Superhero comics and other comics.

[Tempest]

where to start with Green Latern. I've been tempted to try it so many times, but i don't know were to start. I've read some Alan Moore GL adventures and bought some one-shots of Tales of Sinestro Corps but i need something more consistent...

Read Green Lantern: Rebirth and all of Sinestro Corps War. Pretty much anything written by Geof Johns is worth reading, especially right now because he is currently reworking the origin story of Hal Jordan and the Corps to tie in with the future Blackest Night event (The first part of the "Secret Origin" story was in fact, last week, after doing some of the clean up from SCW).

[Femto]

Infinity Gauntlet sucked.

Pretty lame and pointless.

The last great Marvel crossover I can think of was Annihilation.

And, as Tempest said, start Green Lantern with Rebirth.

EDIT:

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=152225

Awesome.

[Death&Rebirth]

Infinity Gauntlet sucked.

Pretty lame and pointless.

The last great Marvel crossover I can think of was Annihilation.

And, as Tempest said, start Green Lantern with Rebirth.

EDIT:

http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=152225

Awesome.

Meh, Annihilation was ok, but it was yet another build-up to another build-up (now Annihilation: Conquest). But if you found Infinity Gauntlet to be lame and pointless, i don't know what to make of Annihilation though...

[Femto]

Annihilation had character development and contained events that actually changed the Marvel Universe.

Infinity Gauntlet was just a bunch of guys hopelessly throwing themselves at an omnipotent Thanos.

And Thanos was more badass in Annihilation.

Thanos in Infinity Gauntlet: "Geez, how do I get this woman to love me?"

Thanos in Annihilation: "I'm gonna fuck up the universe just out of sheer curiosity."

Also, I read Annihilation alone and I haven't felt the need to read any of the stuff that followed.

It stands on its own quite well.

Of course, Annihilation had more room for storytelling with the four minis that came before the main series.

Still, Infinity Gauntlet is an absolutely brain dead series.

[Death&Rebirth]

Annihilation had character development and contained events that actually changed the Marvel Universe.

Infinity Gauntlet was just a bunch of guys hopelessly throwing themselves at an omnipotent Thanos.

And Thanos was more badass in Annihilation.

Thanos in Infinity Gauntlet: "Geez, how do I get this woman to love me?"

Thanos in Annihilation: "I'm gonna fuck up the universe just out of sheer curiosity."

Also, I read Annihilation alone and I haven't felt the need to read any of the stuff that followed.

It stands on its own quite well.

Of course, Annihilation had more room for storytelling with the four minis that came before the main series.

Still, Infinity Gauntlet is an absolutely brain dead series.

Heck, you say "trousers" and i say "pants". It's a matter of opinion in this issue, i felt the infinity gauntlet was better than annihilation. Better organized and more coherent.
And i don't agree with "Thanos in Annihilation: "I'm gonna fuck up the universe just out of sheer curiosity.". His motivations go further than simple curiosity.
Thanos had a fail-safe escape plan in case Annihilius becomes too powerful and tries to double-cross him and is clear that Thanos's intention is to be capable of controlling Annihilius. The problem was the appearance of Drax. I don't believe his dead, because the mad titan isn't so easily disposed of and i'd like to see if he will play any part on A: Conquest.

By the way, contacted "my" comic store about GL: Rebirth and they will let me know what they can get ina couple of weeks. If everything fails there's always mile high comics to import them here...

[Femto]

That's just great.

[Eldo]

I haven't really read much of Infinity Gauntlet, so I can't comment on that. It's a fairly long time ago, and I really don't have any wish to be reacquainted with late 80's/early 90's comics.

What I loved about Annihilation was that I connected with Nova, and he was really badass in the series. My gripe with the current Nova series was his frequent correspondence with the worldmind computer, and his character acting like a rookie at times, despite the fact that he had never done any of those and has fully graduated in Annihilation. Besides that, it's pretty good writing from the duo. I really liked the characters and story in Annihilation, it really made me believe the severity of the Annihilus threat instead of thinking of him as another villain. And I have to admit, I have never really been a big fan of outer space and cosmos stories, but Annihilation has really done it for me. It's connected me with all these characters that I never cared about: Starlord, Nova (especially him), Drax, Gamorra, Super Skrull, Quasar (Phylla, the new one). I'm enjoying Conquest right now, but I still think that Annihilation was better.

I think it's safe to say that Thanos is dead. He's along with Death now, as shown in the final pages of Annihilation, right after Nova ripped Annihilus' intestines out.

Also, Secret Invasion. It's looking promising right now, so I hope it stays in this course. Although I'm baffled as to why and how Jessica Drew could have contacted Luke Cage. Since Drew betrayed them, wouldn't Luke Cage change his mobile number or something? Besides that, I'm curious about the reveals, and Bendis' usual 'ping pong' dialogue is kept to a minimal here. Also, Yu's art looks great, except maybe a few panels that I thought was a bit flat. He draws a really great looking Iron Man though.

