Comic Books You Consider Over-Rated...

[Manic]

Have you ever read Wanted? I've read it, and it made me want to punch a baby. Crime rates around the world shot up as soon as that comic came out.


Okay, none of that is true, but that book still ain't right.

 

[Mystirious]

Have you ever read Wanted? I've read it, and it made me want to punch a baby. Crime rates around the world shot up as soon as that comic came out.


Okay, none of that is true, but that book still ain't right.

That's the point though, surely? It's about an ordinary man slowly being transformed into a psychopath by a cadre of mass murdering rapist super villains who have transformed the world into a godawful place just for fun. The book is meant to be twisted and unpleaseant

It's definitely not my cup of tea. And I find it a rather unpleaseant story. But complaining about it because the subject matter is dark is like complaining about Lolita because you didn't find Humbert Humbert a likeable protagonist. It's rather missing the point

Well what we're those stories? I mean i don't wanna force you say anything tho.

I'll confess, I can't remember all the specifics. Just general comments by people I've known and ones that I've read on the internet about Millar acting in a rather jerk-ish way

Though as it is all second hand information I suppose it should be taken with a grain of salt t:

 

[Manic]

I'm not complaining because the subject matter was dark. I'm complaining because the story was crap. It was an interesting premise with poor execution and horribly written characters, not unlike Millar's Civil War and his run on The Authority.

 

[Mystirious]

I'm not complaining because the subject matter was dark. I'm complaining because the story was crap. It was an interesting premise with poor execution and horribly written characters, not unlike Millar's Civil War and his run on The Authority.

Ah, right. Well I'll agree with you on that.

And please don't mention Civil War. I just ate

 

[The ?ion]

The body is just meat. Why not experiment with as many mind expanding substances as you can lay your hands on?

Personally I would agree as religion makes no sense to me. I am an agnostic

I don't see how writing a comic about villains acting evil makes someone abnormal.

1) It is proven that drug use expedites the wear of the human body, which in turn decreases functionality, capability and longevity. Drug use is useless unless a person has no concern for their ability to function or their own longevity.

2) Wanted is not terrible because of the premise. In fact, Wanted does nothing that hadn't already been accomplished by Justice League # 29 (1964) or Watchmen. People who dislike it, dislike it because of its poor execution.

- Wesley is a useless protagonist. The entire story could have occurred in the same order, without Wesley. If removing the protagonist doesn't harm the story, then you have a serious problem with the focalizer of the story.

- The sub-plot (which becomes the main plot) is a good old fashion turf war that was over something pointless; should the villains who already rule the world and do whatever they want (including rape, bestiality, murder, political subversion etc), go public or stay secretive? Honestly, who cares? It doesn't affect the story or even the setting.

Millar already established that people were aware of The Fraternity. They all wear badges that identify them as members. Wesley even threatens a cop for not recognizing that he is a member of The Fraternity. So which is it? Are people looking the other way out of fear, and thus treat The Fraternity like they don't exist, or do they just outright not exist in public knowledge? Millar didn't make up his mind on that matter, so neither can the rest of us.

- Plot holes are everywhere. I will just say this. Relationships exist that aren't explored or spoken about. Characters have knowledge they shouldn't, because they were not present to find out. Millar often starts something, without realizing he has done it, and thus winds up ignoring his own plot details.

The book is just pure crap. There is little plot progression, too many auxiliary characters, poor characterization, plot holes etc. It is just a very poorly written book. But that isn't saying much for Mark Millar. This is the man who brought us Civil War and the out of character representation of many characters.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Wanted is not terrible because of the premise. In fact, Wanted does nothing that hadn't already been accomplished by Justice League # 29 (1964) or Watchmen. People who dislike it, dislike it because of its poor execution.

- Wesley is a useless protagonist. The entire story could have occurred in the same order, without Wesley. If removing the protagonist doesn't harm the story, then you have a serious problem with the focalizer of the story.

- The sub-plot (which becomes the main plot) is a good old fashion turf war that was over something pointless; should the villains who already rule the world and do whatever they want (including rape, bestiality, murder, political subversion etc), go public or stay secretive? Honestly, who cares? It doesn't affect the story or even the setting.

