|
Post by Alchemist-X on Apr 20, 2007 19:28:41 GMT -5
That Gwen storyline was why I stoped reading any spiderman but Ultimate Spiderman actually.
As for the Hulk thing, I'd like to point out the whole "Hulk is missunderstood" angle. Hulk causes piles of colatoral damage so it would't be wrong to think that his destruction lead to some accidental deaths over the years. This coupled with missunderstanding, and a government that hates him inflates that number to whatever it was. So really the main issue isn't Hulk being banished, or what the Illuminati and SHEILD thought, but rather what Hulk has to say on the whole mass murder subject.
I'll call it right now and say that the whole bodycount will be retconed away with something like "That was all propaganda to get everyone against the Hulk"
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 20, 2007 23:02:49 GMT -5
It's a very grey area. If I hand you a gun and tell you to shoot someone, are you responsible, or am I? I'd contend that I'm not, as long as you're mentally competent to make your own decisions, and I'm not coercing you (shoot him or I will kill your girlfriend, for example). But the Hulk operates mostly emotionally. He has a minimum level of control, but only a minimum. If I handed a five year old a gun and something tragic happens, I do bear a big measure of responsibility because I have handed a dangerous tool to someone unqualified by maturity, skill, or temperament to use it properly. About the safest thing they could have done with the Hulk is immobilize him until he reverted, and then kill Banner while he slept. Anything else, in the context of nu-Marvel, is dangerously irresponsible. Nu-Marvel. The Coors of Comics! Exactly, and in many of the cases it is exactly like handing a little kid a gun, with the added aspect of poking the kid with a stick until he uses that gun.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 21, 2007 6:56:25 GMT -5
Right, firstly the "Sins Past" thing is kinda ridiculous. It was a poor story. Poor. Not catastrophic, not hideous, not absolutely atrocious. Poor. Not even JMS' worst. The Other was pure rubbish. Sins Past was jsut poor. That's judging by the story itself as a whole, looking beyond the Gwen thing. The Gwen thing I admit was WILDLY out of character, unbelievably and rubbish, but it's also been exageratted beyond belief. Here's the thing; it does not tarnish past stories with her in it. It does not ruin ASM 122. It does not stop a classic from being a classic. It does not mean there can never be a good spider-man story again. What it means is that this particular stolry is wildly off-base. It does absolutely nothing to affect other stories, unless they are aimed solely at following UP on this story. Otherwise, it's just any other tale.
I have found, I think, a similie to explain why I think you guys look at all this stuff WAAAAAAY too black and white.
There's a TV drama which ended last year called "The West Wing". In addition to being an awesome show with some of the best acting in the history of the moving picture, it was also very good at making you think. Now, at the ending to series 3, there was a build-up to the finale. There was an aborted terrorist attack and the President discovered that the mastermind behind it, Abdul Shareef, was the foreign minister of a middle-eastern nation (A Saudi Arabia analogue called Qumar) and the brother-in-law of that country's ruler. There was no way of taking down Shareef. They couldn't arrest him, obviously, and they couldn't confront him because Qumar would just deny everything. They had evidence, they knew it was him, but they couldn't demonstrate anything to get Qumar to hand him over.
The president was put in a very deep, and certainly not unrealistic dilemna; let Shareef go free, in full knowledge that he was a terrorist leader who had plotted to kill hundreds, who HAD kiled hundreds and who would kill more... or else break international law and follow his advisors' advice and have Shareef covertly assassinated in an incident blamed on a plane crash. It was all suggested efficiently, believably. These advisors were not stereotypical evil, self-interested people or whatever, they were good men who the viewer had known for seasons, good men doing their jobs and you knew there was no personal thing at stake here. The president dithered and deliberated as they had a narrow window before Shareef returned to Qumar, and the president had to shake his hand himself before he did. At the very last possible second, the president finally made his decision: "Take him."
