Dark Reign: Good concept, bad execution

[BrianWilly]

a Presidential candidate tried to destroy the world (ya'know, just a couple of times)

Was this really the case? Post-Crisis Luthor hasn't tried to destroy the world that many times, and the general public was certainly never aware of any of those instances. Any and all evidence of any other wrongdoing had always been covered up -- passed off as vague business dealings that may or may not have been corrupt -- and so all that the average voter ever heard about were indistinct accusations that were thrown out after formal investigations.

Especially when you consider that the "clone" that we're talking about here looked and acted completely different from the Luthor that everyone knew. He wasn't even the right age! From everyone's perspective, Luthor the respected philanthropist-businessman disappeared one day to be replaced by some random redhead who claimed to be his son at first...and then turned out to be evil. Then another day out of the blue, the well-respected philanthropist-businessman that everyone knew and liked returned, the same as he's always been before he was mysteriously replaced by the guy who didn't seem or behave like him at all. I mean, even without the added clones angle, the fact that they were in fact two different people would be the default assumption from the general public, not that they were the same!

I mean look at this last election where several thousand voters, even after it had been proven otherwise, proudly touted that Barack Obama was in fact an illegal alien with no birth certificate. Admittedly this is a stupid position and probably fueled by racism but it also proves how fickle and stubborn the voting public is, once they make up their mind about a person it's very hard to change it and they will look to anything to justify their position.

Fickle and stubborn? I don't think anyone can be both of those at the same time, what with them being antonyms and all.

And yet, in spite of such convincing and persuasive slights, The Obama still miraculously managed to sit his beautiful black ass in the White House with a clear margin of victory. Rumors and sensationalist accusations don't just magically become fact without, well, facts. You're right, of course people who were against Obama in the first place where going to hang on to whatever bad press they could, but do you think that the fence-sitters and voters with more indefinite opinions were going to vote by what basically amounts to tabloid hearsay? And it's those voters, not the hardcore left or right, that almost always decide the final tally.

Same with Luthor (so to speak). Bad publicity is going to be bad publicity, yes that's true, but without any proof of any kind, no undecided voter is just going to go "Oh ****, I guess he really is a evil megalomaniac out to rule humanity," any more than they would arbitrarily think that he was a flawless saint who never had any shady business at all whatsoever. A bunch of unproven accusations are never going to tip the scale in ways that truly matter. See the thing is, you think the normative state of the DCU citizens at the time of Luthor's election was to root against him, and that the burden of proof was on him and his team to make himself look good. But that wasn't the case. The default state of the DCU at the time was to root for Luthor, their beloved and maligned leader, and the burden was on his detractors to prove the things they were saying about him.

 

[random_havoc]

how exactly would he get mutants powers back his name isn't Wanda... and Magneto already has a suit that emulates his powers and according to him its equal if not better than before he lost them.

That's ******ed. One of the most powerful mutant abilities in the world is now mimicked by just a suit. Wow, hope those kinds of suits don't start getting passed around or anything. Yet another example of why I haven't regularly read x-men in years.

 

[random_havoc]

Therefore it's impossible to expect writers to consider all that Norman has done in the past and slavishly explain to you why this story still fits despite those events. Comics have a five or ten year continuity at most. It's not crappy writing, it's just writing. You have to allow these new writers and creators wriggle room in order to do NEW stories.[/QUOTE]


Wow, it's attitudes like this that some comic writers obviously have today, and its why they don't deserve much respect. Sure, I don't expect them to stick to the fact maybe Superman destroyed a planet by sneezing 55 years ago in a comic. When the feats are that ******ed due to the age they were written in, you can just kind of ignore them. BUT Green Goblin being a KNOWN murderous psychopath is a well known facet of the character. Why not have the Red Skull get openly put into a position of MASSIVE power in the states huh?!

If a writer can't respect basic continuity with his stories then he's simply not much of a writer (Eg. Loeb's "Ultimates 3")

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Was this really the case? Post-Crisis Luthor hasn't tried to destroy the world that many times, and the general public was certainly never aware of any of those instances. Any and all evidence of any other wrongdoing had always been covered up -- passed off as vague business dealings that may or may not have been corrupt -- and so all that the average voter ever heard about were indistinct accusations that were thrown out after formal investigations.

