermind of
> 9/11?  Both of them
> > are going to jail, but the terrorist will have to be
> convicted
> > first.
> >
>
> You act as if you don't know how bureaucracy works.

=====  The whole point is that nothing gets done [/on-topic reference].  I get
that.  I just don't understand why you're still expecting something to get done
and trusting the bureaucracy to do it, with less cost and more efficiency no
less.  If you said "I don't care how much it costs and I don't care how many
jobs are lost or how many people get hurt, I want nationalized health care
first", that would be one thing, and you could easily trust the bureacracy to
make that happen.

> Illinois has mandatory auto insurance for drivers. 
> This has not resulted in SWAT teams kicking in doors of the
> non-compliant to drag them off to gulags.  What happens
> is that every year, in order to renew my license plates, I
> have to show proof of insurance.  It's no different
> from having to show a valid Social Security card when
> applying for a new job, or having to show a picture ID that
> matches your registration address when attempting to
> vote. 

=====  Illinois also has many people who do not buy auto insurance for various
reasons like they don't have an auto, and they are free to opt out because of
it.  There is no opt-out clause for the various Democrat health care bills. 
Even if an amendment is added (which the Democrats won't allow) that lets states
opt out, their taxpayers will still be paying for other states.  Excuse me,
their legal citizen taxpayers.  If it's so good, why does it need to be
mandatory?  If you don't have a car, there is no reason you should have car
insurance.  If you have a body which might get sick or injured, you should be
mandated to pay money now in case something bad happens?  You don't have the
freedom to say "I'll take my chances"?  And you're worried about feudalism?

=====  Not to mention all the corruption that the bureaucracy involves in the
first place.  I bet illegal immigrants are lower down on the scale than legal
citizens to be punished.  Or, as Dr. Floyd Ferris put it, "Did you really think
we want those laws to be observed?  We want them broken.  You'd better get it
straight, this is not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against -- worth noting
that the heaviest contributor to Obama's campaign, the SEIU, whose President is
the most constant visitor to the White House on the visitors logs that the White
House is willing to release, just tried to attack a Boy Scout for voluntarily
giving of his time and energy to remove waste and pollution from trails, because
it was imposing on union workers jobs.  He did it quickly and for free.  They
can't compete with that, and attacking a little boy worked out poorly for them. 
But that's what happens when the people who talk about the 'working man' compete
with someone who
  gives of his time and energy without interest for profit.  Sorry, where was I? 
-- We're after power and we mean it."  The Boy Scouts and legal citizens will be
punished for their law-breaking a lot sooner than union members who beat people
up on tape and illegal immigrants.

=====  Best of all, once you make it a crime to not carry health insurance,
you've imposed a law that will make anybody who doesn't want to do it guilty. 
He will be a better servant to the power-mongers because he knows he's broken
the law and can be caught and charged at any moment.  People will put up with a
lot of shit if it means their own transgressions will be ignored.  This helps
the collectivists and the power-hungry.  They'll overlook transgressions from
their peers, and protect their audience.  Meanwhile the people who follow the
law and do the right thing get screwed.  Notice that Unions are never being
required to follow the same health care rules in the lastest plans to pass
Congress?  Neither is Congress for that matter.  Good for us, but bad for them? 
Yeah, that's a selling point right there.

> The gun thing is a very tiny last-resort exception in the
> way government bureaucracies function.  The normal
> operational path is just that they cause you to do what THEY
> require on the path toward doing what YOU want.  It can
> be annoying and time-consuming, but hardly
> life-and-limb-threatening.
>
> - Larry Hart

======  Be sure to turn in anybody who says anything "fishy" about the health
care legislation.  The White House's website wants you to.  Tell me you'd give
that same benefit to George W. Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress.

*Queen+Paul Rodgers, "All Right Now"*

> [Note, this is not a repudiation of Obama as President, I have
> just been discussing the Fort Hood murders with someone who
> responded to my blog, and went on record as saying I would
> sooner kill someone who wishes President Obama harm than
> President Obama himself. 
 
You went on record saying you'd prefer to kill someone who wanted to kill the
president than to kill the president? Wow. Well, good for you. What a ringing
endorsement.

=====  I know, a Demmycrat of all people.  But there it is.

*still Queen+Paul Rodgers, "Love of My Life", although Paul sits this one out,
as does Roger.  Maybe I should just say "Brian May+audience" or something*

For this week's portion of the reread it is issue #31 of Cerebus (pg. 109 - 128)
in the High Society phonebook,  for issue # to phonebook page conversion data,
see this CerebusWiki page:
http://www.cereb.us/wiki/index.php?title=Category:High_Society_Phonebook



Handy links:


Alexx's Cerebus Timeline
CerebusWiki article on issue #31

--
Take care,
Margaret

=====  It's not looking likely I'll be at SPACE next year, but if I were, I'd
love to do some of the "Chasing Cootie" scenes.

*Queen+Paul Rodgers, "Love of my Life"*

• Alexx's Cerebus Timeline
• CerebusWiki article on issue #31

Just finished watching Sim/Steranko Pt. 1 - now how can I watch previous
episodes?  My attention has been devoted to other things than Sim as of late . .
. can anyone tell me where to find reruns?

> [Note, this is not a repudiation of Obama as President, I have
> just been discussing the Fort Hood murders with someone who
> responded to my blog, and went on record as saying I would
> sooner kill someone who wishes President Obama harm than
> President Obama himself. 
 
You went on record saying you'd prefer to kill someone who wanted to kill the
president than to kill the president? Wow. Well, good for you. What a ringing
endorsement.

=====  No thanks neccesary, just doing my job.  I do get paid for this, after
all.

*Steinman, "Joker's Song/Wonderful Toys"*

> > [===== Note, this is not a repudiation of Obama as
> President,
> > I have just been discussing the Fort Hood murders with
> someone who
> > responded to my blog, and went on record as saying I
> would sooner
> > kill someone who wishes President Obama harm than
> President Obama
> > himself.  He is my commander-in-chief and I am
> sworn to obey him,
> > and the officers he appoints over me, and the Uniform
> Code of
> > Military Justice.  I say "your President" because
> it's funny and
> > gets the point across.  He's doing a very very
> bad job according
> > to the people he's directly commanding]
> >
>
> Serious question: How did those people being directly
> commanded rate GWB as commander in chief?  Not "How
> well did they allign with him politically?", but how did
> they rate him AS a military commander?
>
> - Larry Hart

======  Usual amount of bitching.  If some people aren't happy but the mission
is being accomplished, than the leader is probably doing his job right.  I know
people who put "Obama/Biden" speakers on their vehicles who expressed their
willingness to work for GWB if he asked them.  ("I wouldn't like it, but I'd say
'yes'.")  Fine, a lot of people are annoyed/pissed off/inconvenienced.  Not
Major Hassan levels of annoyed, but you know what I mean.

=======  Military success is a lot easier when the people below are confident in
those above.  I don't think anybody's said a whole lot explicitly on the topic,
but that's the impression I get from the people above me.  Nobody knows where
Obama will stand on anything.  Nobody wants to be in the position where they're
doing something dangerous and don't know if their commander will support them. 
I know people going to Afghanistan at some point in the near-future.  They have
a job to do, defined by their commanders who they trust, and implicitly endorsed
by the commander-in-chief, who can't even come to a decision about Afghanistan. 
Is there any job in the world you would take knowing you could be dead in five
seconds and the person who signs off on your job won't support you or give you
resources, or even say he wants you to be victorious?  And if someone also under
his command shoots a bunch of you, he'll still caution you to not jump to any
  conclusions, being on record as jumping to conclusions himself when it would do
the most damage.

=====  "Not happy" is how I would characterize it.  And these are people who
serve at the President's pleasure.  "You guys make a nice photo-op" he told
soldiers in Korea, and I think he meant it.  Sends GWB and Laura to visit Fort
Hood right away, because he's too busy to go himself.  Nice move, Mr. President.
Glad that GWB and Laura recognize their duty and go where Mr. Obama tells them
to.  At least he's cutting the defense budget in the single instance of him
restraining spending, that's something, right?

===== [yes, the military is as touchy about its finances as everybody else. 
Some of my earliest military lessons included (1) accountability of property, or
else you'll have to pay for it, and (2) if you don't spend all the money you're
given this fiscal year, you won't have the same amount next year.  "Fraud, waste
and abuse" (which Obama promises to root out of the government health care
systems that already exist, but ONLY if he gets to sign Congress' health care
bill that he takes no leadership of writing) always exist, and they are first
and foremost in the mind of, well, not everybody, but those who recognize
accountability for property.  Who owns it, who is responsible for it, who pays
for it, what funds do they pay for it with, and what line of accountability is
clearly delineating the responsibility.  This is something every soldier learns
early on, and our commander-in-chief doesn't seem to have grasped it yet.]