I had watched the entire West Wing up until then. I KNEW the president's character. I knew he was a very good man, I knew that if he existed he'd be pretty much the best, most honest president America had had in a very very long time. I knew he tried to do what was right and I knew just how tight his situation was. That said, I obviously disagree with assassination. I disagree with any military death outside on the field of battle, with the dealth penalty in ANY cases etc. To my mind, the President had compeltely made the wrong decision, he did the wrong thing, he was responsible for death. BUT... I didn't stop liking him. I didn't suddenly think he could not be trusted, I didn't decide to boycott the show or that he had just automatically become a villain. It added a much deeper level to his character, I fully understood why he did it, even if I disagreed with it. And I could still like him in spite of it.
But the way this site seems to view it, the levels of black and white and no middle ground, you suggest I should have either sworn off the West Wing or watched it HATING the President for what he had done. I don't do that. Life's not black and white, it's all shades of grey and there's always a middle ground and it makes for better drama and deeper characters without detracting from either.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 21, 2007 7:13:50 GMT -5
Doom, I don't understand all of that in the context of Hulk not being the only one responsible for all of the deaths placed in Hulks hands.
I can see it as yet another statement about your boy Stark being a good guy still.
How do you aplly it to those who provoke the Hulk knowing there is a high probability they will just wind up causing civilian casualties?
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 21, 2007 16:45:32 GMT -5
1. I am applying it in general to the lack of ability to see black and white on this forum.
2. Your logic is utterly irrational. If a psychopath killed fifty children and retired to a house somewhere poplated, are you saying we should NEVER, EVER try to apprehend him because he might kill more?
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 21, 2007 17:02:52 GMT -5
Life's not black and white, it's all shades of grey and there's always a middle ground ... Thank you for explaining this to all of us. I'm sure no one here had ever felt this way. I'm sure none of us have experienced things in our lives that might have caused us to come to this simple realization. I'm sorry, but this just comes across as so condescending! Sometimes I wonder if you really think you are Victor Von Doom! The thing is, we are not talking about life here, we are discussing super-HERO comics. Note the emphasis on hero; not protagonist. There's an assumption built into the concept that these characters will behave in a heroic fashion. In non-superhero comics or other forms of literature, I don't expect the main character to behave by any certain moral code. The ambiguity is acceptable because there's no expectation of heroism. But if the character has been labeled a "hero", then it does limit him in regards to the actions he can take and stay within that label. If we take a character like the Hulk, who has been called a hero, then have said character go out and cause (even unintentionally) hundreds or thousands of deaths, and said hero does nothing to attone for these actions or prevent such actions in the future, then he ceases to be a hero. Is he still an interesting character? Sure. But he's not a hero. Perhaps that is the real crux of the issue. Some of us are willing to suspend our disbelief in order to keep Hulk a hero while others, prefering realism, are not.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 21, 2007 17:28:10 GMT -5
Huh. That would explain a lot.
I want to read amazing stories, and if making an awesome story means the protagonists dont' always act heroically, and it can be ambiguous, I'm fine with that because it's the logical evolution of super hero comics to my mind.
Apparantly on this site, I'm in the minority. But I hope at least you can understand how I feel.
And I never intended to be condescending, it's just that there seems some sort of sheer willfullness not to understand that just because it's not one extreme it doesn't automatically make it the other extreme!