[Femto]

I've come to the conclusion that the DC universe is more rich, diverse and interesting than the Marvel universe.

I think the main difference is that the MU hasn't really changed all that much from what was established by Stan Lee back in the sixties.

Discuss.

[Eldo]

I've come to the conclusion that the DC universe is more rich, diverse and interesting than the Marvel universe.

I think the main difference is that the MU hasn't really changed all that much from what was established by Stan Lee back in the sixties.

Discuss.

There are some parts that I agree, and there are parts that I don't. I like both companies for different reasons.

What I dislike about DC is that some of the books are regressing back to the golden age. Instead of moving forward, they're moving backwards in a different direction. While some of you may say 'that's great,' but it's not my personal preference. I think Alex Ross has something to do with it, dude needs to grow up and realise that he's not 8 anymore. He's not getting his childhood back a second time.

With the Marvel universe, it's about how superheroes are treated if under real life situations. Marvel characters have it tough, Spiderman is accused of all kinds of shit, while Superman has all the good press. With DC, it's about how great the superheroes are, but with Marvel, it's how the superheroes struggle with the community and get them to trust the heroes. In Marvel, there's a fine line between outlaw and hero. If the JLA saved the world from an alien invasion, the world would be grateful. If the Avengers did it, people would think that the Avengers brought the invasion to Earth instead. With that aside, I think DC could afford to tell better stories about the super-heroics, because they don't have to consider what the effect of their actions have on the public. Marvel, on the other hand, focuses on how the community would treat a superhero by their actions. This all boils down to preference; if you like superheroes just saving the world without any public criticism, then it's DC. If you like superheroes struggle to help people while the general public hates them, then it's Marvel.

In addition, I think that once DC does some universe-changing event that promises to change the status quo of all characters, it doesn't. Well, not for long. After Infinite Crisis, there was a potential to change the status quo of the characters, but after reading past the One Year Later stuff, you'll find that nothing has changed before Infinite Crisis. After Civil War and House of M (despite them being told badly), the entire Marvel Universe changed, either for the better or for the worse.

But I have to say that DC has really slam dunked it in events with Sinestro Corps and with 52. But they screwed it with Amazon Attacks and with Countdown.

[Death&Rebirth]

This all boils down to preference; if you like superheroes just saving the world without any public criticism, then it's DC. If you like superheroes struggle to help people while the general public hates them, then it's Marvel.

Agree. But Spider-man was always, since the beginning, a story of the hero that gets no appreciation for his work, about responsibility for our actions (or lack of).

I like the perspective of bringing the (super)heroes back to human realm and make them share the same problems, the same dilemmas that the average joe has to face during his lifespan. Marvel it's more bringing the (ugly) side of humanity to the heroes, while DC always was about making stories about heroes that become roles-models. Almost perfect. Although there are some heroes and titles in the MU that share much of that image of perfection (Captain America, comes to mind, as an hero that nothing he does has evil intend or it's misunderstood by the people) and, likewise, there were DC titles that were pretty much downgrading heroes to their more humane mask (I remenber reading a DC 2000 story with Manimal or something and it was pretty badass).

Besides this, i have to agree that now most of MU titles are utter crap. Mindless, aimless, no context, non-provoking, emotionless piece of paper that they print and worst is that they think making heroes dying and rebirth is a good thing to stir the audience (well, DC isn't innocent either in this. How many times have superman died? And last i heard it will happen again in the near future). How many times have the audience watched Jean Grey/Phoenix die? The problem isn't in killing, but the quick and unexplained rebirth (which basically covers for the fan initial outrage).

I don't see how "DC universe is more rich, diverse and interesting than the Marvel universe". The Green Arrow/Canary marriage is nothing more nothing less that seeing peter parker hooking up with MJ or more lately Black Pather with Storm. I see that both had have better times and they share a good amount of crap and some gems. The problem is that, both go for quantity and despise quality and since there isn't a good third party they will continue to flood the market with x new titles, x new heroes/villains and x new teams. That's why in terms of diversity and being interesting i look to DH titles more. Shame that Crossgen didn't continue with their path and decide to push for the MU/DC approach. I miss the good times i had in reading "Sigil", "Scion", "Mystic" or "Meridian".
Good times indeed.

I think it's safe to say that Thanos is dead. He's along with Death now, as shown in the final pages of Annihilation, right after Nova ripped Annihilus' intestines out.

The question is not much more if you see him dead, but how many important characters do you know that died, keep dead. And Thanos is quite one of the villains that have more affection from the general public. I don't see them (specially Quesada) let him dead for long.

[Femto]

With DC, it's about how great the superheroes are, but with Marvel, it's how the superheroes struggle with the community and get them to trust the heroes.

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with that.

That's just the type of stories these companies tell though, I was talking more about the lore behind these books.

But to address some of your points, I don't think that DC is trying to regress to the Golden Age, I think they're just trying to cherish what came before them and what ultimately built them into what they are now. I don't know what Final Crisis is about exactly but it seems like that's trying to move the DCU forward. It's basically what Geoff Johns has been doing in all of his books (and I'm sorry if I talk about him too much, I think I've developed a mancrush on him) move things forward but incorporate the past.

