|
Post by thew40 on May 8, 2006 21:41:40 GMT -5
The Night Phantom: Having a whole legacy of stories being referred to can sometimes bog down a book to the point of where new readers are hard to get into.
Van Plexico: Busiek was a genius, that's for certain. He's what got me hooked on Avengers in the first place.
Busiek is the kind of writer that can make a legacy - a history - of a title accessible to the readers. Honestly, I don't think that Bendis can do that -- at least not like Busiek. It doesn't make him worse than Busiek, just different.
~W~
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 9, 2006 8:25:50 GMT -5
Here's a question . . . Is it automatically a bad story if history is not referred to? If the characterization is fine; the story pacing, set-up and conclusion are good, but with no mention of continunity, past stories, or quasi-ignorance of past storylines over a long, 40-plus history make it a bad story? ~W~ It's a difficult question. In my opinion, a story can completely re-write or ignore the past and still be a fantastic one, but it shouldn't be published in a core book. "What if" had some very nice stories, and I think there are quite a few books that are not canon and that could be used to publish such "elseword" stories, so that the writer doesn't have to worry about continuity. However, if they are published on the core book, attention should be given to continuity, at least to respect those people who have been buying it for 40 odd years. This doesn't mean that every page should have half a dozen of text boxes, and *small* mistakes are allowed, but bigger things should be explained (even in a bad way, but at least the attempt is done). I also agree that the editor should have a stronger position, that's why he is there in the end.
|
|
|
Post by dlw66 on May 9, 2006 8:49:41 GMT -5
Great point about the Elseworlds stories. When Dark Knight first came out in 1985, from the moment it was said "after what happened to Jason", the Jason Todd Robin of the DCU was marked for death. Some stories can be great using continuity, but told out of continuity. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 9, 2006 8:58:37 GMT -5
Here's a question . . . Is it automatically a bad story if history is not referred to? ~W~ No, but (one of) my problem with NA is that history is being reffered to, only the writer doesn´t care to get all the details wright. I don´t think every writer can (or should) be an überfanboy who´ve read every issue that mentions the word Avengers, but then he also shouldn´t try to rewrite the history, adding retcons that, not only don´t make sense, but also are damaging to continuity and certain characters. If 5 years ago someone´d told me that a story with Bucky brought back from the dead to become a cyborg assasin could be one of the best CA arcs ever, I would say that´s the stupidiest thing I ever heard. But Brubaker and Epting´d done exactly that. i agree with you that a book with 40 years continuty that is adressed in almost every issue can be a turn down to many readers, but then why mess up with poor Wanda or kill Hawkeye? The new readers (or Spider- or Wolverinefans) will not care about those characters at all, it will only confuse them, and P.O. the classic fans in the process.
|
|
|
Post by Yellowjacket on May 9, 2006 9:03:27 GMT -5
I still (again) admit that I enjoy NA, but continuity should really be respected as much as possible. And Quesada really should let watch the editors on the writers, especially on the "hot" new ones. They have often great story ideas, but you all are right about that coninuity is essential for a constructed universe like Marvel is.
And that is something one can definitely learn from the letters pages (and the editors answers) in the old issues. Not only they had a regular letters page, but one can almost feel how the editors did strive for a correct continuity - whenever a reader thought having found a flaw, the editor really tried to explain it. That´s still the way it should be handled today.
I think, Bendis is completly wrong when he thinks points like these are today best handled in the internet. When it´s something that happened in the story then the comic is the right place to explain it. And I admit, that says a lot about Bendis and how he cares for continuity.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 9, 2006 9:08:12 GMT -5
Great point about the Elseworlds stories. When Dark Knight first came out in 1985, from the moment it was said "after what happened to Jason", the Jason Todd Robin of the DCU was marked for death. Some stories can be great using continuity, but told out of continuity. Does that make sense? Yes it does, and it would make happy both old and new fans. Unfortunately that's not the way things are happening. Hopefully one day someone will start writing the Avengers and explain most mistakes in the process. I think it could still be done, even just adding a short phone conversation between Cap and Wasp and making them say the right things.