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 21, 2007 18:23:05 GMT -5
1. I am applying it in general to the lack of ability to see black and white on this forum. 2. Your logic is utterly irrational. If a psychopath killed fifty children and retired to a house somewhere poplated, are you saying we should NEVER, EVER try to apprehend him because he might kill more? Nah, that's not my point at all. I'm just saying that when you go after the Hulk there are others that share the blame. If the psychopath you speak of is there by the responsibility of others, they are to blame too. You support registration. All of this was brought to the forefront by Stamford. Nitro killed all those people, the New Warriors took the blame from the public. Same thing here.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 21, 2007 19:01:25 GMT -5
The thing is, we are not talking about life here, we are discussing super-HERO comics. Note the emphasis on hero; not protagonist. There's an assumption built into the concept that these characters will behave in a heroic fashion. In non-superhero comics or other forms of literature, I don't expect the main character to behave by any certain moral code. The ambiguity is acceptable because there's no expectation of heroism. But if the character has been labeled a "hero", then it does limit him in regards to the actions he can take and stay within that label. ... Perhaps that is the real crux of the issue. Some of us are willing to suspend our disbelief in order to keep Hulk a hero while others, prefering realism, are not. This is it exactly. I purchase comic books to read a certain kind of literature about a certain kind of character. If I want to read/hear about real people, I'll generally seek out other forms of entertainment. To use your example, Doc, I might tolerate that president but I could not regard him as a good man with respect for the law. See, part of the heroic tradition is being better than the villain. Sometimes that means the villain gets away with things. And that sucks big time. But usually there is another opportunity to deal with him within the structure of the law. The problem with ignoring the law "just this once" is that it becomes easier and easier to rationalize doing so. And the law, which flows (in most countries) from old documents codifying hard won rights, is really the only thing that keeps civilization from descending into barbarism. Consider the modern Sudan if you want to see what lawlessness leads to. Comics want to be realistic now, and to that end they have declared the Hulk responsible for many deaths. They cannot then demand we suspend our belief in the real principles of ethical behavior so as to regard him as a hero still. All he can be now is what the Illuminati declared him to be: a menace to be dealt with in some permanent fashion. Their failed attempt to do set, and the events of World War Hulk, could well be what sets him on the path that leads to the Maestro.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 21, 2007 21:18:56 GMT -5
Right, firstly the "Sins Past" thing is kinda ridiculous. It was a poor story. Poor. Not catastrophic, not hideous, not absolutely atrocious. Poor. Not even JMS' worst. The Other was pure rubbish. Sins Past was jsut poor. That's judging by the story itself as a whole, looking beyond the Gwen thing. The Gwen thing I admit was WILDLY out of character, unbelievably and rubbish, but it's also been exageratted beyond belief. Here's the thing; it does not tarnish past stories with her in it. It does not ruin ASM 122. It does not stop a classic from being a classic. It does not mean there can never be a good spider-man story again. What it means is that this particular stolry is wildly off-base. It does absolutely nothing to affect other stories, unless they are aimed solely at following UP on this story. Otherwise, it's just any other tale. I have found, I think, a similie to explain why I think you guys look at all this stuff WAAAAAAY too black and white. There's a TV drama which ended last year called "The West Wing". In addition to being an awesome show with some of the best acting in the history of the moving picture, it was also very good at making you think. Now, at the ending to series 3, there was a build-up to the finale. There was an aborted terrorist attack and the President discovered that the mastermind behind it, Abdul Shareef, was the foreign minister of a middle-eastern nation (A Saudi Arabia analogue called Qumar) and the brother-in-law of that country's ruler. There was no way of taking down Shareef. They couldn't arrest him, obviously, and they couldn't confront him because Qumar would just deny everything. They had evidence, they knew it was him, but they couldn't demonstrate anything to get Qumar to hand him over. The president was put in a very deep, and certainly not unrealistic dilemna; let Shareef go free, in full knowledge that he was a terrorist leader who had plotted to kill hundreds, who HAD kiled hundreds and who would kill more... or else break international law and follow his advisors' advice and have Shareef covertly assassinated in an incident blamed on a plane crash. It was all suggested efficiently, believably. These advisors were not stereotypical evil, self-interested people or whatever, they were good men who the viewer had known for seasons, good men doing their jobs and you knew there was no personal thing at stake here. The president dithered and deliberated as they had a narrow window before Shareef returned to Qumar, and the president had to shake his hand himself before he did. At the very last possible second, the president finally made his decision: "Take him." I had watched the entire West Wing up until then. I KNEW the president's character. I knew he was a very good man, I knew that if he existed he'd be pretty much the best, most honest president America had had in a very very long time. I knew he tried to do what was right and I knew just how tight his situation was. That said, I obviously disagree with assassination. I disagree with any military death outside on the field of battle, with the dealth penalty in ANY cases etc. To my mind, the President had compeltely made the wrong decision, he did the wrong thing, he was responsible for death. BUT... I