*Pandora's Box, "Safe Sex"*

--- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Ryan" <cerebusboy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "rainmandu2" <rainmandu@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Michael Norwitz <blaklion@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 18, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Chris W wrote:
> > >
> > > > =====  So how is that an example of comic-book continuity that
> > > > didn't last?  "Civil War" and whatever crossover DC's up to
> > > > nowadays sure seem to prove the opposite.  People hate this book,
> > > > they hate the crossovers of this book, they hate the books they
> > > > would ordinarily never buy but they're buying because of this
> > > > book.  They wish the crossover would end so they could stop buying
> > > > this book and these crossovers and the crossovers they wouldn't
> > > > ordinarily buy.  You ever hang out with a drug-dealer who is so
> > > > repulsive you hate having to see him and can't way to get away from
> > > > him, but he's got the stuff you want?
> > >
> > > For my part, at this point I only purchase miniseries, for just that
> > > reason ... I don't want to have to commit to a whole universe.  I
> > > have made exceptions for some of the recent Bat titles, but those are
> > > limited runs with stories being told in discreet arcs (and rotating
> > > artists), so I can easily skip the bits I don't like.
> >
> > "Amazing Spider-Man" rotates writers and artists, so I just buy the issues
by the writers I like. Amazingly, I'm never lost. I skipped Marc Guggenheim's
recent arc, but I just bought the most recent issue by Mark Waid (part one of an
Electro story), and it's a great issue.
> >
> > Also great (and I know I keep mentioning this, and no one freakin' cares),
but the latest issue of Remender's "Punisher." I honestly can't believe that
Marvel is allowing this, but yay, Marvel! More, please. The story just kicking
off is called "Frankencastle," and, yes, it's exactly what you think it is, only
way more batshit crazy insane than you could imagine. It's the kind of crazy
shit I would do if I were writing comics, but that I couldn't imagine they'd
ever let me do... and they're doing even crazier shit on "Punisher."
>
>  Oh yeah, I'm reading Punisher (still to pick up the Frankencastle issue
though. The Dark Reign : The List (or whatever it was called) was great; I loved
how they set it up as a standard (but fun!)
Frank-defies-the-odds-and-kills-lots-of-bad-guys-with-wisecracks stories and
then went where Marvel never really goes (on paper, letting fucking Daken be the
guy that kills the punisher is pretty weak). And how dark was the issue where
Frank torched his (albeit Zombie) resurrected family? I know people think that
the Punisher doesn't really suit the wider Marvel universe, but it a title like
this (rather than the Max one, which I like too)it's much better to take
advantage of the possibilities with some of the minor (and not so minor)
supervillians, rather than having ANOTHER Jigsaw story. Personally I think that
Christopher's movie in The Sopranos - "Saw meets Godfather" - would be the kind
of thing that would be great for the Punisher's world.
>
>  Batman and Robin (think you and Dom were talking about it and continuity)
still looks like it's going to be more self-contained. I know that DC said that
"Batman" would be a solo-title (in contrast to Batman and Robin) but it's really
not; the latest issues have Dick and Damian dealing with the returned Hush (who
looks identical to Bruce Wayne) - Morrison had his Jason Todd/Red Hood story in
B&R, but it wouldn't surprise me if the other Bat-titles don't acknowledge it
(and I can't see villains like Professor Pygt showing up in the other titles
either). The new Batgirl is pretty good (she's a student!); anyone else agree
that, given that everyone ELSE in the Batfamily has been brought back (Batmite
even showed up in Batman RIP) that Ace the Bat-Hound should make a comeback?
Lesbians with big dogs are cool, so it could hang out with Batwoman or
something.
>
>
>
>
>
>   ryan

The "Dark Reign: The List: Punisher" issue was classic. You're right about how
they made it seem like yet another "Frank defies the odds" stories, and then...
I mean, with a title like "Frankencastle," we all knew the Punisher was going to
die. But I don't think anyone was expecting him to REALLY die. He would die and
then the Hood would bring him back, so it was like he never died in the first
place. Or he would be injured in a such a way that it seemed like he had died,
and maybe he had for a few minutes before being revived. Something like that.
But, no, what Daken did to him was something you don't come back from, unless...
well, you REALLY need to read "Frankencastle." I can't even begin to describe
how crazy it gets. The first ten issues of "Punisher" should have prepared you
for things to get weird... but, fuck, do they get weird. I can't imagine
hardcore Punisher fans being pleased with some of the characters who turn up in
this issue. Too bad. It's the best the Punisher has been in... well, ever.

(And Jason Aaron's "PunisherMax" is great, too. If you want old-school Punisher
stories, Aaron is the perfect choice to write them. Interesting take on the
Kingpin's beginnings. Also, check out issues 6 and 7 of Aaron's "Wolverine:
Weapon X.")

And, considering who Osborn has working for him, who else but Daken could have
done it? It had to one of Osborn's guys, because the whole story since issue one
has been the Punisher fighting against Osborn and his proxies. And it had to be
someone "street-level" who took out Frank. Someone like the Sentry wouldn't have
worked as well, and Bullshawkeye isn't usually someone who chops people up. And,
if you're going to do what they're doing in "Punisher," Frank can't just be
killed - he has to be, you know, CHOPPED UP. And that's what Daken does.

As for Frank torching his family, I like the way Remender kept it vague as to
WHY he did it. Was it because he didn't really believe it was them? Or was it
because he couldn't face their judgement over what he had become? Even if it's
the former, the previous four issues made it very clear (at least to the reader,
if not to Frank) that the Hood was really bringing people back, and not as
zombies. Okay, if you define "zombie" as anyone brought back to life, sure. But
they weren't the walking, drooling, traditional zombies. Those people the Hood
brought back were the real deal, and so was Frank's family... and he fucking
burned them alive. Remender has said that that issue was the death of Frank's
soul, and "Dark Reign: The List: Punisher" was the death of his body.

Over on "Batman and Robin," even though Morrison is dealing with some of the
current continuity stuff like Jason Todd, it's still easy to follow (well, as
easy as it ever is to follow a Morrison story). I like the new villains, but the
Flamingo was done away with too soon. I thought he had a lot of potential, but
he didn't really do much, or say a whole lot. Quitely's "Purple Rain" Flamingo
cover rocked.

Rainmandu

"Knock 'Em Out" - Lily Allen

--- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W <show_me68508@...> wrote:
>
> [===== Note, this is not a repudiation of Obama as President,
> I have just been discussing the Fort Hood murders with someone who
> responded to my blog, and went on record as saying I would sooner
> kill someone who wishes President Obama harm than President Obama
> himself.  He is my commander-in-chief and I am sworn to obey him,
> and the officers he appoints over me, and the Uniform Code of
> Military Justice.  I say "your President" because it's funny and
> gets the point across.  He's doing a very very bad job according
> to the people he's directly commanding]
>

Serious question: How did those people being directly commanded rate GWB as
commander in chief?  Not "How well did they allign with him politically?", but
how did they rate him AS a military commander?

- Larry Hart

--- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "rainmandu2" <rainmandu@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Michael Norwitz <blaklion@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Nov 18, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Chris W wrote:
> >
> > > =====  So how is that an example of comic-book continuity that
> > > didn't last?  "Civil War" and whatever crossover DC's up to
> > > nowadays sure seem to prove the opposite.  People hate this book,
> > > they hate the crossovers of this book, they hate the books they
> > > would ordinarily never buy but they're buying because of this
> > > book.  They wish the crossover would end so they could stop buying
> > > this book and these crossovers and the crossovers they wouldn't
> > > ordinarily buy.  You ever hang out with a drug-dealer who is so
> > > repulsive you hate having to see him and can't way to get away from
> > > him, but he's got the stuff you want?
> >
> > For my part, at this point I only purchase miniseries, for just that
> > reason ... I don't want to have to commit to a whole universe.  I
> > have made exceptions for some of the recent Bat titles, but those are
> > limited runs with stories being told in discreet arcs (and rotating
> > artists), so I can easily skip the bits I don't like.
>
> "Amazing Spider-Man" rotates writers and artists, so I just buy the issues by
the writers I like. Amazingly, I'm never lost. I skipped Marc Guggenheim's
recent arc, but I just bought the most recent issue by Mark Waid (part one of an
Electro story), and it's a great issue.
>
> Also great (and I know I keep mentioning this, and no one freakin' cares), but
the latest issue of Remender's "Punisher." I honestly can't believe that Marvel
is allowing this, but yay, Marvel! More, please. The story just kicking off is
called "Frankencastle," and, yes, it's exactly what you think it is, only way
more batshit crazy insane than you could imagine. It's the kind of crazy shit I
would do if I were writing comics, but that I couldn't imagine they'd ever let
me do... and they're doing even crazier shit on "Punisher."