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on May 9, 2006 17:48:41 GMT -5
The Night Phantom: Having a whole legacy of stories being referred to can sometimes bog down a book to the point of where new readers are hard to get into. When poorly handled, it can, but I think Spiderwasp made a neat contrast: There's a big difference between not mentioning the history and totally rewriting it. And indeed, you already seem to understand what I was getting at: Busiek was a genius, that's for certain. He's what got me hooked on Avengers in the first place. Busiek is the kind of writer that can make a legacy - a history - of a title accessible to the readers. Honestly, I don't think that Bendis can do that -- at least not like Busiek. It doesn't make him worse than Busiek, just different. But I do think poor handling of the legacy does count against a writer of a legacy comic. You cite Busiek as a writer who could satisfy both the “old guard” and new fans, in contrast with Bendis, who doesn’t do so well with the former. While you can’t please everybody, and the legacy criterion is hardly the only valid factor upon which to evaluate Avengers writing, I think it’s an important one. And Marvel must think so too, or else it wouldn’t bother maintaining the Avengers name, series, etc. Since serving both newer and older audiences (and you’re on your way to being part of the latter) is possible on a legacy series, why not do it? If Writer X can’t, why not find a Writer Y who can? I was a new reader once too...long before the Busiek run. (Well, he’d already been appearing in the letters pages...) The writer at the time was Roger Stern, and Avengers was over 20 years old. I was fairly new to the Marvel Universe in general. It was clear there was a lot of history I’d missed. But Stern guided me well. When the Sub-Mariner showed up a couple of months later and joined the team, he was a character I was largely unfamiliar with. But I understood the import of this character, a frequent antagonist, being welcomed into the ranks because the writing made it clear. And so not only was the series’ legacy made accessible to this neophyte reader, but it was also made interesting, and I hungered to learn more about the legacy...and eventually I did. When I value Avengers history, I’m valuing not just my time with the series, but what came before I started reading the series...heck, before I was even born!
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on May 9, 2006 18:15:10 GMT -5
I have always been a "good story first" guy-- ask anyone I used to deal with (or, rather, anyone who used to have to deal with me!) on MV-1. That being said, a decent respect for the property at hand would dictate at least a little research being done, before writing. I would also add that one of Kurt Busiek's great achievements was that not only did he write IMO brilliant stories, with excellent characterization, dialogue, pacing, and action, BUT--- he also not only respected AVENGERS history and didn't harm it, he intentionally repaired some things that had been damaged by previous writers and made a lot of it work or make sense again. His run, I think, was undervalued at the time, and will only be more respected in years to come, as people look back on it. There are definately some of us already greatly value Busiek's work and it pleases me to see that there are more. You are absolutely right about his fixing some of the problems from previous writers, especially some of the loose ends that were left hanging after the God awful "Crossing." Maybe he'll come back some day and work his magic again.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on May 9, 2006 20:29:40 GMT -5
No, but (one of) my problem with NA is that history is being reffered to, only the writer doesn´t care to get all the details wright. How do we know he doesn't care? Maybe he just doesn't know. Maybe it's not so much a "screw this story, I'm doing it MY way" and more of a "this was a great story in Avengers West Coast, I'm going to build off it" and then he just doesn't do enough research (he does write a ton of books - it's bound to happen). I think this is also an issue with comics coming out today. A lot of people claim that Bendis ignored "She-Hulk" # 8, which mentioned that the Hulk had never killed anyone. How do we know that he hadn't read that issue before it went to press? I would say that's more the editor's fault than his. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 10, 2006 8:07:17 GMT -5
No, but (one of) my problem with NA is that history is being reffered to, only the writer doesn´t care to get all the details wright. How do we know he doesn't care? Maybe he just doesn't know. Maybe it's not so much a "screw this story, I'm doing it MY way" and more of a "this was a great story in Avengers West Coast, I'm going to build off it" and then he just doesn't do enough research (he does write a ton of books - it's bound to happen). I think this is also an issue with comics coming out today. A lot of people claim that Bendis ignored "She-Hulk" # 8, which mentioned that the Hulk had never killed anyone. How do we know that he hadn't read that issue before it went to press? I would say that's more the editor's fault than his. ~W~ He does not write a ton of books, he writes two (NA and USM), at the time that he started writing disassembled he was writing (Avengers, USM, Pulse(bi-Monthly) and Daredevil). That is four comics, two that have no history except what Bendis wrote and one that Bendis had been writing for years. If you are going to mess with a charater at the scale that Bendis did, you owe it to the readers to do the proper research, and if you don't then you should listen to the editor instead of have the story forced through by EIC. There is no excuse for poor writing, being lack of research or whatever. When a fan can run trucks through your plotholes there are problems.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 10, 2006 9:03:51 GMT -5
Don't know what to think here...