didn't stop liking him. I didn't suddenly think he could not be trusted, I didn't decide to boycott the show or that he had just automatically become a villain. It added a much deeper level to his character, I fully understood why he did it, even if I disagreed with it. And I could still like him in spite of it. But the way this site seems to view it, the levels of black and white and no middle ground, you suggest I should have either sworn off the West Wing or watched it HATING the President for what he had done. I don't do that. Life's not black and white, it's all shades of grey and there's always a middle ground and it makes for better drama and deeper characters without detracting from either. I don't think this example applies in the least to what we're discussing. President bartlett was choosing between two hard moral choices and made a decision to minimize loss of life. He didn't make a decision to kill wantonly. In fact, by this standard, the heroes of the Marvel Universe should have been morally compelled to have a permanent solution to the problem of the Hulk a decade ago in Marvel time. And to defy your standard of what you see as black and white standards I provide examples. To wit, I don't think anyone here doesn't think The Punisher has killed people. It's what he does. Have we accepted him as something of an anti-hero? I have. He's a man who uses exceptional skill to stop drug dealers, rapists, murderers et al. He might use questionable methods sometimes but he's accepted as someone who goes into those gray areas. So too is Wolverine. So we've accepted that some heroes aren't shiny bright white hats. What they've done with the Hulk is WHOLLY AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT. They've decided that a long established take is no longer allowed and that change has completely changed the heroic core of the character. Given the history of the Hulk, and how many times he has been accepted, saved, allowed to leave without being apprehended, allowed to marry, allowed to be honored as a hero for the last 45 years the story simply doesn't lead to the idea that he has the lives of several hundred to several thousand on his conscience. I'm sorry, he's been pardoned by the president, he's been celebrated, I think with a parade at one point and asked to rejoin the Avengers. Now we don't have to be slaves to continuity, but by your own point, there would have been a certain time at which the Marvel Universe would've needed to take exception to a Hulk that left hundreds of bodies in his wake. Oh and by the way, even marvel itself has some divide over this issue. A friend of mine referred me to a discussion between Dan Slott and Bendis about this very subject. fortressofortitude.wordpress.com/2006/04/09/the-hulk-collateral-damage/So I think there is some resistance to this idea and not by just us "fans who see thing black and white." Some of us are actually just looking at the implications on the character and how it changes the very core of what the created persona is like. So I think your definition of us as being black and white is far too simplistic...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 22, 2007 0:27:39 GMT -5
It's good to know that at least SOME Marvel creators understand that what the company's doing now with the Hulk is nothing short of destroying the character as we've known him until now...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 22, 2007 0:44:27 GMT -5
Plus, it's true: if you wanna be "realistic", shades-of-greyish about it, then not just the Hulk, but all of the Marvel characters who have been around for many decades have the blood of numerous persons on their hands...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 22, 2007 3:45:25 GMT -5
I actually wish to point out that I personally have ALWAYS regarded the Hulk as more of an anti-hero than a hero, but as you may have guessed by now I am not an enormous fan of the Hulk! The example I used, imperiux, could apply to sending the Hulk into space- effectively "taking" one life to save hundreds more. It could also apply to supporting registration- in the long term, saving way more lives than it costs. Really? He never broke a law, at least not a United States one. The law is fraught with all sorts of provisos and whatnot and parts of it can be legally suspended for short periods of time, so technically he ept within the national law. You say you could never regard him as a good man again; I counter that as an avid viewer of the series, I KNOW he was a good man and his misdeed did not invalidate all his good ones. Same could be said, as I said, for exiling Hulk and supporting registration. Exactly! I FULLY agree with you in this case, you are definitely right! ....Thank you for just making a brilliant pro-registration argument
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 22, 2007 14:53:47 GMT -5
I actually wish to point out that I personally have ALWAYS regarded the Hulk as more of an anti-hero than a hero, but as you may have guessed by now I am not an enormous fan of the Hulk! The example I used, imperiux, could apply to sending the Hulk into space- effectively "taking" one life to save hundreds more. It could also apply to supporting registration- in the long term, saving way more lives than it costs. Really? He never broke a law, at least not a United States one. The law is fraught with all sorts of provisos and whatnot and parts of it can be legally suspended for short periods of time, so technically he ept within the national law. You say you could never regard him as a good man again; I counter that as an avid viewer of the series, I KNOW he was a good man and his misdeed did not invalidate all his good ones. Same could be said, as I said, for exiling Hulk and supporting registration. Exactly! I FULLY agree with you in this case, you are definitely right! ....Thank you for just making a brilliant pro-registration argument I believe my point has always been that if the Hulk was a murderer, accidental or not, the Marvel Universe should've taken action against him long, long ago. The fact that they didn't reinforces the point that he's likely not a longtime killer. And again, I've always said that there should've been something like a registration long ago and that Tony Stark should've done it long ago, especially given all the developments of Civil War (that he foresaw a super hero battle and huge casualties). So thank you for just making a brilliant argument for the shortsightedness of Marvel storytelling...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 22, 2007 15:26:21 GMT -5