Look at what's happened to the main characters in the DC Universe over the years though: Superman got married (and DC doesn't seem to want to undo that) and recently adopted a kid, Batman has gone through 3 Robins and has a kid now (and Dick Grayson went from Robin to Nightwing and badass), there has been 4 Flashes and Wally alone had a huge, forward moving story arc that started with him being a douchebag all the way to him being awesome and learning about the Speed Force and being married with twins. I guess nothing's happened to Wonder Woman and god knows what the fuck is going on with Aquaman but you see where I'm going here.

In the Marvel Universe, well, Spider-Man is unmarried and pretty much back to his 60's status quo, Wolverine regained his memories I guess, Iron Man is still Iron Man, the Hulk is the same, I think. The only things that seem to have that DC momentum are the FF which now have 2 kids (even if the FF themselves act almost exactly like they did in the 60's) and Captain America who is dead. The latter is up in the air but I hope to god that they keep Steve Rogers dead and let Bucky take the Captain America mantle completely.

I just feel that Marvel lacks that forward movement that DC has. It almost feels like they're too afraid to touch the stuff that Lee, Kirby and Ditko did.

I mean, the Silver Surfer is Galactus' herald again, for crying out loud.

It's seems like Marvel is more intent on changing surroundings and let it's characters react to that whereas DC tries to change the characters themselves.

[Eldo]

Besides this, i have to agree that now most of MU titles are utter crap. Mindless, aimless, no context, non-provoking, emotionless piece of paper that they print and worst is that they think making heroes dying and rebirth is a good thing to stir the audience (well, DC isn't innocent either in this. How many times have superman died? And last i heard it will happen again in the near future). How many times have the audience watched Jean Grey/Phoenix die? The problem isn't in killing, but the quick and unexplained rebirth (which basically covers for the fan initial outrage).

Actually, DC is much more guilty with killing characters off. Infinite Crisis, Titans, New Gods, etc. But what Marvel has done is that they've killed off their more iconic characters like Captain America and Jean Grey. And to their credit, Jean Grey hasn't come back to live yet.

The question is not much more if you see him dead, but how many important characters do you know that died, keep dead. And Thanos is quite one of the villains that have more affection from the general public. I don't see them (specially Quesada) let him dead for long.

Well, Jean Grey has remained dead for a while now...and I don't think Thanos would part from Death, from the fixation with her when he was alive. I can't think of any major resurrections under Quesada's editorial at this moment. Unless Thanos comes back and is revealed to be a skrull.

But to address some of your points, I don't think that DC is trying to regress to the Golden Age, I think they're just trying to cherish what came before them and what ultimately built them into what they are now. I don't know what Final Crisis is about exactly but it seems like that's trying to move the DCU forward. It's basically what Geoff Johns has been doing in all of his books (and I'm sorry if I talk about him too much, I think I've developed a mancrush on him) move things forward but incorporate the past.

That's what Infinite Crisis was supposed to do. But the One Year Later thing didn't really change the status quo of anything. Yes, it does move DCU forward, but doesn't stay for long. As with incorporating the past, it's a hit or miss for me. I don't particularly care for it and would rather see some new characters. I feel like they're bounded by their past.

Look at what's happened to the main characters in the DC Universe over the years though: Superman got married (and DC doesn't seem to want to undo that) and recently adopted a kid, Batman has gone through 3 Robins and has a kid now (and Dick Grayson went from Robin to Nightwing and badass), there has been 4 Flashes and Wally alone had a huge, forward moving story arc that started with him being a douchebag all the way to him being awesome and learning about the Speed Force and being married with twins. I guess nothing's happened to Wonder Woman and god knows what the fuck is going on with Aquaman but you see where I'm going here.

In the Marvel Universe, well, Spider-Man is unmarried and pretty much back to his 60's status quo, Wolverine regained his memories I guess, Iron Man is still Iron Man, the Hulk is the same, I think. The only things that seem to have that DC momentum are the FF which now have 2 kids (even if the FF themselves act almost exactly like they did in the 60's) and Captain America who is dead. The latter is up in the air but I hope to god that they keep Steve Rogers dead and let Bucky take the Captain America mantle completely.

Well, Batman has actually gone through 4 Robins. And I do like Nightwing. But with the Flash (with Bart Allen) I wasn't quite sure what the hell that was going on, getting amateur writers to write something that's worse than drivel, only to 'kill' him off in less than a year (I'm aware that he's not dead, only trapped in the future and kind of forgotten possibly until Final Crisis). And I think the return of Wally West and the kids has gotten a lot of negative reviews on it. I think they screwed up there. The Flash made an unpopular change, and DC knows it.

With Spider-Man's BND, I think Quesada pulled it through by making Spider-Man single again, because the stories told right now is much, much better than previously. His rationale for it makes sense too - Peter Parker/Spider-Man was supposed to represent the everyday working guy, and it seems unrealistic that he's married to a supermodel. And he was living in Stark Tower too. I'm kind of glad that Peter Parker/Spider-Man is an unlucky loser again, at least an unlucky loser who isn't married to a hot supermodel and living in luxury at Stark Tower.