Especially when you consider that the "clone" that we're talking about here looked and acted completely different from the Luthor that everyone knew. He wasn't even the right age! From everyone's perspective, Luthor the respected philanthropist-businessman disappeared one day to be replaced by some random redhead who claimed to be his son at first...and then turned out to be evil. Then another day out of the blue, the well-respected philanthropist-businessman that everyone knew and liked returned, the same as he's always been before he was mysteriously replaced by the guy who didn't seem or behave like him at all. I mean, even without the added clones angle, the fact that they were in fact two different people would be the default assumption from the general public, not that they were the same!

Well, number one, you're mixing him up with several other Luthor clones, I'm talking about the one that came about when Luthor got cancer, and before that clone was created, Luthor was a known criminal. So basically the explanation you're justifying makes no sense. Why would a respected businessman just allow his "violent clone" to make wild accusations about him while he did nothing about it. It's still a weak explanation used to shoehorn an otherwise good plotline into comic books. Probably even more cliche' than the Norman Osbourne storyline, because they went straight for the "evil clone did it" explanation.

Fickle and stubborn? I don't think anyone can be both of those at the same time, what with them being antonyms and all.

Voters are both though. They stubbornly cling to values, while simultaneously displaying erratic voting choices. Politicians often don't represent the values they're voting public claims they do.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Wow, it's attitudes like this that some comic writers obviously have today, and its why they don't deserve much respect. Sure, I don't expect them to stick to the fact maybe Superman destroyed a planet by sneezing 55 years ago in a comic. When the feats are that ******ed due to the age they were written in, you can just kind of ignore them. BUT Green Goblin being a KNOWN murderous psychopath is a well known facet of the character. Why not have the Red Skull get openly put into a position of MASSIVE power in the states huh?!

If a writer can't respect basic continuity with his stories then he's simply not much of a writer (Eg. Loeb's "Ultimates 3")

That already happened way back in the Eighties friend He had a position similar to Norman as a matter of fact.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

BUT Green Goblin being a KNOWN murderous psychopath is a well known facet of the character. Why not have the Red Skull get openly put into a position of MASSIVE power in the states huh?!

If a writer can't respect basic continuity with his stories then he's simply not much of a writer (Eg. Loeb's "Ultimates 3")

And Luthor is a known criminal, and John Walker is a known pyschopath, and Namor sunk half of Manhattan in a massive tidal wave (back in the 1940s), and Phoenix is known for destroying a galaxy (and Cyclops happily has sex with her -- although admittedly, having sex with a genocidal maniac is kinda kinky), J.Jonah.Jameson commissioned a criminal to attack Spider-Man, Mystique and her brotherhood were employed by the Government after trying to assassinate Senator Kelly...etc, etc, etc. Are these small details too, or should I write off the last 60 years of comics as crap because of them? The only difference is, those storylines have past and because they were popular and well received, we give them a free pass. It doesn't matter that they don't make sense. Why would the Government employ Namor and trust Namor after what he did back in the 40s, that doesn't make sense? Why would the X-Men even tolerate the Phoenix's existence? Doesn't make sense. Why would the Government employ mutants who were the basis for their Sentinel program in the first place? Doesn't make sense. Although if the story turns out fine, which it did in those cases, people don't care about that.

 

[The Question]

Employing known criminals in a capacity of agents and/or footsoldiers just strikes me as quite a bit different from giving someone as warped as Osborn the kind of power he now has.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Employing known criminals in a capacity of agents and/or footsoldiers just strikes me as quite a bit different from giving someone as warped as Osborn the kind of power he now has.

Yet it's not something that is without precedent in comics. The story of the extremely corrupt and or psychopathic man gaining an inordinate amount of power is a classic story in comic books. You're right, he's not comprable to George Bush (although there are a few older Presidents, like Andrew Jackson -- who liked to beat people to death), but then that's the point isn't it. If he were just another hum-drum politician or business man there'd be no point -- it'd be reality not fantasy. This story makes perfect sense in a fantastical world. Norman Osborn saves the world and they (those in charge) reward him for it. As for the justification, he's reformed now, just like the Riddler, the Kingpin, the Penguin, Two-Face, Sabretooth, Magneto and several others in the past have "reformed" to gain back their original positions. Obviously they are trying to make it out like he is clean of the Goblin formula and that the formula was responsible, not him. That is enough of a justification to move forward.