No, it's the EVOLUTION of Marvel storytelling. Yes, there should have been a superhuman law long ago. But there wasn't. So basically what're you saying- that because there should have been one ages ago it should NEVER, EVER be used as a storyrelling technique in comics again? Or else that Marvel should have done the biggest retcon job since Crisis on Infinite Earths? Because you know what, the only thing EITHER of those does is close off story possibilities. I for one am willing to accept the idea that when they first came in, it was World War II, they were seen as saviours and helpers. Then, when they first resurfaced- they were at it again! The world became used to them, and it took something major to kick it into orbit. Are you going to argue the Kang War or whatever should ahve been that? Maybe, maybe. But just because it wasn't done BEFORE, that is absolutely NO excuse not to do it now. That argument is insane. Should Marvel say "Hmm, well we never showed powerful character X before. We have a PHENOMENAL idea for him but theoretically he should have been noticed by now if he existed. Oh well, better toss the whole concept on the scrap heap!" Of course they shouldn't. The very idea is lunacy. The only reason this whole "Should have been registration long ago, should have hunted Hulk long ago" thing is cropping up is because you are so heavily disenfranchised with marvel comics you will find any excuse to try and mock them, to try and poke holes which aren't there or which they can't help, even if you have to ignore reason and common sense to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 22, 2007 16:01:42 GMT -5
That type of argument can just as easily be turned the other way around, Doom; it's as easy to say: well, it's obvious to us that the only reason you can't see or admit how this totally changes the interpretation of the Hulk as a character & flies in the face of 45 years of a consistent take on him & his alter ego, Bruce Banner, is because you are so heavily biased FOR the current Marvel Powers That Be that you will find any excuse to try and defend & support them, even if you have to ignore reason & common sense to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Bong on Apr 22, 2007 16:04:51 GMT -5
Not every change is for the better, by the way... Change doesn't guarantee evolution per se; there's always the possibility to devolve...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 22, 2007 16:08:02 GMT -5
At the end of the day, it's just hypocritical to claim it's unrealistic that no-one tried to take down the Hulk but is apparantly 100% fine and believable that no-one ever died during his many rampages. I know you disagree, I know that's just life but I'll wager there's a lot more I'm willing to freely admit I dislike about the current Marvel than most of you would be willing to say- even to yourself- that you like.
And you know what? That doesn't make Marvel worse for it. It just means I'm not completely prejudiced from day one which sadly cannot be said for perhaps the majority of people on this very site.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 22, 2007 17:14:27 GMT -5
No, it's the EVOLUTION of Marvel storytelling. Yes, there should have been a superhuman law long ago. But there wasn't. So basically what're you saying- that because there should have been one ages ago it should NEVER, EVER be used as a storyrelling technique in comics again? Or else that Marvel should have done the biggest retcon job since Crisis on Infinite Earths? Because you know what, the only thing EITHER of those does is close off story possibilities. I for one am willing to accept the idea that when they first came in, it was World War II, they were seen as saviours and helpers. Then, when they first resurfaced- they were at it again! The world became used to them, and it took something major to kick it into orbit. Are you going to argue the Kang War or whatever should ahve been that? Maybe, maybe. But just because it wasn't done BEFORE, that is absolutely NO excuse not to do it now. That argument is insane. Should Marvel say "Hmm, well we never showed powerful character X before. We have a PHENOMENAL idea for him but theoretically he should have been noticed by now if he existed. Oh well, better toss the whole concept on the scrap heap!" Of course they shouldn't. The very idea is lunacy. The only reason this whole "Should have been registration long ago, should have hunted Hulk long ago" thing is cropping up is because you are so heavily disenfranchised with marvel comics you will find any excuse to try and mock them, to try and poke holes which aren't there or which they can't help, even if you have to ignore reason and common sense to do so. No it's short sighted. Marvel once upon a time, took some time to build a story, instead of just imposing a story where none existed. Why did all this retro backstory about Civil War exist with Iron Man knowing it was coming, for example? All it did was contradict hundreds of previous stories and in fact make him look like an idiot for do nothing to prevent it. Are you really going to tell me there wasn't a better way to build to a story, like Marvel did with the mutant menace and registration for years? No, they wanted the impact NOW. And that's fine. But then I get to complain that the story came from nowhere. And with the Hulk, gee, you decide the Hulk is a menace that needs to be eliminated. How about someone write a great Hulk story where you show him doing something that warrants this action and give us the reader time to see the families and feel the weight of the story, the emotion of it, so that it means something? Nah, just say he killed a lot of people and get rid of him to set up World War Hulk. I really don't know how to define shortsightedness other than that. I am a bit tired of your accusations of us ignoring reason and common sense and the such. Should I start making such notions about your capacity to understand things?