With Superman, there really is no need to change the marriage, because he's already beloved by everyone, and is married to a woman at the same level as himself in his civilian identity. Spider-Man and Superman are characters in different surroundings, and their civilian and superhero status are worlds apart. While I admit that Spider-Man's status quo has reverted back to the 60's, and given my golden age dislike with DC (I don't hate all of it, but I think DC is overdoing it a bit ), this may sound hypocritical. But the 'regression' is contained in Spider-Man only, while DC's return to the Golden Age is throughout their universe and is overdoing it a lot. With Wolverine regaining his memories, it really didn't serve a lot in a story sense, since Wolverine Origins doesn't really explain anything about his origins (but sold well). Iron Man's status quo has changed after Civil War; he's running SHIELD, and that means he's basically running the world. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a lot of change in status quo in Marvel than in DC, and they stick.

It is my opinion that when Marvel makes status quo changes, it sticks. With DC, not so much. I can only make examples with the Quesada/DiDio era, because I wasn't really that active into comics back then. Look at Infinite Crisis. The general DC universe has not changed because of it, and has reverted back to what pre-crisis was. Look at what happened at the aftermath of Civil War. The whole damn place changed because of it. In regards if the DC universe is more interesting or not, I can't rightfully decide, because they both represent different things in superheroes.

[Femto]

I agree that they screwed up with the Flash.

I hated how they brought in horrible writers for the relaunch and I hated how the only solution they could come up with was killing Bart Allen off but I thought the return of Wally with his kids was off to a good start. Unfortunately, all the whining on the internet ruined it. From what I understand, people weren't happy with Daniel Acuna's artwork (I personally think it's great) and made a big stink about it. You know Mark Waid is a great writer and you know how he defined Wally in his Flash run so I had complete confidence in his ability to bring the Flash back to greatness but Waid is also a very sensitive guy and the comments people were making about his partner got to him and he decided to drop the book. A huge opportunity ruined because of idiotic whining on the internet. I don't know what the Flash's status is at the moment, I think the new writer on the book was praised by Geoff Johns but I don't even know if he's on the book yet.

I do agree that Infinite Crisis barely changed anything (aside from making Batman less of an asshole) but I don't really know the extent to which it affected other books so I can't go into detail on that one.

And we might disagree here but the Marvel Universe is far more fickle than the DC Universe. Keep in mind that we're only talking about a few years' worth of stories here, if you look at the bigger picture you'll see that Marvel always manages to revert to it's 60's roots. In fact, Civil War was yet another effort to return to that era as Quesada had mentioned constantly that one of the raison d’être for the book's existence was to go back to that era were heroes weren't always friends with one another and create a more tense environment for heroes. I mean look at Spider-Man, the only thing they haven't done yet is bring back Gwen (and Quesada wanted to). Norman Osborn? Back from the dead. Aunt May? Ditto. Harry Osborn? Ditto again. Ben Reilly? A clone, never happened. He's not even mentioned despite being like a brother to Peter. Peter and MJ's daughter? Never happened. Organic webshooter? In fact, JMS' entire story arc? Never happened. Marriage? Never happened. What's the point? Compare that to Flash or even Batman. There's a big difference.

Tony Stark will eventually get out of S.H.I.E.L.D. and probably revert to his drunken old self, Steve Rogers will return eventually, the Initiative will disappear eventually, etc, etc, etc, and everything in the Marvel Universe will soon go back to something that's akin to what it was in the 60's eventually. DC doesn't do that, DC has more respect for the forward momentum that it's character carry. I can't find a better example than the Flash. Even Green Lantern, despite reverting to the Corps and Hal Jordan, is moving forward what with the power rings not being susceptible to yellow anymore and the whole spectrum of emotions concept.

DC moves forward while looking at the past.

Marvel looks at the past and moves in that direction.

And I could argue that the current Spider-Man stories are better because the writers are better.

I had no qualms with a married Spider-Man whatsoever.

And I find Quesada's "I have to revert Spider-Man to his 60's self for future generations to enjoy" to be pretentious and absolutely arrogant.

I mean, it's not like we don't have enough of a single Peter Parker with the movies, the cartoons, Ultimate Spider-Man, Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane and Marvel Adventures Spider-Man, right?

And Secret Invasion?

That looks like retcon central.

[Death&Rebirth]

Well, Jean Grey has remained dead for a while now...and I don't think Thanos would part from Death, from the fixation with her when he was alive. I can't think of any major resurrections under Quesada's editorial at this moment. Unless Thanos comes back and is revealed to be a skrull.

Actually she did, in X-Men: The End, although that figures as probable ending to the X-men run (which will never end for the most logical editorial reasons). Also in Phoenix: Deadsong and Phoenix: Warsong it's heavily hinted that it might occur once again.