Millar already established that people were aware of The Fraternity. They all wear badges that identify them as members. Wesley even threatens a cop for not recognizing that he is a member of The Fraternity. So which is it? Are people looking the other way out of fear, and thus treat The Fraternity like they don't exist, or do they just outright not exist in public knowledge? Millar didn't make up his mind on that matter, so neither can the rest of us.

- Plot holes are everywhere. I will just say this. Relationships exist that aren't explored or spoken about. Characters have knowledge they shouldn't, because they were not present to find out. Millar often starts something, without realizing he has done it, and thus winds up ignoring his own plot details.

The book is just pure crap. There is little plot progression, too many auxiliary characters, poor characterization, plot holes etc. It is just a very poorly written book. But that isn't saying much for Mark Millar. This is the man who brought us Civil War and the out of character representation of many characters.

This. Like I said, the movie was miles better than original source material, which is a rarity.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Have you ever read Wanted? I've read it, and it made me want to punch a baby. Crime rates around the world shot up as soon as that comic came out.


Okay, none of that is true, but that book still ain't right .

I don't know about that.
There were horses, and a man set on fire, and a guy got killed with a trident when the Wanted GN got released. (I hope someone got the reference) t:

 

[Manic]

I don't know about that.
There were horses, and a man set on fire, and a guy got killed with a trident when the Wanted GN got released. (I hope someone got the reference) t:

I love lamp!

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Do you really love the lamp, or are you just saying it because you saw it?

 

[The ?ion]

Anchor Man. One of the few funny Will Farrel movies.

 

[Mystirious]

1) It is proven that drug use expedites the wear of the human body, which in turn decreases functionality, capability and longevity. Drug use is useless unless a person has no concern for their ability to function or their own longevity.

I'm well aware there are negative side affects to recreational drug use. But as a persons body is their personal property it is my opinion they can do whatever they want to it. So GM's drug use does not strike me as particularly bad or abnormal.

2) Wanted is not terrible because of the premise. In fact, Wanted does nothing that hadn't already been accomplished by Justice League # 29 (1964) or Watchmen. People who dislike it, dislike it because of its poor execution.

- Wesley is a useless protagonist. The entire story could have occurred in the same order, without Wesley. If removing the protagonist doesn't harm the story, then you have a serious problem with the focalizer of the story.

- The sub-plot (which becomes the main plot) is a good old fashion turf war that was over something pointless; should the villains who already rule the world and do whatever they want (including rape, bestiality, murder, political subversion etc), go public or stay secretive? Honestly, who cares? It doesn't affect the story or even the setting.

Millar already established that people were aware of The Fraternity. They all wear badges that identify them as members. Wesley even threatens a cop for not recognizing that he is a member of The Fraternity. So which is it? Are people looking the other way out of fear, and thus treat The Fraternity like they don't exist, or do they just outright not exist in public knowledge? Millar didn't make up his mind on that matter, so neither can the rest of us.

- Plot holes are everywhere. I will just say this. Relationships exist that aren't explored or spoken about. Characters have knowledge they shouldn't, because they were not present to find out. Millar often starts something, without realizing he has done it, and thus winds up ignoring his own plot details.

The book is just pure crap. There is little plot progression, too many auxiliary characters, poor characterization, plot holes etc. It is just a very poorly written book. But that isn't saying much for Mark Millar. This is the man who brought us Civil War and the out of character representation of many characters.

Agreed on all counts. I wasn't trying to defend Wanted, I assure you. I think it's utter dreck as well.

 

[The ?ion]

A person's body is their own property, but that doesn't absolve them from the wide spread implications of drug use.

-Drug use promotes violent crime. People addicted to harder drugs such as crack cocaine, are more likely to commit violent crimes in order to obtain the funds necessary to sustain their habits.

-Drug use increases poverty, which increases strain on tax payer dollars to help deal with things like crime, burials, imprisonment in jail houses etc.


So while the drug itself may directly affect only the user, the social context of a drug user, affects far more than just the drug user themself. I had a play-uncle (a family friend that you see often enough to consider them family) who stole my very first computer, to buy crack. Now he was only messing up his own body, but it did cost me my computer. There is an abundance of literature on this subject in regards to violence, crime rates and poverty. Drug use is more than the high it produces for the user. I am not saying that Grant Morrison is a drain on tax payer funds (just comic fans) or that he was ever a violent criminal. There are always exceptions. But if you start making rules for the exception, you might as well throw everything out the window and allow for free reign.