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 22, 2007 17:17:53 GMT -5
At the end of the day, it's just hypocritical to claim it's unrealistic that no-one tried to take down the Hulk but is apparantly 100% fine and believable that no-one ever died during his many rampages. I know you disagree, I know that's just life but I'll wager there's a lot more I'm willing to freely admit I dislike about the current Marvel than most of you would be willing to say- even to yourself- that you like. And you know what? That doesn't make Marvel worse for it. It just means I'm not completely prejudiced from day one which sadly cannot be said for perhaps the majority of people on this very site. Again, your opinion. I notice you have almost nothing but venom for almost all of DC's product. Should I infer that you are a classic Marvel Zombie? Or maybe you're just not able to say anything else so you're making it personal? I for one think if you can't just attack people's arguments, you shouldn't bother. making things personal is just a third rate tactic. Again, there are some sites where I'm absolutely sure you would be in the majority opinion and thus wouldn't feel so outnumbered by us old fogeys who can't enjoy anything new...
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Apr 22, 2007 23:48:29 GMT -5
I have found, I think, a similie to explain why I think you guys look at all this stuff WAAAAAAY too black and white. Likewise, I have devised a metaphor: the pot calling the kettle black and white. Lay off the ad hominem attacks.
|
|
|
Post by balok on Apr 23, 2007 9:24:25 GMT -5
....Thank you for just making a brilliant pro-registration argument My argument is no such thing. Don't twist my words around. Those laws that codify respect of individual rights are good laws and worth supporting. Not all laws can make that claim, and the SHRA certainly cannot.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 23, 2007 10:38:33 GMT -5
At the end of the day, it's just hypocritical to claim it's unrealistic that no-one tried to take down the Hulk but is apparantly 100% fine and believable that no-one ever died during his many rampages. I know you disagree, I know that's just life but I'll wager there's a lot more I'm willing to freely admit I dislike about the current Marvel than most of you would be willing to say- even to yourself- that you like. And you know what? That doesn't make Marvel worse for it. It just means I'm not completely prejudiced from day one which sadly cannot be said for perhaps the majority of people on this very site. Again, your opinion. I notice you have almost nothing but venom for almost all of DC's product. Should I infer that you are a classic Marvel Zombie? Or maybe you're just not able to say anything else so you're making it personal? I for one think if you can't just attack people's arguments, you shouldn't bother. making things personal is just a third rate tactic. Again, there are some sites where I'm absolutely sure you would be in the majority opinion and thus wouldn't feel so outnumbered by us old fogeys who can't enjoy anything new... I'll agree here with Rex, Phantom, and Dr. Bong - it's tiresome being told over and over again that because I don't like what Marvel is doing, I must be ignorant or prejudiced or whatever. This site is generally pretty congenial and that's one of the things I enjoy about it. Doom, I realize that you tone yourself down here as compared to your CBR postings, and I can appreciate that, but it does seem like lately all your debate essentially boils down to "I like Marvel, you guys don't, therefore you must be idiots". I often don't even feel like chiming in on a subject you are involved in, because I don't think you will actually pause and consider anything anyone has to say if they don't agree with you. It seems you are so defensive now that you automatically assume we are closed-minded simpletons with nothing of any value to contribute. That's very insulting. I'm glad that not everyone on the board agrees with each other as that would be boring. I thought we had a very interesting debate regarding Avengers Annual 10 a couple weeks ago, and while it got impassioned, no one resorted to personal attacks. I think the Hulk debate is another interesting topic, but it has again devolved into pointless name-calling - much like numerous topics did during Civil War. I honestly do want hear opposing opinions, but I have to admit it sometimes makes it hard for me to respect those opinions when the poster resorts to attacking other posters.