On one hand I would imagine that writing a comic takes a lot of time, not leaving much for research (and after more than 40 years the Marvel Universe has grown up a lot, with series, miniseries, LS, specials etc), on the other I remember Busiek doing a lot of research even for small things and nowadays with the internet certain things should be even easier to find. Besides there is an editor who should check this kind of things...
In the end I say that minor mistakes are definitely allowed, but more research should be done for the main plot points, to make sure they are not flawed.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 10, 2006 9:38:19 GMT -5
Don't know what to think here... On one hand I would imagine that writing a comic takes a lot of time, not leaving much for research (and after more than 40 years the Marvel Universe has grown up a lot, with series, miniseries, LS, specials etc), on the other I remember Busiek doing a lot of research even for small things and nowadays with the internet certain things should be even easier to find. Besides there is an editor who should check this kind of things... In the end I say that minor mistakes are definitely allowed, but more research should be done for the main plot points, to make sure they are not flawed. Exactly, small problems, like a writer forgetting that two charaters meant for one page 20 years ago is no big deal. Saying that the Scarlet Witch went crazy when she remembered her children, which is totally backwards of what actually happened in the comics, is a big deal. Saying that chaos magic never existed even though Strange used it for over 12 issues in his comic, big deal. I think a lot of the problem with Bendis is that he is not making small mistakes that you can write off as obscure facts. He is creating holes in his plots that readers can drive mack trucks through.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on May 10, 2006 11:11:07 GMT -5
He does not write a ton of books, he writes two (NA and USM), at the time that he started writing disassembled he was writing (Avengers, USM, Pulse(bi-Monthly) and Daredevil). That is four comics, two that have no history except what Bendis wrote and one that Bendis had been writing for years. You're also forgetting Secret War and Powers. Not to mention anything he could have been working on on the side. Pitches that didn't make it, stories that didn't work out. And as far as we know, the story could have been rushed to press so that it would coincide with issue 500. There may not have been time to research. How do you know this? Do you work at Marvel? Do you have an inside scoop? The fact of that matter is this - we don't know what goes on inside Marvel's walls. We don't the interior politics. Everyone loves to assume they know, but unfortunately, they don't. The editorial process, the plans that are made, all of that. We're not privvy to that kind of information. Do we know that Tom Breevot (sp) didn't care for Disassembled? Yes. Do we know anything else beyond that? No. Should Bendis have done his research better? Yes. But how do we know if it wasn't just someone not handing Bendis the right books? How do we know that Bendis read the issue and said "well, I hate that book, so I'm doing it my own way?" (which seems so impossibly unprofessional) The fact of the matter is . . . we don't. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 10, 2006 12:24:59 GMT -5
He does not write a ton of books, he writes two (NA and USM), at the time that he started writing disassembled he was writing (Avengers, USM, Pulse(bi-Monthly) and Daredevil). That is four comics, two that have no history except what Bendis wrote and one that Bendis had been writing for years. You're also forgetting Secret War and Powers. Not to mention anything he could have been working on on the side. Pitches that didn't make it, stories that didn't work out. And as far as we know, the story could have been rushed to press so that it would coincide with issue 500. There may not have been time to research. How do you know this? Do you work at Marvel? Do you have an inside scoop? The fact of that matter is this - we don't know what goes on inside Marvel's walls. We don't the interior politics. Everyone loves to assume they know, but unfortunately, they don't. The editorial process, the plans that are made, all of that. We're not privvy to that kind of information. Do we know that Tom Breevot (sp) didn't care for Disassembled? Yes. Do we know anything else beyond that? No. Should Bendis have done his research better? Yes. But how do we know if it wasn't just someone not handing Bendis the right books? How do we know that Bendis read the issue and said "well, I hate that book, so I'm doing it my own way?" (which seems so impossibly unprofessional) The fact of the matter is . . . we don't. ~W~ To be blunt I do know that Tom B was against disassembled, and told Joe Q that it was a horrible idea, however he was overruled by Joe Q and his golden boy Bendis. So, Tom B steped in line with Disassembled because he liked his job. I know this because Tom said as much in an interview. End of story.... Secret War, the 5 issue limited that some how lasted 1 and 1/2 years. Sorry don't count that. Powers, ok I missed one. But it really does not matter if you say you are going to write something that you are being paid for, then you need to do the best job possible, not have fans make excuses for you later. Which if you read you post is exactly what you are doing. If you want to write of all the huge mistakes that Bendis has made in NA to poor researching, be my guest, because that still means he was not doing his job.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 10, 2006 13:29:36 GMT -5
Well, it's true, we don't know much except from what transpires on interviews, and even those should be taken with a bit of doubt.