  Oh yeah, I'm reading Punisher (still to pick up the Frankencastle issue though.
The Dark Reign : The List (or whatever it was called) was great; I loved how
they set it up as a standard (but fun!)
Frank-defies-the-odds-and-kills-lots-of-bad-guys-with-wisecracks stories and
then went where Marvel never really goes (on paper, letting fucking Daken be the
guy that kills the punisher is pretty weak). And how dark was the issue where
Frank torched his (albeit Zombie) resurrected family? I know people think that
the Punisher doesn't really suit the wider Marvel universe, but it a title like
this (rather than the Max one, which I like too)it's much better to take
advantage of the possibilities with some of the minor (and not so minor)
supervillians, rather than having ANOTHER Jigsaw story. Personally I think that
Christopher's movie in The Sopranos - "Saw meets Godfather" - would be the kind
of thing that would be great for the Punisher's world.

  Batman and Robin (think you and Dom were talking about it and continuity) still
looks like it's going to be more self-contained. I know that DC said that
"Batman" would be a solo-title (in contrast to Batman and Robin) but it's really
not; the latest issues have Dick and Damian dealing with the returned Hush (who
looks identical to Bruce Wayne) - Morrison had his Jason Todd/Red Hood story in
B&R, but it wouldn't surprise me if the other Bat-titles don't acknowledge it
(and I can't see villains like Professor Pygt showing up in the other titles
either). The new Batgirl is pretty good (she's a student!); anyone else agree
that, given that everyone ELSE in the Batfamily has been brought back (Batmite
even showed up in Batman RIP) that Ace the Bat-Hound should make a comeback?
Lesbians with big dogs are cool, so it could hang out with Batwoman or
something.





   ryan

--- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W <show_me68508@...> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Personally, I like the idea of a
> > loosely
> > > > shared
> > > > > > universe, in the
> > > > > > > sense that Spider-Man can show up
> > in an
> > > > issue of
> > > > > > "Daredevil," but
> > > > > > > I hate it when the writer of
> > "Daredevil"
> > > > just wants to
> > > > > > do a cool
> > > > > > > Daredevil / Spider-Man story and
> > has to
> > > > include in his
> > > > > > story the
> > > > > > > new Iron Spider costume, or has to
> > have
> > > > Spider-Man
> > > > > > constantly
> > > > > > > saying, "Douche!" because
> > Mysterio
> > > > hyp-mo-tized Spidey
> > > > > > over in
> > > > > > > his own title.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A good argument MIGHT have been made
> > for that
> > > > sort of
> > > > > > obsessive continuity back in the 1970s
> > and into
> > > > the 1980s,
> > > > > > when one could still credibly imagine
> > that all of
> > > > Marvel
> > > > > > (and post-Crisis DC) was really one big
> > novel
> > > > that was going
> > > > > > somewhere and that there'd be a payoff
> > for seeing
> > > > all of the
> > > > > > pieces leading there.  Such an
> > interpretation
> > > > has not
> > > > > > been possible (let alone credible)
> > since at least
> > > > the late
> > > > > > 1980s.  Even being charitable, we're
> > talking a
> > > > concept
> > > > > > that's 15 years out of date.  Time to
> > put it to
> > > > rest
> > > > > > and stop pretending that the stories
> > work that
> > > > way.
> > > > >
> > > > > =====  The good argument *WAS* made back
> > > > then.  That's why this sort of continuity has
> > continued
> > > > for so long,
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > The bad side of that good argument was that,
> > instead of
> > > > just saying, okay, all of these books take place
> > in the same
> > > > universe, and it all fits together, they tried to
> > synch up
> > > > the timelines of all of their books, and that
> > made for a lot
> > > > of crap. When they should have been doing more
> > loose "This
> > > > story in the new issue of 'Iron Man' takes place
> > at the same
> > > > time as those two issues of 'Daredevil' from six
> > months ago,
> > > > but we're not saying so, you can just figure it
> > out for
> > > > yourself" and less "Whatever happens in this
> > month's 'Iron
> > > > Man' has to match up with the rest of the
> > universe," they
> > > > went in the wrong direction. Back around the time
> > of "House
> > > > of M," there was a momentary breath of fresh air
> > in the way
> > > > that crossovers were done: a single mini-series
> > ("House of
> > > > M") and the writers of the other titles could
> > decide for
> > > > themselves whether or not they wanted to
> > participate. If
> > > > they did, cool. If not, there wouldn't be a
> > single mention
> > > > of it in their books. Yeah, that didn't last.
> > >
> > > =====  Hold that thought...
> > >
> > > > and the companies can do infinite civil war
> > crises or
> > > > whatever even today.  I will cite "Secret Wars
> > II" as a
> > > > good example of how continuity should work
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > For me, that's THE example of how it doesn't
> > work, and why
> > > > it should never be attempted on that scale. It's
> > nothing to
> > > > do with the bad writing, the crap art, the stupid
> > story, and
> > > > everything else. It was just too big and required
> > too much
> > > > on the part of the reader, and it derailed
> > ongoing
> > > > storylines in most of their books. Nearly every
> > title Marvel
> > > > published at the time continued in a different
> > title. I was
> > > > working at a comic book store at the time, and it
> > was the
> > > > first time I really understood just how fucked-up
> > comic book
> > > > fans are when it comes to this sort of thing: of
> > the several
> > > > dozen in-store subscription service customers we
> > had, I
> > > > would be hard-pressed to think of half a dozen of
> > them who
> > > > weren't bitching and complaining and hating every
> > part of
> > > > that story, talking about how it was ruining the
> > titles they
> > > > normally read, how they couldn't wait for it to
> > be over, how
> > > > Jim Shooter needed to be run out of town, but
> > damn near
> > > > every one of those bitching and complaining
> > customers were
> > > > not only buying the titles they normally bought,
> > but they
> > > > were buying a bunch of the titles they normally
> > didn't
> > > > buy... and hating them. "Why am I buying this
> > fucking
> > > > comic?" should have been printed on T-shirts at
> > the time,
> > > > since that was easily THE rallying cry of comic
> > book fans in
> > > > the '80s. Working in a comic shop is like being a
> > therapist.
> > > > Subscription customers looked through the comics
> > you had
> > > > just handed them, and then started talking about
> > their
> > > > buying habits and how they couldn't control
> > themselves. "I
> > > > keep spending my money on things I hate. What is
> > WRONG with
> > > > me?" It reached a fever pitch at the time of
> > "Secret Wars" I
> > > > and II, because those were two of the worst
> > comics, based
> > > > around the dumbest ideas, in the history of
> > comics.
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu
> > >
> > > =====  So how is that an example of comic-book
> > continuity that didn't last?
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > I don't know. How is that an example of comic book
> > continuity that didn't last? 
>
> =====  Replace the word "last" with "work", look at what you said earlier, and
you'll see what I mean.  My bad for picking the wrong word.

Rainmandu says:
When I said, "Yeah, that didn't last," I was talking about Marvel's decision at
the time of "House of M" to leave it up to the writers of the individual books
to decide whether or not they would participate in the company-wide crossover
event, instead of mandating that certain books had to join in. That's what
didn't last. If that's not what you were referring to, but were referring to
what I said about how "Secret Wars II" didn't work, I didn't say that it was an
example of continuity that didn't work. The continuity was fine (if you thought
it was fine - I skipped most of it, so I have no idea how it all held together).

> > "Civil War" and whatever crossover DC's up to nowadays sure
> > seem to prove the opposite.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > They prove that people love giant crossovers? 
>
> =====  That the companies believe they have more success with giant crossovers
and stories aimed at people who remember all those old comics, "Civil War",
"Infinite Crisis" and "All Star Superman" alike.  It's tough to enjoy some
issues in "All Star Superman" when you know the reference" (the Bizarro issues
come immediately to mind, as do a few others), and without those references it's
an utterly stupid story that no one should care about ever again.

Rainmandu says:
You do realize that there are a whole lot of people out their who disagree with
you about "All-Star Superman," but you just continue to refuse to ackowledge
them. Because it's all about you. (Hey, this is fun!)

> > People hate this book, they hate the crossovers of this
> > book, they hate the books they would ordinarily never buy
> > but they're buying because of this book.  They wish the
> > crossover would end so they could stop buying this book and
> > these crossovers and the crossovers they wouldn't ordinarily
> > buy.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > If that's the case, then it doesn't prove the opposite of
> > what I said, now, does it? 
>
> =====  That people were still buying the book?  That they hated the book? 
That they hated the crossovers with other books that they wound up buying and
wound up hating and wished such things wouldn't happen so they could stop buying
those books they hate?  And that doing such things 20 years ago validates Marvel
and DCs current love of crossovers?  Um, no, you were complaining about those
buyers then and complaining about the companies now.

