Quote:

I'm Not Mister Mxypltk said:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Grant Morrison told Psycomic shortly after he left DC and moved to Marvel that in his opinion it's obvious that Sue (Richards) wants to fuck Johnny but she doesn't so she fucks Namor.

Both parts of that statement, of course, are false.

At no time in the existance of the concept of the F4 has Sue ever shown any sexual desire for her brother OR for Namor.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's just an interpretation. It could probably be a joke. These aren't real people, so if the writer says so then it's true. If the next writer doesn't like this then he may choose to ignore this interpretation or to find a contrincate way to explain how it was possible. Anyway, I'm sure that idea (if Morrison was beuing serious) would never get published. Basically what you're saying is that Grant Morrison is a hack for having that "sinful" thought in his head.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>This was a writer who, out of ego and because he had just lost his job at one of the big two publishers, again, because of his ego, wanted to get noticed by as many people as possible so he came up with the most shocking thing he could think of to get his little comic noticed.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can't believe how simple you are in your reasoning. Don't you think that it's a bit of a coincidence that every decision you don't like that is made by a comic writer is because of ego? "Wait, what that guy just said goes against my opinion -- he must be an egomaniac!" So the writer knows that the idea sucks and makes no sense, but he writes it anyway becuase of his big ego. Has it ever occured to you that, maybe, just maybe, those ideas you despise so much are considered good ideas by the writers who make them? And maybe, just maybe, that's why they write them and not because of ego?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Now, the different between a Grant Morrison and say a Larry Hamma is that Grant Morrison is capable to get away with whatever he wants to.

If Marvel had said "fine, let him do his comic the way he wants to do it" then Sue would have indeed had sex with either her brother or Namor.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When has Grant Morrison been allowed to get away with something like that? And by Marvel???

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>This, you have to keep in mind, would have been an out of character action for all characters involved. It would have been completely driven by the writers own understanding of the concept.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Everything is driven out of the writer's own understanding of the comic. If he doesn't understand the character, then why the fuck would he write it?!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>As interesting as a "Spider-Man runs into a bank and kills people with an Uzi" story might be, such a story would NEVER, EVER happen for the simple reason that such an action would go against the basics of the character of Spider-Man.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe that seems interesting to you, but not to me. Does Spider-Man have lots of muscle and big man boobs in the story?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Same holds true for the F4.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And that's why Morrison's idea is never gonna get published. Heck, even if it did make sense (say Morrison explains Sue's psyche and somehow manages to make an idea like that make sense) it wouldn't get published.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>The problem here is that, more times than none, characterization and character (at least in comics) tend to take back seat to popularity.

Look at Birthright.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ummm... weren't you using the fact that Birthright ISN'T popular as an argument against it in another thread?
And, also, didn't you just say in your last post that it's all about the audience's reaction to a story? In fact, you said that it doesn't matter if the story is good or bad, what matters is how the audience reacts to it.
Whenever I point out contradictions like these in your posts you tend to ignore me. Let's see what you do now.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>That's one story that's build more on the writer's popularity than on actual characterization.

Here you have a writer that's decided to re-write two (if not more) character's personalities so they better suit his own understanding and desires of what he wants them to be.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's what every good Superman writer has done in the past. Denny O'neil and John Byrne, for example. If it wasn't for guys like these the character would be exaclty the same he was 60 years ago.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Continuity is just one word that encompases many others.

Continuity includes consistancy.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There can be consistancy without a strict continuity.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>This consistancy goes from "the Batcave's under Wayne Manor, not Central Park in New York" to "Spider-Man would never use a gun to kill a group of innocent people" and "Jor-El was the one that pushed the button that sent Kal-El to Earth, not Lara".</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That last one is ridiculous. What's the problem if someone changes that detail?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>The kind of continuity you talk about is the made up continuity that hack writers who don't like to be consistant in their work have come up with to convince people that all continuity is bad.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Example?
BTW, all comic continuity is made up.
"who don't like to be consistent"? I bet that's because of ego, too.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>And you've fallen for it...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">D'oh! It's all one big conspiracy, isn't it?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Not necessarily.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The writer DOESN'T have to know how the character thinks????

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>I wouldn't let Stephen King write a Bugs Bunny cartoon just like I wouldn't let Mark Waid write an episode of Young and the Restless.

You have to understand that there's no such thing as uber-writers who can write anything and everything.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's true, but what you have to understand is that just because you don't like a writer's interpretation of a character doesn't mean it's not valid.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Writers are no different from pencilers, they have to work to their strengths.

If a penciler draws a better Yosemite Sam than he does Optimus Prime than this penciler shouldn't work on the Transformers comics.

If a writer does better incest stories than he does super hero stories then this is a writer that should only work at Vertigo or Max, no matter how much he'd like to do a Superman story because no matter how good his incest or other adult-themed stories may be, his Superman will always be off.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Grant Morrison has proven several times to be an excellent superhero writer. His Animalman series was way ahead of it's time and his JLA revitalized the concept.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>If a writer has to change a characters personality and characterization to work on that comic then this is NOT a good writer.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If he changes them with no basis then he's a bad writer, but if he finds a way to change them that makes sense then he's a better writer than the one that simply sticks to the previous writer's interpretation. That's how characters evolve, not because meaningless details like who pressed the button are being respected.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>A writer has to respect the character, be consistant in how he uses that character.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Right, he has to be consistent. If he wants to make the character change he has to have a basis for making it.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>A story where Captain Kirk has a few beers with a group of Klingons and gets so drunk that he wakes up with in bed with a three Klingon women might be interesting but it wouldn't be consistant with the character's personality.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It would if it's properly explained.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>He can't go from hating Klingons because they killed his son to singing Kumballa(sp?) with them just because the writer thinks he should.