 

[Mystirious]

A person's body is their own property, but that doesn't absolve them from the wide spread implications of drug use.

-Drug use promotes violent crime. People addicted to harder drugs such as crack cocaine, are more likely to commit violent crimes in order to obtain the funds necessary to sustain their habits

-Drug use increases poverty, which increases strain on tax payer dollars to help deal with things like crime, burials, imprisonment in jail houses etc.

Such issues are actually the fault of the governmet, not the drug users however. It is the government who have abitrarily chosen to brand perfectly innocent people as criminals, simply because they use narcotics.

People who commit violent crimes in order to pay for drugs would not be driven to do so if not for the fact that the primary source of recreational drugs was "Dealers" who charge an exorbitant amount. If drug use were legalised and narcotics could be purchased cheaply and legally through government sanctioned outlets, it would work to greatly reduce the problems associated with drug use

But if you start making rules for the exception, you might as well throw everything out the window and allow for free reign.

That sounds pretty good to me, in all honesty You may have just described the only kind of society I would be truly happy living in

 

[The ?ion]

Even if narcotics were legal, it would still be a problem. For instance, if you are a fork lift operator, how would you perform your job if you were under the influence of narcotics? Would you want a doctor diagnosing you if they are high? What about breast feeding mothers passing on chemicals to their children? What about medical bills? Drugs like heroin actually deteriorate the flesh around injection sites. Do they get a discount on the surgery they would need to help them maintain their health?

Who helps these people maintain their day jobs so they can afford their habit in the first place? Do you expect people to use addicting substances that have adverse cognitive affects, in a fashion that is responsible? Who will insure a narcotics user? People born with asthma have a difficult time obtaining health insurance. Would insurance companies insure people who are at a greater risk for a heart attack or over dose related death?

You still can't escape the fact that these people would still be a social burden. Your argument would be more sound, if the weight of the reality did not contradict it so fiercely. Yes a person should have free reign to do what they want with their body, but that right should not infringe upon the convenience, rights or comfort of others. This is why suicide is illegal (who pays for your burial) or why you have to wear a seatbelt (who has to pay to clean your body up off the street?). Sometimes, even things that appear deeply personal, affect more than just yourself.

Again I am not saying that Grant Morrison is guilty of any of these issues. I am merely noting that there is indeed a problem with drug use. If he wants to be a transsexual. He can knock himself out. It's his genitalia and only his sex partners will have to deal with that. But drug use affects the user, their friends, family, employers and other social relationships and obligations. It is just...irresponsible.

 

[Mystirious]

Even if narcotics were legal, it would still be a problem. For instance, if you are a fork lift operator, how would you perform your job if you were under the influence of narcotics? Would you want a doctor diagnosing you if they are high? What about breast feeding mothers passing on chemicals to their children?

Clearly there are soe jobs that would be unsuitable for those using drugs. Just as those jobs would be unsuitable for someon who drinks copious amounts of alcohol.

As for breast feeding mothers well, if a person is responsible they won't have children if their a recreational drug user for that very reason.

What about medical bills? Drugs like heroin actually deteriorate the flesh around injection sites. Do they get a discount on the surgery they would need to help them maintain their health?

Who helps these people maintain their day jobs so they can afford their habit in the first place? Do you expect people to use addicting substances that have adverse cognitive affects, in a fashion that is responsible? Who will insure a narcotics user? People born with asthma have a difficult time obtaining health insurance. Would insurance companies insure people who are at a greater risk for a heart attack or over dose related death?

Those are all rather secondary concerns really. Like I said, I am well aware that recreational drug use carries with it some risks and side affects. I just don't think there's anything wrong with someone choosing to do it, so long as their aware of what the consequences could be

You still can't escape the fact that these people would still be a social burden. Your argument would be more sound, if the weight of the reality did not contradict it so fiercely. Yes a person should have free reign to do what they want with their body, but that right should not infringe upon the convenience, rights or comfort of others. This is why suicide is illegal (who pays for your burial) or why you have to wear a seatbelt (who has to pay to clean your body up off the street?). Sometimes, even things that appear deeply personal, affect more than just yourself.

I think people have the right to do whatever they wish to their bodies. Tattoo them, get body modifcations, pierce them, inject strange compounds into them...and if they so desire, kill themselves. I'm all for legalised suicide as well.