Rainmandu says:
Not really complaining about those customers. I'm a comic geek, so I have some
sympathy for buying a book you're no longer enjoying, or a crossover title you
wouldn't normally buy, and you don't know why you just bought it, and you're not
even going to read it. I was pointing out that just because a book is selling is
no indication that people are loving it, or that they want more of it.

> > You ever hang out with a drug-dealer who is so repulsive
> > you hate having to see him and can't way to get away from
> > him, but he's got the stuff you want?
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > No, but I used to date this girl...
>
> =====  What's the difference?

Rainmandu says:
Exactly.

> > > =====  I'm not citing "Secret Wars II" as a great
> > story, it's methadone given out to heroin addicts. 
> > Unintentionally, and probably lost a lot more customers than
> > it gained, but that's the mentality of the dealers, and the
> > customers, and future customers of the time.  But it
> > was a good example of continuity (except for the glaring
> > exception that we never found out how Power Man and Iron
> > Fist reacted to their skyscraper of gold).
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > Yes, we did. Luke Cage said, "Sweet Christmas!" Iron Fist
> > punched the side of the building, chipping off a huge piece
> > of it, when he tucked under his shirt, and then ran off down
> > the street with it. You missed it?
>
> ======  If that was a "Secret Wars II" crossover, it wasn't included in the
big-ass hardcover collection.

Rainmandu says:
I would be surprised if it was, because I just made it up. Serious question: did
they include all of the crossover issues in the HC? No, I have no interest in
buying it. There were just so damn many of them. Speaking of so damn many of
them, Marvel intends to collect the entire "Clone Saga" in a series of HCs.
Fucking scary.

> >  [Ooh Ooh [/Gunther Toody] I just had another idea for a
> > Dazzler story].  At the time, it was good continuity
> > the way the audience liked it, and you prove it yourself
> > with all the people who hated it buying it, and the
> > crossovers, and the crossovers into comics they didn't
> > usually buy, and wishing it would end so they could stop
> > buying these comics.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > No, they didn't like it. They bought it. It's not the same
> > thing. Oh, it sure LOOKS like the same thing. But it's not.
> > It's...
>
> ======  It's the Beyonder.  He's moving into a new phase.
>
> > That's sick.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > Yeah. That.
> >
> > I reached that point with the first post-Claremont
> > X-crossover, gave every title on my list one single issue
> > beyond that, and then cut them all off.  Except Peter
> > >  David's "X-Factor" but he did quite a few issues
> > after that, but it wasn't hard.
> > >
> > > =====  As much as "Secret Wars II" and its
> > crossovers sucked [and I, as a fan, am having to fight with
> > myself to read the collected hardcover instead of more
> > interesting books] it was continuity the way the mass
> > audience wanted.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > That's like saying that waking up with the "ladies" of "The
> > View" taking turns grinding their pussies on your chin is
> > group sex the way guys want it. Uh, no. It's not.
>
> ======  If they still keep paying for it, and paying for solo sessions with
each of those ladies, why, exactly, are the people offering these group sex
sessions the ones to blame?  We're coming dangerously close to on-topic here, so
think about your answer.

Rainmandu says:
They're not to blame. They're giving the people what the people don't want, but
the people keep acting like they want it, so what the fuck. It might do them
some good to note that the more they give them the big crossovers, the more
they're going to need to keep giving them the big crossovers to keep their sales
up, because, each time they do it, they'll be losing more regular readers. Yes,
it's just like drug addiction. Only for Marvel. They start out doing it to get
high and feel good, they end up doing it just to maintain.

> > And, the larger point, with L nny and Larry, it doesn't
> > work in retrospect.  Sue Richard's "Malice" incarnation
> > wasn't as good as Dazzler's, and means even less in the
> > long-term, except for the long-forgotten Hate-Monger
> > storyline.  So why bring it up?  Why make such a
> > big deal of her being turned to the Dark Side and then
> > mention in a caption that Reed Richards has defeated her and
> > turned her back and then the guy responsible gets killed by
> > some random person ["Scourge" I think was his name] saying
> > "Justice is served"?  It leaves the fans of
> > three-or-four MU years confused and uninterested, defeats
> > the longer-standing MU fans, and does nothing for anybody
> > who reads this stuff as their first experience.  Unless
> > they like weird
> > >  people doing weird things with no believable
> > motivation (we're talking about superheroes and superhero
> > continuity, there is going to be that aspect).
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > If a new writer on FF wants to do a story about lingering
> > Hate-Mongerness in Sue Richards's dreams, I have no problem
> > with that. Well, I do, but a good writer can reference the
> > old story, and do it in a way that works. But if you're
> > writing a Spider-Man story, with Spidey and the FF teaming
> > up to do something that has nothing to do with
> > Hate-Mongering Sue or any of the side-effects of that, why
> > bother wasting everyone's time and putting stupid speedbumps
> > in your story with Reed saying, "Sue? What's wrong?" and Sue
> > saying, "It's just... I don't know. I feel..." and Ben
> > saying, "I think she's still feelin' the side-effects o' the
> > Hate Monger's hate-a-ray" and Johnny saying, "I know you're
> > my sister, but I've got some smokin' wood over here. No.
> > Really. It's literally smoking."
>
> =====  Does anybody else notice that Rain always turns what he thinks is good
for the characters into something about him, and it resembles a 70's porn movie,
back when chicks didn't trust razors enough to put them between their legs?

Rainmandu says:
Actually, it's not an example of what I think it's good for the character. It's
just a silly thing to illustrate a point I'm making.

> > > =====  As you say, people kept buying them. 
> > The companies aren't doing anything that important now, but
> > back then, people complained about their willingness to go
> > along.  Those people are gone now.  And the
> > companies are still doing this.
> > >
> > > *Meat Loaf "More Than You Deserve"*
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > Actually, people are still buying crap they don't want to
> > buy, and they're still complaining about it. They do it on
> > comic book message boards every single day, and at comic
> > shops, too. Well, at the comic shops I've been in, where
> > people are always talking about this shit. Maybe not at
> > those other comic shops, though.
> >
> > Rainmandu
>
> ===== The spiritual descendents of those who made "Secret Wars" and its sequel
a hit.  The people who would dump a series because they thought it sucked left
long ago.  Those who have been brought to that state are leaving even now.  And
sales suck these days.
>
> *Steinman, "Joker's Song/Wonderful Toys", wow it's so much fun*

Rainmandu says:
Yes.

Rainmandu

"Black Plastic" - Ladytron

Molto Bene!
The first episode I have watched live, and what an episode it was - well worth
getting all my tech bugs ironed out. To hear Jim Steranko and Dave discuss
Kirby's work for an hour was a wonderful experience, and as Dave mentioned, had
to have been the quickest 40 minutes I've
ever spent listening to an interview. Here's to King Kirby! Here's to Cerebus
TV! chinchin!
JT



--- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "margaret" <cerebusfangirl@...> wrote:
>
> Episode 3 will be playing tonight at 10pm eastern time at
> http://www.cerebustv.com <http://www.cerebustv.com>   during which Dave
> Sim will be talking with Jim Steranko about comic books and Jack Kirby's
> work.
>
> Also, to keep up with the latest updates, follow CerebusTV on twitter:
> https://twitter.com/CerebusTV
>
> --
> Take care,
> Margaret
> http://www.cerebusfangirl.com
>