 

[The Question]

Yet it's not something that is without precedent in comics. The story of the extremely corrupt and or psychopathic man gaining an inordinate amount of power is a classic story in comic books. You're right, he's not comprable to George Bush (although there are a few older Presidents, like Andrew Jackson -- who liked to beat people to death), but then that's the point isn't it. If he were just another hum-drum politician or business man there'd be no point -- it'd be reality not fantasy. This story makes perfect sense in a fantastical world. Norman Osborn saves the world and they (those in charge) reward him for it. As for the justification, he's reformed now, just like the Riddler, the Kingpin, the Penguin, Two-Face, Sabretooth, Magneto and several others in the past have "reformed" to gain back their original positions. Obviously they are trying to make it out like he is clean of the Goblin formula and that the formula was responsible, not him. That is enough of a justification to move forward.

I really, really don't think it does. This isn't the government thinking they can control a psychopath and use him as a living weapon. This isn't a thief turning to legitimate business and still doing dirty deeds in secret. This isn't a terrorist breaking away and forming his own nation. This is a known mass murderer and deeply mentally scarred individual given an enormous amount of power, responsibility, and trust, when he has done absolutely nothing to prove that he deserves that trust or is even fit to carry out those responsibilities. To say that this story makes perfect sense in a fantasy world, that it's all the justification needed to push the story forward, that mentality basically gives writers free reign to completely phone in their work, not put any effort into actually crafting a good story and just jump to the exciting part. If they had detailed Osborn's slow, meticulous rise to power in a way that actually followed some kind of logic, either internal or external, then I wouldn't have a problem. Hell, it probably would have been a damn fine read. People always use the argument of "we don't need realism, it's comics." But the fact of the matter is fiction, all fiction, should be realistic. In the sense that it follows some kind of logic, either the external logic of the real world, or the internal logic of the story. The reader or viewer or whatever has to be able to sit and think "well, that makes sense." Even in high fantasy, they should be able to say "accepting for a moment that wizards and orcs exist, that makes sense." Otherewise, all you have to do is fix up the dialogue a bit and you can call a short story about elves written by your average eight year old solid literature. Writing is a craft. And there's a lot more to crafting a good story than having characters say and do cool things. A good story feels real. A good story feels alive and true, even in the most metaphorical of senses. Fiction is the mirror that is held up to the world. It reflects the fact that all human existence, every life, every event, can be summed up as some kind of story, and a truly good story reflects that. It's a life, or several lives, being lived and bound together by events. To say that making blatantly lazy leaps in logic to push the story forwards is acceptable, I feel, is an insult to the craft.

 

[random_havoc]

And Luthor is a known criminal, and John Walker is a known pyschopath, and Namor sunk half of Manhattan in a massive tidal wave (back in the 1940s), and Phoenix is known for destroying a galaxy (and Cyclops happily has sex with her -- although admittedly, having sex with a genocidal maniac is kinda kinky), J.Jonah.Jameson commissioned a criminal to attack Spider-Man, Mystique and her brotherhood were employed by the Government after trying to assassinate Senator Kelly...etc, etc, etc. Are these small details too, or should I write off the last 60 years of comics as crap because of them? The only difference is, those storylines have past and because they were popular and well received, we give them a free pass. It doesn't matter that they don't make sense. Why would the Government employ Namor and trust Namor after what he did back in the 40s, that doesn't make sense? Why would the X-Men even tolerate the Phoenix's existence? Doesn't make sense. Why would the Government employ mutants who were the basis for their Sentinel program in the first place? Doesn't make sense. Although if the story turns out fine, which it did in those cases, people don't care about that.

Again, you're citing stories that are ******ed (by today's standards) as reasons why THIS crappy story point is supposed to be okay? Why are you STILL citing 30 year old plots as evidence when comics are SUPPOSED to have matured and become an art form rather than just silly kids stories. If the medium wants respect the creators need to do better.

I agree with you on one thing, this osborn plot point and the jameson been known to have hired a criminal to attack spidey and JJJ still not getting arrest for it are a very good comparison. Both are completely unbelievable and good examples of bad writing. Though, again, the difference is that today's comics are supposed to be better than those of the 60s.