Again I am not saying that Grant Morrison is guilty of any of these issues. I am merely noting that there is indeed a problem with drug use. If he wants to be a transsexual. He can knock himself out. It's his genitalia and only his sex partners will have to deal with that. But drug use affects the user, their friends, family, employers and other social relationships and obligations. It is just...irresponsible.

I can see how this would be a deeply personal issue, given your own bad experience (For which I am sincerely sorry. Having someone you trust steal from you to pay for their habit must have been very upsetting) but illegal drug use is really no better or worse than drinking or smoking. All are types of drugs, all have the potential to be addictive and all have a damaging effect on your health.

And all are clearly very enjoyable for some people, given the amount who make use of them. I really see no difference between recreational drug use and being a drinker or a smoker. I don't consider it to be wrong, or a mark against a persons character

 

[fifthfiend]

1) It is proven that drug use expedites the wear of the human body, which in turn decreases functionality, capability and longevity. Drug use is useless unless a person has no concern for their ability to function or their own longevity.

A person's body is their own property, but that doesn't absolve them from the wide spread implications of drug use.

-Drug use promotes violent crime. People addicted to harder drugs such as crack cocaine, are more likely to commit violent crimes in order to obtain the funds necessary to sustain their habits.

-Drug use increases poverty, which increases strain on tax payer dollars to help deal with things like crime, burials, imprisonment in jail houses etc.


So while the drug itself may directly affect only the user, the social context of a drug user, affects far more than just the drug user themself. I had a play-uncle (a family friend that you see often enough to consider them family) who stole my very first computer, to buy crack. Now he was only messing up his own body, but it did cost me my computer. There is an abundance of literature on this subject in regards to violence, crime rates and poverty. Drug use is more than the high it produces for the user. I am not saying that Grant Morrison is a drain on tax payer funds (just comic fans) or that he was ever a violent criminal. There are always exceptions. But if you start making rules for the exception, you might as well throw everything out the window and allow for free reign.

Even if narcotics were legal, it would still be a problem. For instance, if you are a fork lift operator, how would you perform your job if you were under the influence of narcotics? Would you want a doctor diagnosing you if they are high? What about breast feeding mothers passing on chemicals to their children? What about medical bills? Drugs like heroin actually deteriorate the flesh around injection sites. Do they get a discount on the surgery they would need to help them maintain their health?

Who helps these people maintain their day jobs so they can afford their habit in the first place? Do you expect people to use addicting substances that have adverse cognitive affects, in a fashion that is responsible? Who will insure a narcotics user? People born with asthma have a difficult time obtaining health insurance. Would insurance companies insure people who are at a greater risk for a heart attack or over dose related death?

You still can't escape the fact that these people would still be a social burden. Your argument would be more sound, if the weight of the reality did not contradict it so fiercely. Yes a person should have free reign to do what they want with their body, but that right should not infringe upon the convenience, rights or comfort of others. This is why suicide is illegal (who pays for your burial) or why you have to wear a seatbelt (who has to pay to clean your body up off the street?). Sometimes, even things that appear deeply personal, affect more than just yourself.

Again I am not saying that Grant Morrison is guilty of any of these issues. I am merely noting that there is indeed a problem with drug use. If he wants to be a transsexual. He can knock himself out. It's his genitalia and only his sex partners will have to deal with that. But drug use affects the user, their friends, family, employers and other social relationships and obligations. It is just...irresponsible.

Hey, it's the Community Forum!

How's it going, Community Forum?

 

[The ?ion]

Well...your sarcasm aside, I did my best to keep the conversation on topic, by always bringing it back to Grant Morrison. Mystirious is the one who introduced the deviation by stating/asking:

"The body is just meat. Why not experiment with as many mind expanding substances as you can lay your hands on"

I chose to address his inquiry and it led to the discussion at hand, which prior to your arrival, had been conducted in a rather civil and mature manner. I must applaud Mystirious for not allowing his liberal sensibilities to lead this into an argument or wildly off topic conversation. He offered his honest rebuttals, as did I. I don't believe we will see eye to eye, but there is nothing wrong with the discussion that took place.

 

[greenrage36]

Yeah..I actually like the back-and-forth of the past few postings...it may be a little side-trip from the OP..but no biggie from my perspective.