> > > > > > Personally, I like the idea of a
> loosely
> > > shared
> > > > > universe, in the
> > > > > > sense that Spider-Man can show up
> in an
> > > issue of
> > > > > "Daredevil," but
> > > > > > I hate it when the writer of
> "Daredevil"
> > > just wants to
> > > > > do a cool
> > > > > > Daredevil / Spider-Man story and
> has to
> > > include in his
> > > > > story the
> > > > > > new Iron Spider costume, or has to
> have
> > > Spider-Man
> > > > > constantly
> > > > > > saying, "Douche!" because
> Mysterio
> > > hyp-mo-tized Spidey
> > > > > over in
> > > > > > his own title.
> > > > >
> > > > > A good argument MIGHT have been made
> for that
> > > sort of
> > > > > obsessive continuity back in the 1970s
> and into
> > > the 1980s,
> > > > > when one could still credibly imagine
> that all of
> > > Marvel
> > > > > (and post-Crisis DC) was really one big
> novel
> > > that was going
> > > > > somewhere and that there'd be a payoff
> for seeing
> > > all of the
> > > > > pieces leading there.  Such an
> interpretation
> > > has not
> > > > > been possible (let alone credible)
> since at least
> > > the late
> > > > > 1980s.  Even being charitable, we're
> talking a
> > > concept
> > > > > that's 15 years out of date.  Time to
> put it to
> > > rest
> > > > > and stop pretending that the stories
> work that
> > > way.
> > > >
> > > > =====  The good argument *WAS* made back
> > > then.  That's why this sort of continuity has
> continued
> > > for so long,
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > The bad side of that good argument was that,
> instead of
> > > just saying, okay, all of these books take place
> in the same
> > > universe, and it all fits together, they tried to
> synch up
> > > the timelines of all of their books, and that
> made for a lot
> > > of crap. When they should have been doing more
> loose "This
> > > story in the new issue of 'Iron Man' takes place
> at the same
> > > time as those two issues of 'Daredevil' from six
> months ago,
> > > but we're not saying so, you can just figure it
> out for
> > > yourself" and less "Whatever happens in this
> month's 'Iron
> > > Man' has to match up with the rest of the
> universe," they
> > > went in the wrong direction. Back around the time
> of "House
> > > of M," there was a momentary breath of fresh air
> in the way
> > > that crossovers were done: a single mini-series
> ("House of
> > > M") and the writers of the other titles could
> decide for
> > > themselves whether or not they wanted to
> participate. If
> > > they did, cool. If not, there wouldn't be a
> single mention
> > > of it in their books. Yeah, that didn't last.
> >
> > =====  Hold that thought...
> >
> > > and the companies can do infinite civil war
> crises or
> > > whatever even today.  I will cite "Secret Wars
> II" as a
> > > good example of how continuity should work
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > For me, that's THE example of how it doesn't
> work, and why
> > > it should never be attempted on that scale. It's
> nothing to
> > > do with the bad writing, the crap art, the stupid
> story, and
> > > everything else. It was just too big and required
> too much
> > > on the part of the reader, and it derailed
> ongoing
> > > storylines in most of their books. Nearly every
> title Marvel
> > > published at the time continued in a different
> title. I was
> > > working at a comic book store at the time, and it
> was the
> > > first time I really understood just how fucked-up
> comic book
> > > fans are when it comes to this sort of thing: of
> the several
> > > dozen in-store subscription service customers we
> had, I
> > > would be hard-pressed to think of half a dozen of
> them who
> > > weren't bitching and complaining and hating every
> part of
> > > that story, talking about how it was ruining the
> titles they
> > > normally read, how they couldn't wait for it to
> be over, how
> > > Jim Shooter needed to be run out of town, but
> damn near
> > > every one of those bitching and complaining
> customers were
> > > not only buying the titles they normally bought,
> but they
> > > were buying a bunch of the titles they normally
> didn't
> > > buy... and hating them. "Why am I buying this
> fucking
> > > comic?" should have been printed on T-shirts at
> the time,
> > > since that was easily THE rallying cry of comic
> book fans in
> > > the '80s. Working in a comic shop is like being a
> therapist.
> > > Subscription customers looked through the comics
> you had
> > > just handed them, and then started talking about
> their
> > > buying habits and how they couldn't control
> themselves. "I
> > > keep spending my money on things I hate. What is
> WRONG with
> > > me?" It reached a fever pitch at the time of
> "Secret Wars" I
> > > and II, because those were two of the worst
> comics, based
> > > around the dumbest ideas, in the history of
> comics.
> > >
> > > Rainmandu
> >
> > =====  So how is that an example of comic-book
> continuity that didn't last?
>
> Rainmandu says:
> I don't know. How is that an example of comic book
> continuity that didn't last? 

=====  Replace the word "last" with "work", look at what you said earlier, and
you'll see what I mean.  My bad for picking the wrong word.

> "Civil War" and whatever crossover DC's up to nowadays sure
> seem to prove the opposite.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> They prove that people love giant crossovers? 

=====  That the companies believe they have more success with giant crossovers
and stories aimed at people who remember all those old comics, "Civil War",
"Infinite Crisis" and "All Star Superman" alike.  It's tough to enjoy some
issues in "All Star Superman" when you know the reference" (the Bizarro issues
come immediately to mind, as do a few others), and without those references it's
an utterly stupid story that no one should care about ever again.

> People hate this book, they hate the crossovers of this
> book, they hate the books they would ordinarily never buy
> but they're buying because of this book.  They wish the
> crossover would end so they could stop buying this book and
> these crossovers and the crossovers they wouldn't ordinarily
> buy.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> If that's the case, then it doesn't prove the opposite of
> what I said, now, does it? 

=====  That people were still buying the book?  That they hated the book?  That
they hated the crossovers with other books that they wound up buying and wound
up hating and wished such things wouldn't happen so they could stop buying those
books they hate?  And that doing such things 20 years ago validates Marvel and
DCs current love of crossovers?  Um, no, you were complaining about those buyers
then and complaining about the companies now.

> You ever hang out with a drug-dealer who is so repulsive
> you hate having to see him and can't way to get away from
> him, but he's got the stuff you want?
>
> Rainmandu says:
> No, but I used to date this girl...

=====  What's the difference?

> > =====  I'm not citing "Secret Wars II" as a great
> story, it's methadone given out to heroin addicts. 
> Unintentionally, and probably lost a lot more customers than
> it gained, but that's the mentality of the dealers, and the
> customers, and future customers of the time.  But it
> was a good example of continuity (except for the glaring
> exception that we never found out how Power Man and Iron
> Fist reacted to their skyscraper of gold).
>
> Rainmandu says:
> Yes, we did. Luke Cage said, "Sweet Christmas!" Iron Fist
> punched the side of the building, chipping off a huge piece
> of it, when he tucked under his shirt, and then ran off down
> the street with it. You missed it?

======  If that was a "Secret Wars II" crossover, it wasn't included in the
big-ass hardcover collection.

>  [Ooh Ooh [/Gunther Toody] I just had another idea for a
> Dazzler story].  At the time, it was good continuity
> the way the audience liked it, and you prove it yourself
> with all the people who hated it buying it, and the
> crossovers, and the crossovers into comics they didn't
> usually buy, and wishing it would end so they could stop
> buying these comics.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> No, they didn't like it. They bought it. It's not the same
> thing. Oh, it sure LOOKS like the same thing. But it's not.
> It's...

======  It's the Beyonder.  He's moving into a new phase.

> That's sick.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> Yeah. That.
>
> I reached that point with the first post-Claremont
> X-crossover, gave every title on my list one single issue
> beyond that, and then cut them all off.  Except Peter
> >  David's "X-Factor" but he did quite a few issues
> after that, but it wasn't hard.
> >
> > =====  As much as "Secret Wars II" and its
> crossovers sucked [and I, as a fan, am having to fight with
> myself to read the collected hardcover instead of more
> interesting books] it was continuity the way the mass
> audience wanted.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> That's like saying that waking up with the "ladies" of "The
> View" taking turns grinding their pussies on your chin is
> group sex the way guys want it. Uh, no. It's not.

======  If they still keep paying for it, and paying for solo sessions with each
of those ladies, why, exactly, are the people offering these group sex sessions
the ones to blame?  We're coming dangerously close to on-topic here, so think
about your answer.

> And, the larger point, with L nny and Larry, it doesn't
> work in retrospect.  Sue Richard's "Malice" incarnation
> wasn't as good as Dazzler's, and means even less in the
> long-term, except for the long-forgotten Hate-Monger
> storyline.  So why bring it up?  Why make such a
> big deal of her being turned to the Dark Side and then
> mention in a caption that Reed Richards has defeated her and
> turned her back and then the guy responsible gets killed by
> some random person ["Scourge" I think was his name] saying
> "Justice is served"?  It leaves the fans of
> three-or-four MU years confused and uninterested, defeats
> the longer-standing MU fans, and does nothing for anybody
> who reads this stuff as their first experience.  Unless
> they like weird
> >  people doing weird things with no believable
> motivation (we're talking about superheroes and superhero
> continuity, there is going to be that aspect).
>
> Rainmandu says:
> If a new writer on FF wants to do a story about lingering
> Hate-Mongerness in Sue Richards's dreams, I have no problem
> with that. Well, I do, but a good writer can reference the
> old story, and do it in a way that works. But if you're
> writing a Spider-Man story, with Spidey and the FF teaming
> up to do something that has nothing to do with
> Hate-Mongering Sue or any of the side-effects of that, why
> bother wasting everyone's time and putting stupid speedbumps
> in your story with Reed saying, "Sue? What's wrong?" and Sue
> saying, "It's just... I don't know. I feel..." and Ben
> saying, "I think she's still feelin' the side-effects o' the
> Hate Monger's hate-a-ray" and Johnny saying, "I know you're
> my sister, but I've got some smokin' wood over here. No.
> Really. It's literally smoking."

=====  Does anybody else notice that Rain always turns what he thinks is good
for the characters into something about him, and it resembles a 70's porn movie,
back when chicks didn't trust razors enough to put them between their legs?