 

[random_havoc]

I really, really don't think it does. This isn't the government thinking they can control a psychopath and use him as a living weapon. This isn't a thief turning to legitimate business and still doing dirty deeds in secret. This isn't a terrorist breaking away and forming his own nation. This is a known mass murderer and deeply mentally scarred individual given an enormous amount of power, responsibility, and trust, when he has done absolutely nothing to prove that he deserves that trust or is even fit to carry out those responsibilities. To say that this story makes perfect sense in a fantasy world, that it's all the justification needed to push the story forward, that mentality basically gives writers free reign to completely phone in their work, not put any effort into actually crafting a good story and just jump to the exciting part. If they had detailed Osborn's slow, meticulous rise to power in a way that actually followed some kind of logic, either internal or external, then I wouldn't have a problem. Hell, it probably would have been a damn fine read. People always use the argument of "we don't need realism, it's comics." But the fact of the matter is fiction, all fiction, should be realistic. In the sense that it follows some kind of logic, either the external logic of the real world, or the internal logic of the story. The reader or viewer or whatever has to be able to sit and think "well, that makes sense." Even in high fantasy, they should be able to say "accepting for a moment that wizards and orcs exist, that makes sense." Otherewise, all you have to do is fix up the dialogue a bit and you can call a short story about elves written by your average eight year old solid literature. Writing is a craft. And there's a lot more to crafting a good story than having characters say and do cool things. A good story feels real. A good story feels alive and true, even in the most metaphorical of senses. Fiction is the mirror that is held up to the world. It reflects the fact that all human existence, every life, every event, can be summed up as some kind of story, and a truly good story reflects that. It's a life, or several lives, being lived and bound together by events. To say that making blatantly lazy leaps in logic to push the story forwards is acceptable, I feel, is an insult to the craft.

Amen again. Wow, you're on the ball here Question. And you're willing to take the time to write out the kind of rebuttals I'm too lazy to right now lol.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I really, really don't think it does. This isn't the government thinking they can control a psychopath and use him as a living weapon. This isn't a thief turning to legitimate business and still doing dirty deeds in secret. This isn't a terrorist breaking away and forming his own nation. This is a known mass murderer and deeply mentally scarred individual given an enormous amount of power, responsibility, and trust, when he has done absolutely nothing to prove that he deserves that trust or is even fit to carry out those responsibilities. To say that this story makes perfect sense in a fantasy world, that it's all the justification needed to push the story forward, that mentality basically gives writers free reign to completely phone in their work, not put any effort into actually crafting a good story and just jump to the exciting part. If they had detailed Osborn's slow, meticulous rise to power in a way that actually followed some kind of logic, either internal or external, then I wouldn't have a problem. Hell, it probably would have been a damn fine read. People always use the argument of "we don't need realism, it's comics." But the fact of the matter is fiction, all fiction, should be realistic. In the sense that it follows some kind of logic, either the external logic of the real world, or the internal logic of the story. The reader or viewer or whatever has to be able to sit and think "well, that makes sense." Even in high fantasy, they should be able to say "accepting for a moment that wizards and orcs exist, that makes sense." Otherewise, all you have to do is fix up the dialogue a bit and you can call a short story about elves written by your average eight year old solid literature. Writing is a craft. And there's a lot more to crafting a good story than having characters say and do cool things. A good story feels real. A good story feels alive and true, even in the most metaphorical of senses. Fiction is the mirror that is held up to the world. It reflects the fact that all human existence, every life, every event, can be summed up as some kind of story, and a truly good story reflects that. It's a life, or several lives, being lived and bound together by events. To say that making blatantly lazy leaps in logic to push the story forwards is acceptable, I feel, is an insult to the craft.

Comics aren't one man's story. period. They are the work of many, many, many writers over the course of decades. You cannot confine a writer based on the precedent of previous writers. Cyclops now has a brother(s), even though no writer ever set that precedent before Neal Adams decided to introduce Havok. Really? Cyclops never mentioned his own brother before?

Jean Grey didn't have telepathy, now she does? Telekenesis doesn't imply telepathy, but she has it.

Green Goblin is Norman Osborn, even though he existed long before Norman or Harry, thus making that connection basically irrelevant until those characters were introduced.