Question: As anyone been reading "Kick Ass"?
Seems interesting for the first issue. Seems a bit Marvel Ent. self-promotional in some dialogs. If M. Millar doesn't screw this up , it might be end good.

[Tempest]

And Secret Invasion?

That looks like retcon central.

Bingo. With [spoiler]Henry Pym[/spoiler] being revealed as a Skrull in Secret Invasion #1, the Superhuman Registration Act already looks like it's going to be written off as part of the Skrull plot.

[Femto]

I don't mind retcons.

I mean, continuity is a bitch that writer's have to deal with and retcons can be good in the right hands (Parallax, Bucky) but Marvel seems far more content with maintaining a status quo than DC is.

[Eldo]

And we might disagree here but the Marvel Universe is far more fickle than the DC Universe. Keep in mind that we're only talking about a few years' worth of stories here, if you look at the bigger picture you'll see that Marvel always manages to revert to it's 60's roots. In fact, Civil War was yet another effort to return to that era as Quesada had mentioned constantly that one of the raison d’être for the book's existence was to go back to that era were heroes weren't always friends with one another and create a more tense environment for heroes. I mean look at Spider-Man, the only thing they haven't done yet is bring back Gwen (and Quesada wanted to). Norman Osborn? Back from the dead. Aunt May? Ditto. Harry Osborn? Ditto again. Ben Reilly? A clone, never happened. He's not even mentioned despite being like a brother to Peter. Peter and MJ's daughter? Never happened. Organic webshooter? In fact, JMS' entire story arc? Never happened. Marriage? Never happened. What's the point? Compare that to Flash or even Batman. There's a big difference.

Tony Stark will eventually get out of S.H.I.E.L.D. and probably revert to his drunken old self, Steve Rogers will return eventually, the Initiative will disappear eventually, etc, etc, etc, and everything in the Marvel Universe will soon go back to something that's akin to what it was in the 60's eventually. DC doesn't do that, DC has more respect for the forward momentum that it's character carry. I can't find a better example than the Flash. Even Green Lantern, despite reverting to the Corps and Hal Jordan, is moving forward what with the power rings not being susceptible to yellow anymore and the whole spectrum of emotions concept.

Now, with Civil War, it fits in a real life context because who really wants atomic bombs walking around without a leash? I have no problems with that rationale about heroes not being friends with each other as with the past (I'm presuming that this was before any 'teams' were formed, like Avengers), I personally like a bit of tension amongst them. I don't necessarily think that's 'heading to the past' to me without reading Joe Quesada's comment on it, and I wouldn't have noticed it. I'm not quite sure if there was a whole era of superheroes that distrust and created tensions with each other. The only other thing I know of regulating superheroes was Watchmen. With DC's direction, it's blatantly obvious that there are plenty of golden/silver/bronze age references and reappearance of those characters, which could bring a hate/love reaction because of the direction and tied up to the past. Marvel's handling is much more subtle, if it is the case.

With Spider-Man, to be fair, Aunt May and Norman Osborn were resurrected or have 'never died at all' before the Joe Quesada era. I think they did acknowledge the Clone Saga though, given Spider-Man's dislike for clones. I'll agree with you on Harry Osborn, I don't know what the hell he's doing there. And I didn't like JMS entire story arcs about the Other and stuff, so that didn't matter to me. Now the marriage thing. I was a supporter for the marriage, but now that I've read some BND arcs, I don't really care for it that much. Let's face it, the stories before had Spider-Man finishes patrol, goes home to his supermodel wife in Stark Tower, whines about how the Daily Bugle has him on front page as a menace, and MJ reminds Peter how he's married to a supermodel and living in goddamn Stark Tower and how it's not all that bad. Peter feels better about himself and have sex with his hot wife. The end. I don't think it's just the reason that better writers wrote Spider-Man better. The moment Spider-Man got married, the playfulness of the character waned, and so did his interaction with female characters (he was married after all, and all the female characters were hot). I can't think of any memorable arcs that happened in JMS' run. There's only so many stories you can tell about stress on marriage, and frankly, I was tired of it. I wasn't reading Spider-Man before, in all honesty, until after the end of Back In Black, which was...meaningless.

I agree with you that Flash and Batman has a richer history, and they work very well. That's what I love about these characters.

It's hard to have a stance on this, because I agree with you in some regards, but disagree with you at the same time. I agree that there are some DC characters has a richer history than Marvel characters, with Batman, Flash, etc. There are some great direction by DC right now, such as what Green Lantern is doing right now with the lead up to the Blackest Night, but the DC universe in general? Nothing much. I think that's why I like Morrison's Batman more than Dini's; Morrison is attempting to change the character, while Dini's stories to me feel bland, like something plucked out of a cartoon. Marvel has a way of changing the entire universe and it is apparent throughout the books. DC just...doesn't really do it, or stay by it for long enough. My prime example is comparing the aftermath of Infinite Crisis and Civil War; which of those two had a longer impact on the respective universes and the changes it bought?