> > =====  As you say, people kept buying them. 
> The companies aren't doing anything that important now, but
> back then, people complained about their willingness to go
> along.  Those people are gone now.  And the
> companies are still doing this.
> >
> > *Meat Loaf "More Than You Deserve"*
>
> Rainmandu says:
> Actually, people are still buying crap they don't want to
> buy, and they're still complaining about it. They do it on
> comic book message boards every single day, and at comic
> shops, too. Well, at the comic shops I've been in, where
> people are always talking about this shit. Maybe not at
> those other comic shops, though.
>
> Rainmandu

===== The spiritual descendents of those who made "Secret Wars" and its sequel a
hit.  The people who would dump a series because they thought it sucked left
long ago.  Those who have been brought to that state are leaving even now.  And
sales suck these days.

*Steinman, "Joker's Song/Wonderful Toys", wow it's so much fun*

> > > I never said it couldn't GET worse. 
> >
> > [Quote Larry Hart]  The only worse idea is
> > > the way
> > > things are now,[/quote Larry Hart]
> >
> >  I said it's bad
> > > now, and the presdident's plan (which I don't
> like in its
> > > current form) is a step in the right direction,
> not the
> > > wrong direction.  Never said there IS no wrong
> > > direction.
> >
> > [Quote Larry Hart]  The only worse idea is
> > > the way
> > > > > things are now,[/quote Larry Hart]
> >
>
> Sheesh, THAT's what you're hung up on.
>
> I should have said "The only worse idea ACTUALLY BEING
> PROPOSED is the way things are now"???  Ok, how about
> pretending that's what I said and going on from there?
>
> - Larry Hart

=====  Because then you'd have to look at what's being proposed and (except for
the Republican options) that's more than the people voting these bills into law
are willing to do.  They know Directive 10-283 is coming, they're sick to their
stomach at the thought of voting for it, but they will do it without
hesistation.  No, the status quo is not a worse idea than what's being proposed
(other than tort reform which comes from the Republicans, but they're Republican
so they don't count, they're a minority anyway).  Medicare patients are already
being told to give back the tax break Obama gave them.  The government is
already telling women to stop checking for breast cancer so often.  Medicare
cuts are already in place according to the (Democratic) options being voted on,
and guess what old people will think about that.  Even if nationalized health
care is your goal, there are better ways to accomplish it, and your President
has chosen the worst way of
  all, as has the rest of *your team*.

[Note, this is not a repudiation of Obama as President, I have just been
discussing the Fort Hood murders with someone who responded to my blog, and went
on record as saying I would sooner kill someone who wishes President Obama harm
than President Obama himself.  He is my commander-in-chief and I am sworn to
obey him, and the officers he appoints over me, and the Uniform Code of Military
Justice.  I say "your President" because it's funny and gets the point across. 
He's doing a very very bad job according to the people he's directly commanding]

*still Steinman, "Joker's Song/Wonderful Toys", it's awesome, and so is my
video*

> > > > >> Not at all.  That's my
> point.  Where it's important to the story to
> > > ignore
> > > > >> something in anohter book, then
> ignore away.  But when it's not
> > > important,
> > > > >> don't ignore.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> e
> > > > >> L nny
> > > > >
> > > > > So, you don't really care about the
> shared universe. If you're so
> > > willing to let something like Galactus standing
> in the middle of New York
> > > and damn near destroying everything be ignored by
> Spider-Man because it's
> > > inconvenient to the story currently going on in
> Spider-Man's book.>>
> > > >
> > > > Where'd I say all that? huh??
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > You said that, if it's important to a story to
> ignore the continuity of
> > > another book, "then ignore away." Which
> contradicts much of what you've said
> > > about "violating" the idea of a shared universe.
> If you can just ignore
> > > continuity in another book because it's
> inconvenient to your story, then the
> > > shared universe must not be that important to
> you.>>
> > >
> >
> > Not at all! It's important - but not nearly as
> important as a good story.
> > I'll take a good story w/no continuity over a crappy
> flawless continuity
> > story every minute of the day.
> >
> > I have to say, though, I've been saying this
> consistently with each of my
> > posts.  That you could say my position is that
> shared universe is
> > unimportant, it sheds a new light on some of your
> arguments with Chris!! lol
>
> Rainmandu says:
> You have. But you've also been saying that, if the Iron
> Spider is current Marvel Universe continuity, then it should
> be included, and saying that it's a slap on readers of the
> larger universe to ignore it, that comics should reflect the
> larger universe of the time in which they were written, etc.
> So, it IS a bit of a contradiction on your part to argue the
> importance of these things while saying at the same time
> that it's okay to ignore them, and that's what I was
> pointing out to you.
>
> > > > That aside, as a general rule, things that
> go on for a couple of
> > > > issues in another book are easily explain as
> the stories not occurring
> > > > at the same time.
> > > >
> > > > > And ignoring the Iron Spider costume
> could very well be important to a
> > > Daredevil story, simply because, as I've said
> before, the very presence of
> > > that costume asks a question that has to be
> answered, and that distracts (or
> > > can distract) from the pacing, the mood, the
> forward momentum of the story
> > > being told.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rainmandu>>
> > > >
> > > > It COULD be important.  and as I said,
> IF it is important, I say
> > > > ignore continnuity.
> > > >
> > > > If it's NOT important, do you say observe
> continuity?
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > I say that anything that requires the story in
> one book to be stalled or
> > > even momentarily speed-bumped for a single panel
> to catch readers up on
> > > other continuity becomes important, simply by
> virtue of the fact that it
> > > requires you to change (even if only for a single
> panel) the pacing and the
> > > rhythm of your story. Remember that issue of
> "Daredevil" with Bullseye
> > > coming to kill Milla, and Daredevil shows up and
> it's one of the most brutal
> > > Daredevil fights, ever? If Bullseye's skin had
> been turned pink over in
> > > "Thunderbolts" or some other book, if that had
> become the status quo, had
> > > been that way for a couple of years, and there
> were no plans to change it
> > > back, the fact that Bullseye was now Pinkeye
> would have ruined that story.
> > > If Bendis! didn't slow down the momentum of that
> story to explain Pinkeye to
> > > readers who aren't keeping up with
> "Thunderbolts," it would be hard to enjoy
> > > the story because you'd be noticing Pinkeye and
> wondering what the fuck THAT
> > > was all about. Either way, the fact that
> Bullseye's skin was pink would have
> > > changed that story. Even if everything happened
> the same way, the same
> > > dialogue was spoken, Pinkeye alone would have
> ruined it. One could easily
> > > argue that the color of Bullseye's skin is
> irrelevant to the story. Just
> > > like one could argue the same about the Iron
> Spider costume. They would be
> > > wrong. I guess what I'm saying is that, if other
> continuity is stupid,
> > > that's another reason to ignore it.>>
> > >
> > None of this goes to my question to you above, it goes
> solely to the
> > threshold issue of importance discussed below.
>
> Rainmandu says:
> It does go to your question. You asked, if it's not
> important, do I say observe continuity? And my response is
> that it's always important. Always. I honestly can't imagine
> it not being important. Whatever it is. Kitty Pryde's
> costume. Whatever. It's important. Because I'm thinking
> about the story, the art, and every other detail, and
> realizing that Kitty Pryde's pink costume would totally
> undermine the dark and moody atmosphere thing I'm going for,
> so, yeah, I'll pick another one of her costumes, one that
> works better for the story.
>
> > I asked you "If it's NOT important, do you say observe
> continuity?"  I'll
> > ask it again.  Do you?
>
> Rainmandu says:
> And, again, it's always important. Always.
>
> > > > And if so, then the only question is "what's
> important?" and that's a
> > > > case by case analysis.
> > > >
> > > > e
> > > > L nny
> > >
> > > Rainmandu says:
> > > And should include aesthetics as well as
> continuity.
> > >
> > > Rainmandu >>
> >
> >
> > Apples and oranges.  We're discussing what is the
> "importance" theshold such
> > that continuity should be avoided.  Aesthetics is
> a consideration of
> > importance, continuity is outside of the consideration
> - i.e. you're
> > considering factors so as to determine when or when
> not to violate
> > continuity.
> >
> > e
> > L nny
>
> Rainmandu says:
> I thought I made this clear: if the writer wants to violate
> continuity, he should do so. For whatever reason. The
> threshold is: the writer wants Storm to have a mohawk, even
> though she currently doesn't have one in any other title?
> Fine. The threshold is: if I'm writing "Daredevil," he's
> living in San Francisco, married to Karen Page (who never
> died), and having to deal with a Pussycat Dolls-type band of
> ninja clones called the Sexy Elektras and their evil manager
> Mr. Hand. Okay, forget that ninja band part. But Daredevil
> should be in San Francisco, and he should be married to
> Karen Page. Why? Because the Tenderloin is still what New
> York was in the '70s, and Daredevil should be surrounded by
> sleaze and darkness and all the rest of it, and New York is
> just not that anymore. If I were running Marvel, I would let
> writers use characters from other books, but I wouldn't
> require them to actually keep up with what's currently going
> on in those other books. Spider-Man is Spider-Man. We all
> know who he is, so when he turns up in "Daredevil," who
> freakin' cares what's going on over in his own book?
> Whatever it is, it's only a temporary distraction or
> bullshit anyway. Besides, Marvel can always publish one
> "Daredevil" book that follows the strict continuity of the
> current universe, and one where it's "All-Star"-style.
>
> Rainmandu

=====  Anybody else ever notice that Rain always goes to what he would do with
the company-owned characters, and it usually comes from some 70s exploitation
movie?  It's not always about Rain, much as he would like to think otherwise. 
He's willing to disregard what other people think is important because, um, it
gets him off.  I happen to agree with him more than I agree with L nny on what
makes for good continuity and shared universes, but dammit, there's a lot of
people out there who disagree.  Guess what, they have a vote too.