From what I've seen around, I guess sales are the thing Marvel (and the other publishers) care the most. If Disassembled and NA sold and sell really well, they are probably happy to ignore the mistakes and keep going in that direction.
Hopefully some day a new writer will come on board and slowly fix the problems Bendis left behind, after all we can't be the only ones complaining in the whole "Avengers buyers" arena.
|
|
|
Post by Avengorama on May 10, 2006 18:24:21 GMT -5
I've often wonder if BENDIS! as serious mental issues that he uses his comics to do therapy with. His books seems plastered with women taking it, from going bananas, to [deleted by admin] (alias), it's pretty much always there, he also made jen walters have sex with luke cage, even though the She Hulk wasn't even his character or his book. Maybe it's what gets his rocks off.
His disrespect for characters is mingboggling and doesn't restraint itself unfortunately to women alone, he killed White Tiger, among other characters, for pretty much no reason. Maybe he gets a kick out of raping other people's creations. Go figure.
Although i do have to concede that a good portion of it is just good plain incompetence. This guy's already more than proved he can't write superheroes to save his life.
He has uncanny similarities with Chuck Austen who also did some macabre stuff with women and sexuality, at least he had the excuse of being a porn novel riter before coming to comics. Why did someone ever decided a erotica novelist would make a good superhero writer is beyond me.
I guess it's hollywood hitting the fan.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on May 10, 2006 19:35:25 GMT -5
What in the hell . . . ? I've often wonder if BENDIS! as serious mental issues that he uses his comics to do therapy with. His books seems plastered with women taking it, from going bananas, to [deleted by admin] (alias), it's pretty much always there, he also made jen walters have sex with luke cage, even though the She Hulk wasn't even his character or his book. Maybe it's what gets his rocks off. Please point the scene where Jessica [deleted by admin] out to me. Was it in "Alias?" Also, since when is having a character that you created have sex with a black guy a bad thing? And when did She-Hulk have sex with Luke Cage? Again, when did he kill White Tiger? Was White Tiger that interesting of a character? I don't even know who you're talking about, really. Bare in mind that these books do get screened by Editorial. If Marvel didn't want a character killed off, they wouldn't let them be killed off. You apparently don't read any of his more-accepted books, being "Daredevil," "Powers" and "Ultimate Spider-Man." There's a reason he writes all the books he does/has. It's because he is good at writing super-heroes. Perhaps "New Avengers" isn't his best work and I'll even go so far as saying that his writing doesn't mesh well with "Avengers." Personal preferance aside, if you said he was bad at writing super-hero comics as a whole, you'd find yourself in the minority. Chuck Austen wrote ALL of his female characters are weak and only capable of talking about sex or relationships. Zero time was spent giving his female characters any sort of real development. If they weren't talking about sex, they were flat and one-sided. Brian Michael Bendis has written well-developed characters that are capable of standing on their own two feet - such as Jessica from "Alias" and Deena from "Powers." Yes, sex is a part of their lives, but not nearly as distasteful and balantant as Austen presented it. It was also, much unlike Austen, not the core of the character and the heart of the dialogue. I often times respect people's opinions and value their point of views. But, to be quite frank, it's hard to do so with your post. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Van Plexico on May 10, 2006 21:44:28 GMT -5
A few things, in response to Avengorama and thew40: Guys, let's try to keep this an all-ages-friendly board, if you don't mind. Or if you do, really. About the quote from my previous post, Av-- I think it's worth pointing out that I was talking about Bendis being influenced by those two stories, but at least one of them was about helping the female victim (Carol), not hurting her in the first place. It wasn't AVENGERS 200 that influenced Bendis, it was Annual #10, where Claremont tried to fix what Shooter messed up, pretty much. I respect that. And now, see, ya done made me come to Bendis's defense. Jeez, thanks a bunch. And as for White Tiger, I always liked him, and am sorry to learn that he's dead. I enjoyed his appearances in Spectacular Spider-Man and elsewhere-- he was one of the first Hispanic super heroes at Marvel, I think, and used to show up in whatever book.... um.... either Mantlo or Moench was writing. I think. One of those regulars of the mid/late '70s. He never got much play after those years, as often happens when a character was sort of one writer's "pet." (For example, how often do you think we'll be seeing Triathlon or Silverclaw in the next few years?)