Marvel doesn't care about continuity. DC does but overcompensates. Is Green Lantern a better book than Iron Man? Yes, definitely. But is the DC universe in general better than Marvel? That's really debatable, and I can't really decide. While I enjoy some DC books more than anything Marvel puts out, DC has a tendency to release a lot of bad, bad books that really make my eyes bleed, and I hate them for it. Marvel doesn't have that sort of failure rate for me. Do I need to mention Amazon Attacks and Countdown?

Actually she did, in X-Men: The End, although that figures as probable ending to the X-men run (which will never end for the most logical editorial reasons). Also in Phoenix: Deadsong and Phoenix: Warsong it's heavily hinted that it might occur once again.

Well, let's face it: New Exiles and X-Men: The End was a way for the once legendary writer Chris Claremont to not fuck up the current X-Universe. It gives him a playground to play with without screwing anything in the mainstream universe. The End was never set in continuity at all, so Claremont can write whatever the hell he wants. I haven't read Deadsong or Warsong, but I heard it's more that Phoenix is coming back, not Jean Grey herself.

I know it's rule of thumb that characters come back to life all the time in comics, but give Marvel a bit of credit for keeping her dead for a while, yeah? My opinion is that she wouldn't come back until after Quesada's reign, and probably resurrected under someone else's editorial. Comics are after all a business. If enough people want Jean Grey to come back to life, she probably will in the near future. Although, if someone like Stilt Man dies, he's probably still dead.

With Secret Invasion being retcon central, wasn't Infinite Crisis too? And that was in a universal and cosmic scale, by actually altering the past through the fabric of reality. At least Secret Invasion has kept the retcons down to a somewhat grounded scale, instead of grand cosmic events and the near collapsing of worlds/planets/universes.

[Femto]

I don't think we're going to agree on the marriage issue here. Spider-Man has... had been married for 20 years and if you can't find some good Spider-Man stories in that time then you're not looking in the right places. Nothing fantastic but enjoyable stuff and I never thought his marriage was an issue. It resolves his girl problems but c'mon, who reads Spider-Man comics to see which girl he's dating at any given time? The fact that a supposed loser and nerd like Peter gets so much hot ass goes almost in direct opposition to the nature of the character. I prefer to have him as someone that got super lucky once or twice and that's it. I think Quesada is a little bit of a hypocrite to tell you the truth. He OK's all these JMS arcs that are really serious and heavy on the character while constantly complaining about the lack of playfulness you mention. And then he just retcons it all. Peter David in Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man would've been amazing is they'd just let the book grow and if it had started on its own instead of being tied to The Other. Spider-Man just hasn't had good writers, that was the main problem with the books, not the marriage.

I also find your comment on Spidey "acknowledging" the Clone Saga to be completely erroneous because every instance that I've read of a writer mentioning that particularly storyline is done with tongue firmly planted in cheek in spite of the fact that the storyline, good or bad, affected Peter Parker as a character rather deeply. Peter lost his daughter and Ben Reilly (who was like a brother to him) and, save for a tired joke here and there, that is all but ignored today. Compare that to Geoff Johns (yet again) and how Sinestro taunts Kyle regarding Alex DeWitt being folded in a refrigerator.

Marvel is more content with simply "forgetting" about important events and House of M, Civil War and Secret Invasion or whatever comes next will also be forgotten in time. Make no mistake about that. Your comparison of Infinite Crisis and Civil War is arguable because Infinite Crisis did create 52 universes but then again, that's also going back to the multiverse before the first Crisis so I don't know what I'm trying to get at here. I do agree that Marvel has a more "better" books out there than DC (or at least more books that I'd actually read as opposed to just Geoff Johns books for DC) but the Marvel Universe tends to be fickle and that's my main point here. Marvel is happy with the status quo in spite of trying to shake things up every once in a while. DC is happy with moving characters forward and establishing networks of relationships between them.

Quesada's goal with Civil War has been well-documented. The fact that heroes were too friendly with one another was one of the three "genies" he wanted to put back in the bottle, the other two being the overabundance of mutants (which he "fixed" in House of M) and Spider-Man's marriage (which he "fixed" in One More Day). It wasn't so much that there was distrust among heroes, it was just that back then heroes just didn't know each other and then they'd go through the motions of fighting each other before they'd befriend. These editorial driven "movements" are really the root of the problem here.

When Civil War and the Initiative are forgotten I'll be sure to come back here with a couple of "I told you so"s. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind that as much as it sounds I would, if Civil War had been a good book. As it stands, it's just an editorial driven, average book whose effect on the Marvel Universe will be negated in time. What's the point? We can argue about which story impacted their respective universes more until our cheeks turn red, but it'd say Infinite Crisis, aside from the fact that it demands so much knowledge from the DCU to enjoy (although that adds to what I've been saying about the richness of the DCU and how it adds to these books), was ultimately a better book than Civil War and that's more important that whatever whim the current editor-in-chief is high on.

Or we could argue about that too.

I like how we're waiting a couple days before replying.

It's what I call a civil e-discourse.

We'll have to agree to disagree at some point though.