*Jim Steinman, "Joker's Song/Wonderful Toys", I've just spent days making a
video for it, it's on my Facebook page and it sucks that Yahoo won't let me send
it, but it'll be on my blog shortly.  Like Rain, it's all about me.*

--- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, ctowner1@... wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:46 AM, rainmandu2 <rainmandu@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, ctowner1@ wrote:
> >  >
> > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:16 PM, rainmandu2 <rainmandu@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > >> Not at all.  That's my point.  Where it's important to the story
> > to
> > > > ignore
> > > > > >> something in anohter book, then ignore away.  But when it's not
> > > > important,
> > > > > >> don't ignore.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> e
> > > > > >> L nny
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, you don't really care about the shared universe. If you're so
> > > > willing to let something like Galactus standing in the middle of New
> > York
> > > > and damn near destroying everything be ignored by Spider-Man because
> > it's
> > > > inconvenient to the story currently going on in Spider-Man's book.>>
> > > > >
> > > > > Where'd I say all that? huh??
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > You said that, if it's important to a story to ignore the continuity of
> > > > another book, "then ignore away." Which contradicts much of what you've
> > said
> > > > about "violating" the idea of a shared universe. If you can just ignore
> > > > continuity in another book because it's inconvenient to your story,
> > then the
> > > > shared universe must not be that important to you.>>
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not at all! It's important - but not nearly as important as a good story.
> > > I'll take a good story w/no continuity over a crappy flawless continuity
> > > story every minute of the day.
> > >
> > > I have to say, though, I've been saying this consistently with each of my
> > > posts.  That you could say my position is that shared universe is
> > > unimportant, it sheds a new light on some of your arguments with Chris!!
> > lol
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > You have. But you've also been saying that, if the Iron Spider is current
> > Marvel Universe continuity, then it should be included, and saying that it's
> > a slap on readers of the larger universe to ignore it, that comics should
> > reflect the larger universe of the time in which they were written, etc. So,
> > it IS a bit of a contradiction on your part to argue the importance of these
> > things while saying at the same time that it's okay to ignore them, and
> > that's what I was pointing out to you.>>
> >
>
> Again, not a contradiction.  Two things can BOTH be important - just one
> more than the other.  And its not a binary state - it can be a spectrum -
> i.e. I think there are times a SLIGHT hit to the story is worthwhile when
> there's a MAJOR hit to continuity.  B/c a major continuity hit can take you
> out of a story just as easily as slavish adherence to continuity on a minor
> point can.

Rainmandu says:
True. But I tend to go in the other direction. A slight hit to story bothers me
more than a major hit to continuity, unless it's the internal continuity of the
individual title. If the new writer on "Daredevil" had Matt and Karen Page out
for lunch, if he announced in an interview that he liked Karen Page, and he was
just going to forget that she had died, that wouldn't bother me half as much as
it would if she had been resurrected in "Nova" and the Daredevil storyline had
to acknowledge Karen Page in space. Because space shit doesn't belong in
"Daredevil."

> > > > > That aside, as a general rule, things that go on for a couple of
> > > > > issues in another book are easily explain as the stories not
> > occurring
> > > > > at the same time.
> > > > >
> > > > > > And ignoring the Iron Spider costume could very well be important
> > to a
> > > > Daredevil story, simply because, as I've said before, the very presence
> > of
> > > > that costume asks a question that has to be answered, and that
> > distracts (or
> > > > can distract) from the pacing, the mood, the forward momentum of the
> > story
> > > > being told.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rainmandu>>
> > > > >
> > > > > It COULD be important.  and as I said, IF it is important, I say
> > > > > ignore continnuity.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it's NOT important, do you say observe continuity?
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > I say that anything that requires the story in one book to be stalled
> > or
> > > > even momentarily speed-bumped for a single panel to catch readers up on
> > > > other continuity becomes important, simply by virtue of the fact that
> > it
> > > > requires you to change (even if only for a single panel) the pacing and
> > the
> > > > rhythm of your story. Remember that issue of "Daredevil" with Bullseye
> > > > coming to kill Milla, and Daredevil shows up and it's one of the most
> > brutal
> > > > Daredevil fights, ever? If Bullseye's skin had been turned pink over in
> > > > "Thunderbolts" or some other book, if that had become the status quo,
> > had
> > > > been that way for a couple of years, and there were no plans to change
> > it
> > > > back, the fact that Bullseye was now Pinkeye would have ruined that
> > story.
> > > > If Bendis! didn't slow down the momentum of that story to explain
> > Pinkeye to
> > > > readers who aren't keeping up with "Thunderbolts," it would be hard to
> > enjoy
> > > > the story because you'd be noticing Pinkeye and wondering what the fuck
> > THAT
> > > > was all about. Either way, the fact that Bullseye's skin was pink would
> > have
> > > > changed that story. Even if everything happened the same way, the same
> > > > dialogue was spoken, Pinkeye alone would have ruined it. One could
> > easily
> > > > argue that the color of Bullseye's skin is irrelevant to the story.
> > Just
> > > > like one could argue the same about the Iron Spider costume. They would
> > be
> > > > wrong. I guess what I'm saying is that, if other continuity is stupid,
> > > > that's another reason to ignore it.>>
> > > >
> > > None of this goes to my question to you above, it goes solely to the
> > > threshold issue of importance discussed below.
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > It does go to your question. You asked, if it's not important, do I say
> > observe continuity? And my response is that it's always important. Always. I
> > honestly can't imagine it not being important. Whatever it is. Kitty Pryde's
> > costume. Whatever. It's important. Because I'm thinking about the story, the
> > art, and every other detail, and realizing that Kitty Pryde's pink costume
> > would totally undermine the dark and moody atmosphere thing I'm going for,
> > so, yeah, I'll pick another one of her costumes, one that works better for
> > the story.>>
> >
>
> Well, I think that's ridiculous exaggeration. Obviously there can be SOME
> times that adherence to continuity can be minor and have NO IMPACT on story
> and then, why not observe it?

Rainmandu says:
Even if it has no impact on the story, it's still important. It's all important.

Easiest example is if a minor Spiderman
> character shows up in a Daredevil story, and in a hilarious scene in the
> Spiderman story they vow to wear blue jeans for a year.  Then they show up
> in DD.  If they're wearing blue jeans, would that distract you from enjoying
> DD's fight with Bullseye?  And if they show up wearing red jeans in DD (b/c
> weird color choices like that show up in clueless comics some times), and
> you just read this great funny scene in Spiderman 2 months ago where they
> swore to where blue jeans?  Bad! lol

Rainmandu says:
Would it distract me? No. Because they're just a couple of guys standing around
in blue jeans. If they're wearing those blue jeans on the head? Yes. The Iron
Spider costume has more in common with someone wearing blue jeans on his head
than not.

> And, of course, this is a ridiculous example - but it was just made to meet
> your equally ridiculous position that it's ALWAYS important to ignore
> differences in the books.

Rainmandu says:
Maybe I wasn't clear. The details (minor or major) are always important. Not
that it's always important to ignore the differences.