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on May 10, 2006 22:09:25 GMT -5
A few things, in response to Avengorama and thew40: Guys, let's try to keep this an all-ages-friendly board, if you don't mind. Or if you do, really. Van -- my apologies. I meant no offense and I'll bare the all-ages-friendly policy. Again, when did White Tiger die? Did I miss something? ~W~
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 11, 2006 7:34:59 GMT -5
A few things, in response to Avengorama and thew40: Guys, let's try to keep this an all-ages-friendly board, if you don't mind. Or if you do, really. Van -- my apologies. I meant no offense and I'll bare the all-ages-friendly policy. Again, when did White Tiger die? Did I miss something? ~W~ Bendis killed off White Tiger in DD, not sure what issue, and then replaced him with a female version. Also, to the question about Jessica in Alias, yes it did happen.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 11, 2006 7:36:47 GMT -5
Well, it's true, we don't know much except from what transpires on interviews, and even those should be taken with a bit of doubt. From what I've seen around, I guess sales are the thing Marvel (and the other publishers) care the most. If Disassembled and NA sold and sell really well, they are probably happy to ignore the mistakes and keep going in that direction. Hopefully some day a new writer will come on board and slowly fix the problems Bendis left behind, after all we can't be the only ones complaining in the whole "Avengers buyers" arena. Where not, the problem is we are overwhelmed by the sheer number of Wolverine and Spider-Man fans who will buy anything that those charaters are in, and the amazing number of people who will read anything Bendis writes not matter how bad it is.
|
|
|
Post by Yellowjacket on May 11, 2006 8:02:56 GMT -5
You´re right about that, I too would hope that Wolverine/Spider-Man quit the team as soon as possible. Hopefully, at least one of them. Perhaps during/after Civil War. I see no other purpose for both characters being in Avengers than selling more books, but nevertheless I like NA so far and at least SM drops some funny dialogues. I don´t read any SM books anymore so I´m not jaded with these SM dialogues.
And it´s not generally a bad thing when "new" people buy/read Avengers books, maybe new blood, hopefully some may stay with the book when Wolverine/Spider-Man are laid-off and even stay when Bendis quits someday.
For all of you who are that unhappy with Bendis you have to bear him and hope for a better future, otherwise you´d have to stop reading/buying/collecting. But I would think the stories in the 90s were much worse (stories and art).
Maybe the new second team book from the CW crossover can be a light at the end of the tunnel for you -- can´t believe (and personally don´t hope for it) Bendis will write them both. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Yellowjacket on May 11, 2006 8:39:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 11, 2006 10:55:43 GMT -5
Very interesting, Bendis actually sort of writing done in one's. That should be interesting. Still hoping that there will be a second Avenger book.
|
|
|
Post by von Bek on May 11, 2006 13:12:45 GMT -5
Yes I have to agree with Avengorama about BENDIS! treatment of women in his books. Jessica Jones low self steem and what Cage did to her in Alias #1 are some examples, but let´s see what he´s done with the female Avengers. Wanda went nuts because she wanted to have kids. Hmm. She did, after the events in WCA, have oportunities to become preagnant (she did have some affairs with people who weren´t androids after all) but instead go nuts and kill some Avengers and destroy the team. And who started all this? A drunken and semi retarded Jan, very different from the capable leader she has been in many many years. Then we have the ice cold Maria Hill and even BENDIS! pet character Spiderwoman is a triple agent, we can´t be sure at what side she really is. I haven´t read everything BENDIS! ever wrote, but from what I read there´s not even one really likable female character, like Roger Stern´s Captain Marvel/Photon or Wasp, just to stay with one other Avengers scribe.