[Tempest]

God this is boring. One of you call the other a fag already and let's have ourselves a real internet argument.

[LordMune]

comics suck and you're all gay lanterns with gay rings

[Femto]

I was reading the Blitz arc in Johns' Flash run and I choked up when Barry Allen shows up in the end.

"In a few years I'll be venturing back several years more. I'll give my life to save the world. But that's okay. My race has been run."

[Eldo]

I don't think we're going to agree on the marriage issue here. Spider-Man has... had been married for 20 years and if you can't find some good Spider-Man stories in that time then you're not looking in the right places. Nothing fantastic but enjoyable stuff and I never thought his marriage was an issue. It resolves his girl problems but c'mon, who reads Spider-Man comics to see which girl he's dating at any given time? The fact that a supposed loser and nerd like Peter gets so much hot ass goes almost in direct opposition to the nature of the character. I prefer to have him as someone that got super lucky once or twice and that's it. I think Quesada is a little bit of a hypocrite to tell you the truth. He OK's all these JMS arcs that are really serious and heavy on the character while constantly complaining about the lack of playfulness you mention. And then he just retcons it all. Peter David in Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man would've been amazing is they'd just let the book grow and if it had started on its own instead of being tied to The Other. Spider-Man just hasn't had good writers, that was the main problem with the books, not the marriage.

I've found previous Spider-Man just the same, generic stories and nothing with any impact with it. In fact, I have not read much on Spider-Man stories prior to Civil War (I only picked up a couple of issues with the Other, but I dropped it again afterwards). In fact, I only really started reading Spider-Man regularly because of Brand New Day. So in a way, it has influenced readers like ourselves. The only Spider-Man stories with the marriage was back in the 90's era, with Spider-Man becoming more destructive, much darker and the marriage was in trouble, and with the introduction of Ben Reily in the clone saga. I can't really consider them good stories, because they really weren't. I think many people would prefer to have a BND without the marriage being retconned, but BND is working right now, so I can't really fault it.

As I mentioned previously, the change was to ground the character to make it like the 'every day' male, and having a supermodel as a wife is not something an 'every day' male would have. I can see why people relate to Spider-Man. In a way, he's just like many of us, struggling with a job, financial problems, etc. We can relate to this, because we can see that Spider-Man is as fragile as any of us, instead of the gods we see in DC comics without a care in the world for their civilian life. I think readers can sympathise and relate to Spider-Man's problems; for all the good he's done, he is not appreciated, and his civilian life is always in shambles. Can people still relate to Spider-Man, when he finishes his superheroing, and goes home to his comforting, hot supermodel wife? Possibly not. Peter is really, really lucky when he stuck onto that chick, and his loser status had been elevated since. With DC comics, the Flash and Superman marriage works because we don't really see the fragile side of the characters that we see with Spider-Man. I think the Black Panther and Storm marriage will continue to work, as they are in a way, similar to the DC characters in which that they don't have to worry about the civilian part of things and continue being superheroes.

Don't get me wrong, I have been a supporter of the marriage, but I am really enjoying the BND stories more than ever, and my interest with Spider-Man has increased significantly. I think OMD was badly handled, but the aftermath of that has been interesting. I think it's debatable whether or not BND has better writers, or if they can be more creative and have more freedom now that Peter has reverted to his lovable loser status.

I also find your comment on Spidey "acknowledging" the Clone Saga to be completely erroneous because every instance that I've read of a writer mentioning that particularly storyline is done with tongue firmly planted in cheek in spite of the fact that the storyline, good or bad, affected Peter Parker as a character rather deeply. Peter lost his daughter and Ben Reilly (who was like a brother to him) and, save for a tired joke here and there, that is all but ignored today. Compare that to Geoff Johns (yet again) and how Sinestro taunts Kyle regarding Alex DeWitt being folded in a refrigerator.

I contributed Spider-Man's tongue in cheek remarks about clones as part of his personality, as he always quips even in the worst of scenarios. His mentioning of the clones is in a way, acknowledging that the Clone saga did happen. I haven't read about how Peter lost his daughter, but I doubt anyone who knows about this could use it against him as not everyone knows that Peter is Spider-Man, and unlike Kyle, who's identity is well known not only amongst fellow Lanterns but also amongst his 'rogues' gallery' as well can have it used against him. There is no context for any characters to mention how Peter lost his daughter, clones saga, etc if they do not know what had happened to him as Peter Parker or as Spider-Man. This suits Marvel just fine, because I think they mentioned that the Clone business was confusing, and well, I guess you have a case in point that I have never heard of Spider-Man losing a daughter in the stories.

Marvel is more content with simply "forgetting" about important events and House of M, Civil War and Secret Invasion or whatever comes next will also be forgotten in time. Make no mistake about that. Your comparison of Infinite Crisis and Civil War is arguable because Infinite Crisis did create 52 universes but then again, that's also going back to the multiverse before the first Crisis so I don't know what I'm trying to get at here. I do agree that Marvel has a more "better" books out there than DC (or at least more books that I'd actually read as opposed to just Geoff Johns books for DC) but the Marvel Universe tends to be fickle and that's my main point here. Marvel is happy with the status quo in spite of trying to shake things up every once in a while. DC is happy with moving characters forward and establishing networks of relationships between them.