Does that matter to you, or should a potentially interesting story be slashed because other writers before me saw it differently. If that's your stance, that Norman is off limits because of another's interpretation then comics can't ever go anywhere and we might as well go back to having Stan Lee write everything.

Comics should do what they always do, make a very weak justification and then move forward with whatever NEW take the NEW writer wants to have on it. Otherwise your stuck with the same sh** you read last year. I know you guys hate Quesada, but the fact is the man actually keeps readers because he keeps changing things up without regard to some comic you never even read that came out sixty years ago. I don't really care if every story lines up perfectly. If that were the case Wolverine would still be a runt primed for the clopping block on the X-Men.

 

[The Question]

Comics aren't one man's story. period. They are the work of many, many, many writers over the course of decades. You cannot confine a writer based on the precedent of previous writers. Cyclops now has a brother(s), even though no writer ever set that precedent before Neal Adams decided to introduce Havok. Really? Cyclops never mentioned his own brother before?

Jean Grey didn't have telepathy, now she does? Telekenesis doesn't imply telepathy, but she has it.

Green Goblin is Norman Osborn, even though he existed long before Norman or Harry, thus making that connection basically irrelevant until those characters were introduced.

Does that matter to you, or should a potentially interesting story be slashed because other writers before me saw it differently. If that's your stance, that Norman is off limits because of another's interpretation then comics can't ever go anywhere and we might as well go back to having Stan Lee write everything.

Comics should do what they always do, make a very weak justification and then move forward with whatever NEW take the NEW writer wants to have on it. Otherwise your stuck with the same sh** you read last year. I know you guys hate Quesada, but the fact is the man actually keeps readers because he keeps changing things up without regard to some comic you never even read that came out sixty years ago. I don't really care if every story lines up perfectly. If that were the case Wolverine would still be a runt primed for the clopping block on the X-Men.

I'm not saying that things should never change. I never once made that statement and completely disagree with the notion that writers should be confined by what previous writers have done. Of course characters should change and grow, more than they do in marvel and DC most of the time. What I'm talking about is this story. The one happening right now. Weak justifications aren't...well, they aren't justified. Weak justifications are a sign of bad writing. They're a sign that little thought has been put into the story. If you can't make a story work reasonably, you don't write the story. It's that simple. I have nothing against the premise of Osborn's rise to power. What I have problems with is the execution. It came completely out of nowhere, had no build up and made very little sense. It was poorly written.

I don't want more of the same, but different. I don't want the characters to remain static and ultimately become stagnant. I want them to change and grow, and in come cases die and stay that way. But I want all of that to be done through good writing. And to excuse weak justifications for stories like this, it insults writing. It cheapens it.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

But the fact of the matter is fiction, all fiction, should be realistic. In the sense that it follows some kind of logic, either the external logic of the real world, or the internal logic of the story.

This only applies to a single story, not a string of them written by different people. Should Beast still make Ed Sullivan references regularly, say that it's his favorite show? Should they still drive around in old cars, and wear outdated clothes? Those violate the internal logic of Marvel stories.

 

[The Question]

This only applies to a single story, not a string of them written by different people. Should Beast still make Ed Sullivan references regularly, say that it's his favorite show? Should they still drive around in old cars, and wear outdated clothes? Those violate the internal logic of Marvel stories.

I disagree completely. Moving the characters up along a slowly sliding timescale, not taking place in real time, that has very little to do with the events and characters within the story following some kind of logic. Ed Sullivan references, old cars and clothes, that's just aesthetics. A string of stories written by different people should still follow some kind of logic, even if on a story by story basis. This particular story doesn't follow any kind of logic. And it could if a bit more effort had been put into it.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I'm not saying that things should never change. I never once made that statement and completely disagree with the notion that writers should be confined by what previous writers have done. Of course characters should change and grow, more than they do in marvel and DC most of the time. What I'm talking about is this story. The one happening right now. Weak justifications aren't...well, they aren't justified. Weak justifications are a sign of bad writing. They're a sign that little thought has been put into the story. If you can't make a story work reasonably, you don't write the story. It's that simple. I have nothing against the premise of Osborn's rise to power. What I have problems with is the execution. It came completely out of nowhere, had no build up and made very little sense. It was poorly written.