|
|
|
Post by thew40 on May 11, 2006 21:45:48 GMT -5
Yes I have to agree with Avengorama about BENDIS! treatment of women in his books. Jessica Jones low self steem and what Cage did to her in Alias #1 are some examples, but let´s see what he´s done with the female Avengers. I should put out that Jessica Jones turns things around for herself. She starts off as a woman with low self-esteem, but eventually grows into someone who becomes a better, stronger person. "Disassmebled" steemed from the loss of her children, not her desire to have more. As paper-thin as the story was, that was the very clear point. First of all, let's not use the term "retarded." It's offensive and de-values your otherwise respectful post. Secondly, there really are ice cold, professional-driven women like Maria Hill. Women that you just hate. She's not exactly a hero, you know. Finally, Spider-Woman is a triple agent. So? Sentry has mental problems. Iron Man and Cap are currently fighting. I'm honestly having some problems understanding what point everyone is trying to make with Bendis and female characters. What is the point? That he makes them villians? That he treats them poorly? Hmmmm . . . You know, Chris Claremont has Jean turn into the Phoenix and die; turns Goddess Storm butch, gets rid of her powers, de-ages her, and then turns her into a Mutate slave; has Pyslocke move into the body of a more sexy character, kills her off without reason and then returns her back to life; has Rogue, female character who can't touch anyone without sending them into a comma; and we could go on and on. Seems like he treats his female character just as poorly as Bendis supposed does. But how come no one is complaining about him? Or how about John Byrne? He had Susan miscarriage, unleashed Malice, and not to mention has Scarlet Witch turn evil. Kurt Busiek had Scarlet Witch change the entire world in a fantasy Earth, while she was chained up and being tortured. He had Firestar fret over her powers having an effect on her reproductive system. He had Ms. Marvel have a drinking problem. Seriously, I could go on and on. The only major differences here is that the storytelling style is differnet. Oh, and Bendis treats his male characters like crap, too. Spider-Man in "Ultimate Spider-Man?" Can't get anything right. And try reading "Powers." That'll show you that he hates guys as much as girls. I think you guys are grasping at straws right now. I feel we should pull this coversation away from the Bendis/women issue, and focus back onto the origial topic of discussion. ~W~
|
|
|
Post by spiderwasp on May 11, 2006 22:39:48 GMT -5
As much as it pains me to say things in defense of Bendis, I agree with Thew40. I don't really think he's out to get the girls. Although seeing the sheer carelessness of the Wasp did get under my skin. I can't believe nobody has tried to deal with the feelings of guilt she must be having if she remembered, after she sobered up, that she was the one who started it all. That scene was totally out of character. However, I don't think Bendis has been too great with other characters either. Spidey, in NA and in even more in his own book, has become a suck up to Ironman and Sentry has been presented as a total loser. Wolverine, who I completely agree doesn't belong here has been a fifth wheel most of the time and Ironman who kept his identity a secret from his own teammates for years has done an about face. Plus he said he didn't have the money to rebuild the mansion but instead built Avengers tower. When did he become so two-faced? My point is that, yes, Bendis has treated the ladies badly but that just proves he is into equal rights.
|
|
|
Post by Yellowjacket on May 12, 2006 3:03:23 GMT -5
You´re mainly right about that, but I think the new tower was "build and not used" already, so Stark had not to invest (more) money into building it. I think the term was - he can´t find tenants anyway, so why don´t use it for own purposes.
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on May 12, 2006 7:37:02 GMT -5
"Disassmebled" steemed from the loss of her children, not her desire to have more. As paper-thin as the story was, that was the very clear point.
|
|
|
Post by Shiryu on May 12, 2006 7:58:49 GMT -5
Hmm, looks like after 6 pages we are starting to repeat ourselves here and there, may be we should really go back and talk about NA 18 or open another thread.
|
|