> > > I asked you "If it's NOT important, do you say observe continuity?"  I'll
> > > ask it again.  Do you?
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > And, again, it's always important. Always.
> >
> > > > > And if so, then the only question is "what's important?" and that's a
> > > > > case by case analysis.
> > > > >
> > > > > e
> > > > > L nny
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu says:
> > > > And should include aesthetics as well as continuity.
> > > >
> > > > Rainmandu >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Apples and oranges.  We're discussing what is the "importance" theshold
> > such
> > > that continuity should be avoided.  Aesthetics is a consideration of
> > > importance, continuity is outside of the consideration - i.e. you're
> > > considering factors so as to determine when or when not to violate
> > > continuity.
> > >
> > > e
> > > L nny
> >
> > Rainmandu says:
> > I thought I made this clear: if the writer wants to violate continuity, he
> > should do so. For whatever reason. The threshold is: the writer wants Storm
> > to have a mohawk, even though she currently doesn't have one in any other
> > title? Fine. The threshold is: if I'm writing "Daredevil," he's living in
> > San Francisco, married to Karen Page (who never died), and having to deal
> > with a Pussycat Dolls-type band of ninja clones called the Sexy Elektras and
> > their evil manager Mr. Hand. Okay, forget that ninja band part. But
> > Daredevil should be in San Francisco, and he should be married to Karen
> > Page. Why? Because the Tenderloin is still what New York was in the '70s,
> > and Daredevil should be surrounded by sleaze and darkness and all the rest
> > of it, and New York is just not that anymore. If I were running Marvel, I
> > would let writers use characters from other books, but I wouldn't require
> > them to actually keep up with what's currently going on in those other
> > books. Spider-Man is Spider-Man. We all know who he is, so when he turns up
> > in "Daredevil," who freakin' cares what's going on over in his own book?
> > Whatever it is, it's only a temporary distraction or bullshit anyway.
> > Besides, Marvel can always publish one "Daredevil" book that follows the
> > strict continuity of the current universe, and one where it's
> > "All-Star"-style.
> >
> > Rainmandu>>
>
>
> The flip side of ignoring change is also that it encourages characters to
> NEVER grow.

Rainmandu says:
You're kidding yourself if you think that Peter Parker is ever going to change
his costume, move to another city, etc. Do you really think that Daredevil is
going to be the leader of the Hand from now on, and that things won't return to
status quo? He married Milla (get it? "Milla"? "Miller"?), and how long did that
last? Of course, the status quo in "Dardevil" seems to be that Daredevil has to
keep getting shit upon.

You start drawing lines about what DD "should" be doing, and
> he's never going to be doing anything else.  It's like there's a small
> ripple in one book, and then the other books beat it down by saying "that's
> not the way he SHOULD be - I'm going to do it the right way."

Rainmandu says:
See above. And there are certain things that characters shouldn't be doing. Or
things that work for characters, or don't. Spider-Man works best as a high
school kid, but he works as a college student, or whatever he is now, as well. I
liked the latest issue, with Electro as a rabble-rouser.

> All that aside, and speaking of Spiderman (and poor fashion sense) above, I
> have to say that the latest issue of Ultimate Spiderman kicked ass.  I'm
> REALLY coming around to David Lafuente.  I was just noticing how detailed
> his art is - perhaps it wasn't so in the earlier issues? But the latest
> issues? Check out the clothers all of the High School students are wearing.
> Now I'll be fucked if I know what HS students are wearing these days and
> whether it's correct - but each person's wardrobe has character.  You can
> see the artist really thought it out and didn't give people generic "shirts"
> "jeans" shoes".

Rainmandu says:
One of the things that always bugged me about Bagley's art was that he did just
that, with the generic clothes on everyone. And then he would just write
"Britney!" or some shit on someone's shirt. But, then, Bagley is a different
kind of artist. I read someone describe him as a workhorse, and that's about
right. You need pages, and you need them right away?

And his fight scenes are pretty decent too - Spiderman is
> really looking spidery.  Lafuente's art actually seems like a corss between
> the last 2 artists - Bagley and Immonen.  It's more fluid and cleaner lined
> than Immonen, who favors some stark roughness in his rendering (to excellent
> effect), and it's more detailed and a bit more solid than some of Bagley's
> more rubbery drawings (and I think that over the course of 9 years, Bagley
> improved immensely and his characters got more solid).
>
> Plus, the writing was on point.  Not overly Bendis-y as we sometimes get.
> And a great twist at the end.  The 1st revamp issue that I think really
> clicked for me. Cool stuff.
>
> e
> L nny

Rainmandu says:
Issue 1 is still my favorite of the reboot, but I've enjoyed them all.

Rainmandu

"Seventeen" - Ladytron

--- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Michael Norwitz <blaklion@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Chris W wrote:
>
> > =====  So how is that an example of comic-book continuity that
> > didn't last?  "Civil War" and whatever crossover DC's up to
> > nowadays sure seem to prove the opposite.  People hate this book,
> > they hate the crossovers of this book, they hate the books they
> > would ordinarily never buy but they're buying because of this
> > book.  They wish the crossover would end so they could stop buying
> > this book and these crossovers and the crossovers they wouldn't
> > ordinarily buy.  You ever hang out with a drug-dealer who is so
> > repulsive you hate having to see him and can't way to get away from
> > him, but he's got the stuff you want?
>
> For my part, at this point I only purchase miniseries, for just that
> reason ... I don't want to have to commit to a whole universe.  I
> have made exceptions for some of the recent Bat titles, but those are
> limited runs with stories being told in discreet arcs (and rotating
> artists), so I can easily skip the bits I don't like.

"Amazing Spider-Man" rotates writers and artists, so I just buy the issues by
the writers I like. Amazingly, I'm never lost. I skipped Marc Guggenheim's
recent arc, but I just bought the most recent issue by Mark Waid (part one of an
Electro story), and it's a great issue.

Also great (and I know I keep mentioning this, and no one freakin' cares), but
the latest issue of Remender's "Punisher." I honestly can't believe that Marvel
is allowing this, but yay, Marvel! More, please. The story just kicking off is
called "Frankencastle," and, yes, it's exactly what you think it is, only way
more batshit crazy insane than you could imagine. It's the kind of crazy shit I
would do if I were writing comics, but that I couldn't imagine they'd ever let
me do... and they're doing even crazier shit on "Punisher."

If you just stick to limited series and smaller arcs, there are two issues (6
and 7) of "Wolverine: Weapon X," by Jason Aaron ("Scalped") that are the first
two parts of a Wolverine-in-loony-bin story that has a real twisted
exploitation-era feel to them. Great comics, man.

Rainmandu

--- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Michael Norwitz <blaklion@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2009, at 6:57 PM, rainmandu2 wrote:
>
> > Why is Spider-Man dressed like a douche? Why isn't Daredevil asking
> > why he's dressed like a douche?
>
> Maybe because HE'S BLIND?

Rainmandu says:
With enhanced senses. And Spider-Man's new costume is a humming mechanical Iron
Spider, the sound and the shape of which Daredevil's senses and radar could pick
up, and he would know that this was something different. And, if the Iron Spider
armor managed to hide Spidey's scent or any of the other things that Daredevil
uses to determine who's standing right in front of him, he likely wouldn't
really believe that he was talking to Spider-Man. And, since lie detectors are
bullshit and Daredevil's whole thing with the heartbeat skipping and telling him
that someone is lying is no more realistic that being bitten by a radioactive
spider and waking up with super-powers, Spider-Man saying, "No, really, it's
me," wouldn't work, either. Okay, it would, because in the Marvel Universe it's
been establish that skipping heartbeats indicate lying. But, still... Plus, I
like to think that, even blind, Daredevil knows when he's standing in front of a
douche. Or maybe not. If he really was capable of such a thing, half of the
annoying supporting cast during Brubaker's run would have had his senses totally
freaking out.

> > Yes, and some artists couldn't make a crappy visual work if they
> > tried. Not one single artist I can think of managed to draw that
> > Iron Spider costume in a way that looked good. Not. One.
>
> George Perez and Alan Davis could have managed it.  I'm not even a
> Perez fan, but both have an uncanny ability to make even the dorkiest
> uniforms look good (which is a useful skill if drawing something like
> CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS).

Rainmandu says:
Well, neither one of them drew the Iron Spider (unless they did and I missed
it), so I maintain that not one artist managed to make that costume work. You
may be right that either of those two artists could have made it look good to
someone, but I doubt it would have been me.

Rainmandu

--- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Michael Norwitz <blaklion@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2009, at 3:01 PM, rainmandu2 wrote:
>
> > "Elektra: Assassin" doesn't fit in with Marvel continuity at the
> > time. Oh, it started out in continuity, but, by the last page of
> > the last issue, uh, no. And that's fine. It's a great ending, and
> > who cares if John Garrett was never... well, where he was. Just in
> > case anyone hasn't read it and doesn't want it spoiled. And now
> > John Garrett is running around "Secret Warriors." Same John
> > Garrett, but no mention of where he ended up at the end of that
> > other book. Maybe they're just ignoring it. He was hallucinating.
> > Something like that.
>
> They actually stated at one point that he had been institutionalised,
> hallucinating that he was actually unsuccessful Presidential
> candidate, Ken Wind.

They should have just ignored it. Addressing every little bit of continuity and
trying to find (and, in some cases, force) an explanation for it weighs
everything down with bullshit.

Rainmandu