quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: Spider-Man, the X-Men, Daredevil, Captain America and many more.
These are characters whose origins, unlike Superman's, date back to the 1960's. They have been modernized but never changed in a radical way, not how Waid is doing with BR right now.
MoS happened because, unlike Marvel, DC had made a mess of its continuity by having too many of them running around at the same time.
If Spider-Man can exist for over 40 years with only one origin which seldomly gets mentioned and when it is is only in passing and to modernize it slightly, why can't Superman have one that's only 17 years old?
Eh, we were talking about characters under DC conditions, Crisis and no aging and all. I don't know how Marvel handles continuity. All I can think of (not having many Marvel comics in my life) is this: - The comics weren't tied to each other for as long as Superman's. I know that there are a lot of Spider-Man and X-Men titles, but as far as I know each one has always kept separate storylines (like Bat-Man), only making crossovers once in a while. - More creative teams have worked in those titles than in Superman. Maybe Marvel has another way of handling the revamps, I don't know, or maybe it's just that when they suck (in this particular book, obviously), they fire them instead of keeping the team around for four years...
The point is, I haven't read any issues of those comics and don't know if they suck. I don't know if their sacred continuity is respected or not, or if it's confusing and convulted or not. I do know that Superman sucks nowadays (I think we all agree on that).
Another thing; you say their origins have been modernized. Has Man of Steel ever been modified in the slightest? Retroactive changes don't count.
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: Not so, they just got burned out, it happens.
Stan Lee did 100 issues of Fantastic Four with Kirby. Where they convulted? Yes, and to this day they are praised for what they did there.
You mean they were convulted in a "the stories are so convulted" way or in a "the continuity barely makes any sense, it's hard to follow and requires a lot of research to be enjoyed" way? From what I've read of Kirby and Lee's Fantastic Four, I'd say it's the first one.
quote:Originally posted by ManofTheAtom: Depends on the writer's ego.
Geoff Johns manages to make his stories work WITH continuity, other writers who feel they are above it can't handle it so they make it a mission in life to tell people how bad continuity is...
It's all in the ego...
He doesn't MANAGE to work with continuity, he CHOOSES to do so. It's evident that this guy likes doing it. If he didn't like it he wouldn't do it. So Waid can't handle it? What about his past work? You know that Waid is more than able to work with continuity. If he doesn't do it now it's because he doesn't want to. Who knows, maybe Johns will feel the same way some day.
This "depends on the ego" view of you is incredibly simplistic. I can't believe you really think that.