NOW THEN...having said that...I read a few issues and thought the new House of Mystery was a teency-weency overhyped. It was good..but not THAT good. Of course, If there is a certain storyline/arc that has happend in recent issues that demands my attention, by all means let me know! I'm certainly not dead-set against the series by any stretch..just viewing it against the other stuff that's out there.

 

[Mystirious]

Well...your sarcasm aside, I did my best to keep the conversation on topic, by always bringing it back to Grant Morrison. Mystirious is the one who introduced the deviation by stating/asking:

"The body is just meat. Why not experiment with as many mind expanding substances as you can lay your hands on"

I chose to address his inquiry and it led to the discussion at hand, which prior to your arrival, had been conducted in a rather civil and mature manner. I must applaud Mystirious for not allowing his liberal sensibilities to lead this into an argument or wildly off topic conversation. He offered his honest rebuttals, as did I. I don't believe we will see eye to eye, but there is nothing wrong with the discussion that took place.

Thank you. I try and remain civil in all my dealings with people, even those I disagree with. As a rule someone has to be really rub me the wrong way for me to lose my temper. I feel the old adage about how "A flame war is like the special olympics. Win or lose you're still ******ed" while able-ist, is very fitting.

Just to correct you on two minor points. I'm a she not a he. And my political sensibilities, while they may share some things in common with liberals, are rather more complicated than that.

Apologies to all if The ?ion and I's discussion has taken things off topic somewhat.

Getting back on topic: I feel that The Dark Knight Returns, while pivotal in changing the public perception of Batman, is not the perfect work many believe it to be. I have issues with Miller's work in general and I feel DKR is a pretty poor example of it

 

[fifthfiend]

Well...your sarcasm aside, I did my best to keep the conversation on topic, by always bringing it back to Grant Morrison. Mystirious is the one who introduced the deviation by stating/asking:

"The body is just meat. Why not experiment with as many mind expanding substances as you can lay your hands on"

I chose to address his inquiry and it led to the discussion at hand, which prior to your arrival, had been conducted in a rather civil and mature manner. I must applaud Mystirious for not allowing his liberal sensibilities to lead this into an argument or wildly off topic conversation. He offered his honest rebuttals, as did I. I don't believe we will see eye to eye, but there is nothing wrong with the discussion that took place.

You're right, I should really try to be more civil and respectful of others' views.

What makes Millar an ******* tho? I know people don't like Wanted comic much here (well neither did i) since it was a flatout villain and the comic didn't really give any reason to like or cheer for the character. (Wheres a villain like Joker, while disgusting has his charm that makes people wanna cheer and root for him)

He's an ******* because everything he writes is a celebration of *******s and *******ry, when it's not openly sneering at his audience for not being big enough ******** (see: end of Wanted, every page of Kick-Ass). Where Moore portrays people acting like *******s because they're broken and flawed and Ellis portrays people as *******s who nonetheless have some level of redeeming decency Millar portrays *******ry as pretty much the *****ey pinnacle of human existence. I don't know anything about the guy's personal life but if he's not a colossal ******* there then he's a world's champion at failing to practice what he preaches.

 

[Drz]

No really i can't see what you're trying to say Fiend because of all the censors. I didn't like Wanted at all, but i loved Kick-Ass for the character archtypes and action. I'm also very fond of the Ultimate Universe as everyone here is probably aware already.

 

[fifthfiend]

No really i can't see what you're trying to say Fiend because of all the censors.

How embarassing for you.

Really if you can't understand words after they've run through the forum censor, you should consider... not asking questions about why people are those words?

 

[Mystirious]

No really i can't see what you're trying to say Fiend because of all the censors. I didn't like Wanted at all, but i loved Kick-Ass for the character archtypes and action. I'm also very fond of the Ultimate Universe as everyone here is probably aware already.

I've not yet had the pleasure of reading Kick Ass but I am determined to get around to it before I go to see the film. And I share your love of the Ultimate Universe for sure

 

[Drz]

And if you just can't tell me why you see Millar as a *****e, why bother to rant in the first place?

 

[fifthfiend]

And if you just can't tell me why you see Millar as a *****e

You asked why I see Millar as an *******. If you want to know why I think Millar's a *****e I guess I can answer that too.