I don't want more of the same, but different. I don't want the characters to remain static and ultimately become stagnant. I want them to change and grow, and in come cases die and stay that way. But I want all of that to be done through good writing. And to excuse weak justifications for stories like this, it insults writing. It cheapens it.

These stories should be held to the standard of other stories. That's not how comics work, nor how they should work. When Frank Miller came to write DareDevil a second time and did "Born Again" he abruptly made Karen Paige a porn star and drug addict, I suppose he had some wriggle room considering the character had only made some sporatic appearances, but there was never anything to suggest she'd go the way that she did or that she knew Murdock's secret. All shoehorned into continuity to make a very good story work.

That's what happens though, because writers won't and shouldn't be held accountable for who came before them, so they often make changes in response to the story THEY want to tell. It's not lazy writing because it's not them writing the stories that came before. It would be one thing for Stan Lee to write an issue of Spide-Man where Green Goblin is evil and then decide now he is good, then for another writer to have a completely different take.

It kills me how much comic fans are like Goldfish, having a 30 second memory of all the bullsh** they spout complaining about sh** that happens since time and memorium as if this is some major problem. Face it your precious continuity doesn't mean jack until you want it to. You're find with resetting the time scale, allowing characters to gain new powers or characters to die, come back and die again, and those stories will be classic, but any new attempts at the same thing -- they're horrible.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

I disagree completely. Moving the characters up along a slowly sliding timescale, not taking place in real time, that has very little to do with the events and characters within the story following some kind of logic. Ed Sullivan references, old cars and clothes, that's just aesthetics. A string of stories written by different people should still follow some kind of logic, even if on a story by story basis. This particular story doesn't follow any kind of logic. And it could if a bit more effort had been put into it.

Name one comic that has done this and I'll give you a cookie (oh, and it actually has to have been around for more than a decade or so).

 

[The Question]

These stories should be held to the standard of other stories. That's not how comics work, nor how they should work. When Frank Miller came to write DareDevil a second time and did "Born Again" he abruptly made Karen Paige a porn star and drug addict, I suppose he had some wriggle room considering the character had only made some sporatic appearances, but there was never anything to suggest she'd go the way that she did or that she knew Murdock's secret. All shoehorned into continuity to make a very good story work.

That's what happens though, because writers won't and shouldn't be held accountable for who came before them, so they often make changes in response to the story THEY want to tell. It's not lazy writing because it's not them writing the stories that came before. It would be one thing for Stan Lee to write an issue of Spide-Man where Green Goblin is evil and then decide now he is good, then for another writer to have a completely different take.

It kills me how much comic fans are like Goldfish, having a 30 second memory of all the bullsh** they spout complaining about sh** that happens since time and memorium as if this is some major problem. Face it your precious continuity doesn't mean jack until you want it to. You're find with resetting the time scale, allowing characters to gain new powers or characters to die, come back and die again, and those stories will be classic, but any new attempts at the same thing -- they're horrible.

You are putting words in my mouth. I don't think new attempts at shaking things up, at changing things, are horrible. I think horrible attempts at doing those things are horrible. The Karen Page example, that worked because we hadn't seen karen for ages when that story came out. A lot can happen in that time, and obviously a lot had happened. It worked because there was wiggle room already. Weak justifications for a good story don't work because weak justifications are in of themselves a huge, gaping flaw in the story. Osborn's suddenly having risen to power for absolutely no reason isn't justified by a good story, because the fact that it happened shows that the story isn't that good. As I have said several times, I would have had nothing against Norman rising to power if it had been done better. If they had actually put some thought into it and had it come about organically and realistically, instead of simply saying "Osborn is king of all superheroes now" and then going from there.

 

[sdc10]

You are putting words in my mouth. I don't think new attempts at shaking things up, at changing things, are horrible. I think horrible attempts at doing those things are horrible. The Karen Page example, that worked because we hadn't seen karen for ages when that story came out. A lot can happen in that time, and obviously a lot had happened. It worked because there was wiggle room already. Weak justifications for a good story don't work because weak justifications are in of themselves a huge, gaping flaw in the story. Osborn's suddenly having risen to power for absolutely no reason isn't justified by a good story, because the fact that it happened shows that the story isn't that good. As I have said several times, I would have had nothing against Norman rising to power if it had been done better. If they had actually put some thought into it and had it come about organically and realistically, instead of simply saying "Osborn is king of all superheroes now" and then going from there.

