|
Post by the4thpip on May 17, 2014 2:53:34 GMT -5
Kodak moments #2: The Abomination fights dirty.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on May 17, 2014 2:56:05 GMT -5
Kodak moments #3: Cheering up a loved one with bangers and mash. Alternate title: It was the best of times, it was the wurst of times.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on May 17, 2014 2:59:42 GMT -5
Kodak moments #4: Gotcher nose!
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 17, 2014 6:27:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 17, 2014 8:38:07 GMT -5
Death #14. The Dramatic and final end to Tommy Monaghan in Hitman #60.Continued
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 17, 2014 8:39:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 17, 2014 16:14:21 GMT -5
Death #15- Mockingbird bites the dirt West Coast Avengers # 102
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on May 17, 2014 19:56:03 GMT -5
I think this is the first time Wolverine calls Professor X Chuck.
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on May 18, 2014 8:48:42 GMT -5
Death #10 Blue Beetle buys the farm. Countdown to Infinite Crisis #1 I read this issue and Infinite Crisis back when it came out. Then I didn't have enough knowledge of DC characters to feel the impact of this. And now my memory fails me. I knew of Blue Beetle then and now, not having read any of him, but whose is Max, that killed him? What's his importance?
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 18, 2014 8:54:26 GMT -5
Death #10 Blue Beetle buys the farm. Countdown to Infinite Crisis #1 I read this issue and Infinite Crisis back when it came out. Then I didn't have enough knowledge of DC characters to feel the impact of this. And now my memory fails me. I knew of Blue Beetle then and now, not having read any of him, but whose is Max, that killed him? What's his importance? Back in 1987, JLA was rebooted with Max Lord as the financial backer and this was known as the Bwa-ha era. Many jokes and silly stuff that some liked and some didn't. There was a light tone to all of the books and that's what made many people hate that Max murdered Beetle. I guess fans felt that their beloved series was spit on.
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on May 18, 2014 15:25:39 GMT -5
I read this issue and Infinite Crisis back when it came out. Then I didn't have enough knowledge of DC characters to feel the impact of this. And now my memory fails me. I knew of Blue Beetle then and now, not having read any of him, but whose is Max, that killed him? What's his importance? Back in 1987, JLA was rebooted with Max Lord as the financial backer and this was known as the Bwa-ha era. Many jokes and silly stuff that some liked and some didn't. There was a light tone to all of the books and that's what made many people hate that Max murdered Beetle. I guess fans felt that their beloved series was spit on. I think you are selling fans short if you put it that way. Do we pull out our hair and claim they are raping our childhood, or do we see cheap sensationalism and shoddy story telling when we see it? If a writer wants to surprise readers, he can write very clever stories with unexpected twists, or he can take the most innocent and upbeat elements in comic book canon and drag them through a bloody mess. The latter technique gave us bubbly Sue Dibny retroactively having been raped years ago in the superhero club house and then napalmed to death. Stanley and his Monster going through torture and satanist rituals in Green Arrow. And bwa-ha-hah Max Lord as an evil genius murderer. I don't take those things personal on any level, I haven't even read a single "Stanley and his Monster" story. But I look down on that kind of writing, and I hated the new tone that made DC on average much darker and gorier.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 18, 2014 16:37:53 GMT -5
As a fan, you can choose to ignore certain stories or interpretations of characters( Sins past). Besides, with the NU52 reboot, it never happened .
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 18, 2014 17:16:23 GMT -5
Back in 1987, JLA was rebooted with Max Lord as the financial backer and this was known as the Bwa-ha era. Many jokes and silly stuff that some liked and some didn't. There was a light tone to all of the books and that's what made many people hate that Max murdered Beetle. I guess fans felt that their beloved series was spit on. I think you are selling fans short if you put it that way. Do we pull out our hair and claim they are raping our childhood, or do we see cheap sensationalism and shoddy story telling when we see it? If a writer wants to surprise readers, he can write very clever stories with unexpected twists, or he can take the most innocent and upbeat elements in comic book canon and drag them through a bloody mess. The latter technique gave us bubbly Sue Dibny retroactively having been raped years ago in the superhero club house and then napalmed to death. Stanley and his Monster going through torture and satanist rituals in Green Arrow. And bwa-ha-hah Max Lord as an evil genius murderer. I don't take those things personal on any level, I haven't even read a single "Stanley and his Monster" story. But I look down on that kind of writing, and I hated the new tone that made DC on average much darker and gorier. I agree wholeheartedly with that. It's as if I were to start a new Sherlock Holmes story for publisher XYZ, and instead of trying to gain attraction by some clever twist on the concept, or by having Holmes do something new things that would have people go "woah, I wish I had thought of that!", I started with the murder of Dr. Watson. Or suppose I were to write a new Shang Chi series and started by killing... Well, there we go. It's easy and cheap, and bound to make readers unhappy more than intrigued.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on May 18, 2014 17:25:25 GMT -5
I think you are selling fans short if you put it that way. Do we pull out our hair and claim they are raping our childhood, or do we see cheap sensationalism and shoddy story telling when we see it? If a writer wants to surprise readers, he can write very clever stories with unexpected twists, or he can take the most innocent and upbeat elements in comic book canon and drag them through a bloody mess. The latter technique gave us bubbly Sue Dibny retroactively having been raped years ago in the superhero club house and then napalmed to death. Stanley and his Monster going through torture and satanist rituals in Green Arrow. And bwa-ha-hah Max Lord as an evil genius murderer. I don't take those things personal on any level, I haven't even read a single "Stanley and his Monster" story. But I look down on that kind of writing, and I hated the new tone that made DC on average much darker and gorier. I agree wholeheartedly with that. It's as if I were to start a new Sherlock Holmes story for publisher XYZ, and instead of trying to gain attraction by some clever twist on the concept, or by having Holmes do something new things that would have people go "woah, I wish I had thought of that!", I started with the murder of Dr. Watson. Or suppose I were to write a new Shang Chi series and started by killing... Well, there we go. It's easy and cheap, and bound to make readers unhappy more than intrigued. The way to get an audience interested is to shake the status quo. It happened with hal going nuts in Green lantern, Yellowjacket getting disgraced in Avengers and Stark falling off the wagon in Iron man. Fans might be annoyed but they won't turn away.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on May 18, 2014 18:07:34 GMT -5
Shaking the status quo is all well and good if it's done creatively, if it brings something new and interesting and if it allows further growth in character development or in plotting.
Killing off characters for shock value is a very tricky tool to use, because it's like the Dark Side of the force: tempting, easy, with cool short term effects, and often a bad idea in the long run. Like having an affair, really: how many times does it really lead to a better life? It happens, but not often.
Grant Morrison's new take on the X-Men was an example of an interesting change in status quo. X-O Manowar losing all the supporting characters and the protagonist's home and company wasn't. And killing Leiko Wu? Just another WiR facepalm-inducing waste.
|
|