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Apr 23, 2007 10:52:55 GMT -5
No it's short sighted. Marvel once upon a time, took some time to build a story, instead of just imposing a story where none existed. Why did all this retro backstory about Civil War exist with Iron Man knowing it was coming, for example? All it did was contradict hundreds of previous stories and in fact make him look like an idiot for do nothing to prevent it. Are you really going to tell me there wasn't a better way to build to a story, like Marvel did with the mutant menace and registration for years? No, they wanted the impact NOW. And that's fine. But then I get to complain that the story came from nowhere. Actually, I can agree with that. I can argue that it had to to have impact but one respect where I feel DC are infinitely superior to Marvel is the build-up to big events. It should have had abuild-up, etc, I agree completely. Although I don't think you can blame an entire event of plus 100 comics for a comment about Iron Man seeing it coming made in ONE. Well actually, we did see him trash Las Vegas, which was pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back. This one I'd argue they built up much more than civil war since one could argue the entire Hulk title has been building up to this for some time. I suggest you try to notice again. Let's recap; I was a large fan of DC pre-Infinite Crisis, I wrote reasonably positive reviews of the Infinite Crisis lead-ins, I believe many plotlines of 52 were nothing short of brilliant, I feel One Year Later was a failure but there were aspects I enjoyed, and I am now very much enjoying the Flash book, and I am going to get Countdown. I suspect that's more positive towards DC than the majority of this site. Firgve me, I cannot bring myself to believe that anyone can quite seriously dislike literally every single marvel book being put out. When that claim is made, I can't help but think there is a degree of prejudice. Firstly... you know who I am on CBR? Just a note, there is a poster called DoctorDoom over there, but I am not he. I actually one UP my marvel love here, I tone DOWN my pro-registration support. I'd actually say debates these day boil down to this: Poster 1: Hey, Marvel suck! Poster 2: Yeah, Marvel really suck! Poster 3: I too dislike Marvel! Poster 4: You know who suck? Marvel Poster 5: Actually no, I don't believe that to be the case Poster 1: Maybe not, but Marvel suck Poster 2: Hey, you're right, they do suck! Poster 3: You've won me over, Marvel suck! Poster 4: You know who suck? Marvel And if I am any more hostile, it is because I constantly feel myself needing to DEFEND what I like which I don't think I should have to do. Firstly, I don't think that way and I'm sorry you believe I do. Secondly, I often don't feel like chiming on on manys a subject either, simply because I know I'll end up making apoint which will either be ignored or brushed aside with zero consideration. The problem is, tananile, that the majority of this board DO agree with one another.