Ya and them im sure youd have people complaining about how long it took for Osbourne to finally get where he is, i mean if they spent like 5 issues on a book setting him up to power. Some would go "well couldn't they have just done that in one issue?"

 

[The Question]

Honestly, I would have gone for longer. At least a year of build up, if not more.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

You are putting words in my mouth. I don't think new attempts at shaking things up, at changing things, are horrible. I think horrible attempts at doing those things are horrible. The Karen Page example, that worked because we hadn't seen karen for ages when that story came out.

Actually she'd been a regular in the Ghost Rider series only three years earlier. So, yeah, we'd heard from her in a while. She'd also been in a recent issue of Marvel Team Up and Marvel Two-In-One around a little after that. Somehow though, despite being considered a successful actress she fell apart, started doing drugs and ****ing herself out...because yeah, that totally fit.

I could just bring up how Giant Sized X-Men totally violates continuity, and how X-Men the Hidden Years couldn't be fit into the MU if you had the jaws of life.

 

[The Question]

Actually she'd been a regular in the Ghost Rider series only three years earlier. So, yeah, we'd heard from her in a while. She'd also been in a recent issue of Marvel Team Up and Marvel Two-In-One around a little after that. Somehow though, despite being considered a successful actress she fell apart, started doing drugs and ****ing herself out...because yeah, that totally fit.

How long had it been between Born Again and Karen's last appearance before that? I'm just curious.


Anyway, you do make a valid point. But look at Born Again, within the confines of the story. We haven't seen Karen in a while (which is more or less true), and in that time her life's gone to the ****ter. Within the confines of that story, that makes sense. Norman's rise to power doesn't even make sense within the confines of Dark Reign, let alone stacked against the rest of the MU continuity. And also, I do think there is a bit of a difference in finding wiggle room with continuity (which I think Born Again is a case of), and blatantly disregarding it (which Dark Reign looks like it falls under).

I could just bring up how Giant Sized X-Men totally violates continuity, and how X-Men the Hidden Years couldn't be fit into the MU if you had the jaws of life.

If you wish to, go ahead. But I want to ask, how exactly does using the argument of "it's happened before," prove the point of "it's okay that it does happen." There are plenty of things that have happened in the past that really shouldn't happen again.

 

[random_havoc]

Comics aren't one man's story. period. They are the work of many, many, many writers over the course of decades. You cannot confine a writer based on the precedent of previous writers. Cyclops now has a brother(s), even though no writer ever set that precedent before Neal Adams decided to introduce Havok. Really? Cyclops never mentioned his own brother before?

Jean Grey didn't have telepathy, now she does? Telekenesis doesn't imply telepathy, but she has it.

Green Goblin is Norman Osborn, even though he existed long before Norman or Harry, thus making that connection basically irrelevant until those characters were introduced.

Does that matter to you, or should a potentially interesting story be slashed because other writers before me saw it differently. If that's your stance, that Norman is off limits because of another's interpretation then comics can't ever go anywhere and we might as well go back to having Stan Lee write everything.

Comics should do what they always do, make a very weak justification and then move forward with whatever NEW take the NEW writer wants to have on it. Otherwise your stuck with the same sh** you read last year. I know you guys hate Quesada, but the fact is the man actually keeps readers because he keeps changing things up without regard to some comic you never even read that came out sixty years ago. I don't really care if every story lines up perfectly. If that were the case Wolverine would still be a runt primed for the clopping block on the X-Men.

Again you're using 30 year old stories as if today's writing shouldn't be any better! Your debating skills are obviously in deep need of help considering you just keep repeating the same crap that we've already refuted just using new examples for the same destroyed arguments.
You're arguing with nothing but hot air now. The Question obviously has more patience than I do.

People like you are why comics never will have proper continuity, cuz you'll settle for hack writing to excuse cheap thrills, which means the writers will never have to step up their work.

 

[Doc Destruction]

Honestly, I would have gone for longer. At least a year of build up, if not more.

I felt the same way about Civil War.

 

[Mr. Green]

Honestly, I would have gone for longer. At least a year of build up, if not more.

There was a year of build up at least. Osborn became director of the T-bolts during CW. Which was over a year before SI wrapped up.