Now, I think the main repercussions of those events are still present today. House of M decreased the number of mutants that are in the Marvel Universe. Civil War split the superhero community into two, and we have yet to see what happens in Secret Invasion yet. The events themselves may be slowly 'forgotten' as time passes, but the effect it bought is still there.

With what DC is doing, they can simply 'fix'/retcon things by explaining it in terms of a grand cosmic scale. Like Superboy punching a wall and sending shockwaves that changed people's personalities, certain events, continuity errors. Like how after Infinite Crisis, continuity was changed there to allow writers to selectively hand pick their own continuity for their characters, and to ignore the rest of the past as something 'that was changed'. The 52 Earths were...actually quite horribly written. Blame Countdown. They had the potential to be interesting, but they weren't. It was a way for DC to incorporate Kingdom Come universe, other elseworld stories, etc. Has the DC universe become more interesting because of it? I honestly don't know, but they haven't really done any good stories yet.

Marvel doesn't use the 'crisis' method to fix their continuity, so whatever happened in the past has happened. But instead of selectively deciding which past to retcon, they choose to ignore it in a sense. Good for readers who just want to read good stories, bad for the hard core fans who demand an explanation.

When Civil War and the Initiative are forgotten I'll be sure to come back here with a couple of "I told you so"s. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind that as much as it sounds I would, if Civil War had been a good book. As it stands, it's just an editorial driven, average book whose effect on the Marvel Universe will be negated in time. What's the point? We can argue about which story impacted their respective universes more until our cheeks turn red, but it'd say Infinite Crisis, aside from the fact that it demands so much knowledge from the DCU to enjoy (although that adds to what I've been saying about the richness of the DCU and how it adds to these books), was ultimately a better book than Civil War and that's more important that whatever whim the current editor-in-chief is high on.

I agree with you, I actually thought Civil War was enjoyable, but if I have to rate it out of ten, it would not get high marks. Infinite Crisis was a much better read than Civil War. But what happened afterwards and stuck on longer, would be Civil War. Infinite Crisis promised to change the entire DC universe. It didn't. What it changed was the events leading up to Infinite Crisis. Civil War promised to change everything, and it did. I do see your point about DC keeping with the past and continuity, but they're afraid of making any permanent changes to the characters. If they do, they're simply retcon it ala Infinite Crisis. In regards to Marvel actually sticking with the Initiatives and changes in status quo, I guess you may be right that they may not retain for very long or forever, but at least they've stuck by it for a while, which DC really hasn't done with One Year Later, but they left some ambiguity to imply there may be some changes when there actually wasn't.

Now, I think that DC has a lot of ideas and great concepts, but they're hampered by terrible writers who can't do anything with it. I could name Countdown as a primary example. There are a lot of great ideas in the book, but the writing is absolutely terrible. I simply can't pretend to enjoy it even though I acknowledge it's a good idea. I cannot say in truth that DC universe is more interesting, because of the terrible writing that the writers at DC is capable of which ruins the book. If the DC universe, and all the books were written by Johns, Rucka, Waid, Morrison, then I'll have to agree with you definitely. But they aren't, and their ideas are wasted by terrible writers incapable of story telling. I can't translate 'good concepts and good ideas' as DC being more interesting than the Marvel Universe if the story is lousy. I think this is the biggest hurdle that is preventing my agreeing with you, because Marvel has been quite steady with their books, while the worst of the pile has always been with DC.

If we were to compare particular DC and Marvel characters, I would agree with you. But taking into account the entirety of DC and Marvel it is still rather debatable.

I'm a bit busy and tired, so I'm probably not really addressing your points as best as I could.

[Femto]

Before I sink myself into replying to Eldo's post, I'd like to mention two things.

Maybe I imagined it, but I think I read somewhere that Final Crisis will bring back hypertime and, another rumor, Barry Allen: Rebirth by Geoff Johns and Ethan Van Sciver, which I'm very mixed about.

It fits with what Johns said in an interview about him and Ethan working in a big, non-Green Lantern project and that his Rogues Revenge series with Scott Kollins will lead into bigger things with the Flash.

I really, really, really don't want Barry Allen back from the dead though.

He's DC's saint and his appearances after his death have been that much more powerful because of it.

That being said, if it ever happens, it'd be an amazing comic.

[halfnhalf]

Okay so I'm taking this one class at school called American Superheroes and all we do is discuss how superheroes embody the American ideals. Somehow my professor is able to get the man, Stan fucking Lee to come talk to us and also allow for a little QandA aswell. Now question wise, i am fucking clueless about what to ask him. Knowing how much most of you guys are comicbook fans what questions do you want to ask him???

[Femto]

Ask him what he thinks about Quesada having Spider-Man make a deal with the devil to undo his marriage.

I'd also ask about how he feels about certain DC stuff.