|
|
|
Post by imperiusrex on Apr 23, 2007 12:05:13 GMT -5
Well look, you're not challenged out of the blue. If someone puts up a post it's usually in response to you. You've got over a thousand posts. And I still say I've seen far more negativity about DC than positives from you. I've gone back in your posts before and done comparisions (such as the time you used quotes from a mark waid issue of FF out of context) and I'm not going to do that again because you've got a thousand of them. And you're still missing my point. For example, the Hulk story--I said where was the buildup with emotion? Can you name someone who died from the Hulk rampage, the after effect, the people's lives who were shattered and did you care about them? You see for me story has to have an emotional content rather than realism. You can hype all the realistic storytelling you want but if the characters don't emotionally connect then it's pointless. And that's a majority of what Marvel is doing now. Big events with little emotional content. For example why should I care that the Hulk lost his happy Gladiator world when he's a mass murderer and a menace who doesn't belong on earth? Why should I care that he's going to hurt a bunch of superheroes who are morally ambivalent anyway? In other words, why would I root for anyone in the upcoming World War Hulk? Why should I care? Marvel isn't giving a reason to have emotional investment. If none of the characters are taking a stand that puts them in my favor, I can't care about them. Now take Astonishing X-Men and X-Factor both marvel books that I like a lot. There are characters you want to see be happy and get something out of their four color life. Madrox, especially in X-factor. And because I care that something good happen to these characters I read their adventures. That's how most good storytelling unfolds. There's no one to root for in this Hulk story. Certainly not the Hulk anymore--he's such a danger that his happiness is no longer a concern. Everyone is a negative factor and you don't really want any of them to win out or be happy and that's why it's a failure to me. That's why Civil War was a failure to me. And let's face it if you don't like these stories then you don't like most of Marvel's product because they're so tightly tied together. That's not my fault.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 23, 2007 13:42:01 GMT -5
Well actually, we did see him trash Las Vegas, which was pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back. This one I'd argue they built up much more than civil war since one could argue the entire Hulk title has been building up to this for some time. One of the main points of Bruce Jones' run was Banner feeling guilty because he might have caused the death of one innocent child... His run ended in issue 75, so I don´t see how the Hulk title has been building up to this "mass murder Hulk" for some time, like you claimed... Firgve me, I cannot bring myself to believe that anyone can quite seriously dislike literally every single marvel book being put out. When that claim is made, I can't help but think there is a degree of prejudice. Sorry but who made that claim? Many forum members enjoy some of the books Marvel is currently publishing, but I could easily invert that argument and say that if you like any and every Marvel book, you´re an apologist... Firstly, I don't think that way and I'm sorry you believe I do. Secondly, I often don't feel like chiming on on manys a subject either, simply because I know I'll end up making apoint which will either be ignored or brushed aside with zero consideration. The problem is, tananile, that the majority of this board DO agree with one another. No, like Tana Nile stated we do not always agree with each other, and FYI even on topics like classic Avengers issues we had strong disagreements. But what´s really strange is that it seems that you´re implying that if we DO agree with each other is because we´re all wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase65 on Apr 23, 2007 15:28:23 GMT -5
Doom, my friend, you claim everyone on here has been seeing things only in black and white. Yet you yourself as of late keep making sweeping blanket statements. It's almost like you're trying to rile people up. I hope I'm wrong, because this hasn't seemed to be your style lately.
|
|
|
Post by Tana Nile on Apr 23, 2007 17:05:54 GMT -5
Firgve me, I cannot bring myself to believe that anyone can quite seriously dislike literally every single marvel book being put out. When that claim is made, I can't help but think there is a degree of prejudice. Exactly who are you talking about here? It certainly isn't me, as I have been enjoying F4, Black Panther, She-Hulk, Amazing Spider-Man, Captain America, Ultimates (when it comes out), Ultimate X-Men, Casualties of War:Winter Soldier, and a bunch of other stuff. I may not be happy with the direction I see Marvel going, but that doesn't mean I don't like some of their product, and I hope to like more. Actually, you posted a review of a book here, can't recall which one, where you said "this is a copy of my review at CBR". When I looked at it, it did seem familiar. CBR is the only other comics board I look at , so I clicked over there, and sure enough, there was the same review, word for word. So what I was saying above was that I appreciate that you don't have all the Pro-Reg stuff on your messages here like you do over there. I think that would just be poking the bear with a stick if you did it here! I understand that you may feel outnumbered here, but when you come off as questioning people's intelligence because they simply prefer a different style of comics story-telling, you invite a lot of hostility. The people here generally make good, reasoned arguments and there's no need to rip them for having different preferences.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on Apr 23, 2007 17:57:43 GMT -5
I haven't been following this topic lately, so I hadn't realized it had gone out of control (the very quick increase in numbers of page should have been an hint : . I'm 4 pages behind, and it looks like all the posts are pretty long, so it will take a bit to read and comment properly. In the meantime the general advice is the usual, take a step back, a deep breath before posting and no personal attacks on other forum members.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on Apr 25, 2007 14:58:22 GMT -5
I haven't been following this topic lately, so I hadn't realized it had gone out of control (the very quick increase in numbers of page should have been an hint : . I wouldn´t say it really went out of control, Shiryu. Heated arguments, yeah, but no one actually lost his/her head. You´re wildly exaggerating!!
|
|