Any writer who thinks that his view point, no matter how inconsistant with what came before may be, is the only one that matters, is a writer with an ego.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Everyone has an ego, what you mean is that he has a big ego.
When have Mark Waid or Grant Morrison ever said that their interpretations of the characters they write are the only ones that matter? Knowing those writers, they probably welcome somebody changing the character after they leave.
The fact that an interpretation of a character is different from the one before doesn't mean it's not consistent. Like I said before, if the writer is good then he's gonna explain how it's possible.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>But between pleasing the writer and having a story that's consistant with both the character's personality and his background, what would you rather have?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whichever makes a good story.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>For the writer all that matters is what makes him happy. Some writers, like Morrison and Waid, have no problem altering the characters they are working on to make sure that's accomplished... and they are popular enough to get away with it.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They are WRITERS. They do it simply becuase they believe they can tell a good story. What's the fucking point in making a story if only you are gonna enjoy it? There's a reason why Morrison and Waid have a better name than Lefield and McFarlane. Lefield and McFarlane have reached at some point insane levels of popularity, but that kind of popularity based on "coolness" and man boobs isn't significant for two reasons: a) It doesn't hold, and b) They are not respected by serious writers and serious readers. Morrison and Waid have a good name in the industry because, unlike the other two, they are actually writers and they know what they're doing.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>If Mark Waid wants to take the decision to send Kal-El to Earth out of Jor-El's hand's and put them on Lara he can do it... NOT because it's a good idea, but because he's popular enough to have it happen.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, isn't Birthright "not popular" and doesn't it suck because of that?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>If a writer like Grant Morrison wants to have Sue have sex with her brother then he can get away with it for the same reason, his popularity.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh, yeah? In what issue did that happen?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>It didn't happen for any number of reasons, maybe some editors got in his way and no matter how popular he is he couldn't do it, who knows.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But didn't you just say he could get away with it?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>I am sure that if given the chance he would do it in a snap of the fingers.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Probably, if he wasn't kidding about it.

Knowing Morrison, maybe he has another motivation for doing a story like that: fucking with people like you. I'm serious about this, Morrie is very capable of doing something like that, and I think it would be hilarious to read the reactions he'd get.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Well, since "good" is subjective and not a standard that everyone must follow, like say the sky being blue and water being wet, the above is just as subjective <img border="0" title="" alt="" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But you just said, "it may be the best story ever, but that doesn't matter".

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>See, the above is just part of the popularity contest/lie about continuity being bad idea that many writers have come up with.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, the secret conspiracy. I look forward to reading the next paragraphs.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Writers who say continuity is bad don't do it because continuity is bad, they do it because continuity stops them from doing what they want to do.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Take over the world?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Example:

1985, writer A does a story where Character 1 goes into a Dennis.

For the next 20 years this character starts goes to Dennis on a weekly basis, becomes friends with the help, has his own table, etc.

2005, writer B comes in and says how continuity prevents him from doing the stories he wants to do with Character 1.

He makes a big deal about how character 1's visits to Dennis have become redundant and predictable so he offers to redo character 1's first visit to Dennis WITHOUT rebooting the other character's history, just that one detail.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh my Gob, WITHOUT rebooting???

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>So writer B does a story where Character 1 goes into Dennis... and he has the story read like this is the FIRST time this has ever happened.

No one recognizes character 1, he has to wait in line to get a table, the service is all wrong and by the end of the story he decides he doesn't like Dennis anymore, he's going to Rascal's instead.

The above is, of course, a metaphor.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm glad. I was worried there for a second that Dennis might have to close.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by ManofTheAtom:
<strong>Writers who say continuity is bad are only looking to tell the SAME old stories that others have already done but make it look like it's the first time it's ever happened... but they don't want people to know this, so they have to not only badmouth continuity but belittle anyone that dares follow it.

Take Waid and his work on the F4.

He's going to introduce the idea of the Fantastic Three... well, a decade ago Tom DeFalco already did this idea, but clearly Waid doesn't want anyone to know that so he has to make a big deal about how continuity is wrong when in reality all he wants to do is do a Fantastic Three story without having it be compared to the one DeFalco did a decade ago, and to accomplish that he has to make people forget what DeFalco did and mock those that dare remember. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"mock those that dare remember"...
Like Mulder?

That's just fucking hilarious. I mean it. Did you come up with all that by yourself or did you read it in some website about conspiracies?

There's one big flaw in your story, though. I don't like strict decades old continuities. Am I part of this big conspiracy, too? In that case, you should watch out what you say around me. Maybe I'll send Kurt Busiek and Alan Moore to get you.



Mxy......................

Okay, let me try again...Ahem! Mxy................