quote:
Originally posted by I'm Not Mister Mxypltk:
You know what they are because you've been reading the books for 11 years. And if Superman has one "free" year, Alan Scott has a decade (just an example... Alan Scott has way more than a decade).
What about Spider-Man? Since he didn't experience a Crisis his continuity is longer than Superman's, with more stories that are still considered to be in continuity.

JMS manages to use this continuity perfectly, yet Waid can't do the same with Superman...

quote:
They don't have to be simplistic, they have to be accesible. For readers and for writers. Maybe you like researching a comic's history as if it was a sport or a role playing game, but that's you.
You bring up 24: I agree with what you say, if I want to know what's going on in chapter 15 I have to know what happened in the previous chapters... But that's only fourteen chapters, not 17 years of weekly comics. Big difference. 24 is accesible, Superman isn't.
Superman is accesible, the books just suck because they are outdated, they fit better in the 70's than today.

quote:
By that point of view, as soon as MoS gets old (I personally think it alredy has, and I bet most of my generation thinks the same) it has to be replaced? I think so too. It can't last forever.
So far it has lasted perfectly for 17 years, until now, until Waid came along and fucked it up, till Berganza fucked up the books. MoS has NOTHING, not ONE thing to do with ANTYHING that's happened in the comics in over five years.

quote:
No, sir. Death of Clark Kent.
Death of Clark Kent wasn't that bad. I found Kenny Braverman to be a very interesting character.