Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 184
  1. #121
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    So, I'm confused. Are you saying that alternative takes on popular characters that examine their innermost thoughts, flaws, and motivations while also providing meta-commentary on what they represent is uniquely Marvel?
    Did I say that? If that was the case we wouldn’t have Kingdom Come. I am saying the way OML does this is uniquely Marvel. It is a risky move for a publisher that sees its properties as assets that shouldn’t be undermined or challenged fundamentally. While OML didn’t actually go that far it suggests the idea that Wolverine’s code of conduct, so essential for the antihero archetype, was not the thing that defined him. Instead it was the simple fact that he was a killer.

    It asks the question that Ungorgiven answers. Are antiheroes really heroes? Unforgiven suggests no, that they are a necessary evil in violent times, nothing more. OML suggests some redemption is possible but we never get the resolution so that’s just a sliver of hope in a dark world.
    Last edited by JKtheMac; 10-21-2018 at 10:18 AM.

  2. #122
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    When DC does a story like The Killing Joke, or even the recent Batman Damned, it's always going to be an act of provocation (the kind that gets "look what they're doing to Batman now!" attention in the mainstream) in a manner that has no parallel at Marvel. In every era from the '60s on, Batman has been pushed to darker extremes in order to stay relevant to modern audiences and to continually refute or combat the notion that he is, at heart, a childish creation of a more naive time. Marvel doesn't do the same with characters like Wolverine or Punisher and so on. You don't get the "darker" versions of those characters because they're already as dark and cynical as the Marvel universe needs them to be.
    I don't think it's so much of a provocation so much as a showcase of the different kind of stories that you can use him in.

    You can have the "kid-friendly" Batman in cartoons or all-ages things which is just as valid as a Batman that is used in darker and more serious stories, and both can be equally as true to the character. Batman: The Brave and the Bold's version of the character is as equally valid as Batman in the Under the Red Hood movie, or Adam West's Batman being as valid as Nolan's Batman. And that is equally true for Batman stories.

    Which is probably part of why Batman has managed to stay as relevant and popular with modern audiences as he has.

    (and it's not like Marvel isn't also as guilty as "look what they're doing to _____ now" stunts).

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    The initial Batman and Superman tales were not the norm for the characters as they evolved.

    The Batman originally used guns, something that would be anathematic to the character in time, as seen in Denny O'Neil's "There Is No Hope in Crime Alley."

    And despite the violence of the earliest books, they were naive creations in that they offered simple solutions to problems and did so via characters that represented uncomplicated power fantasies. They're pure in that they inhabit a very black and white world.

    Batman and Superman were not conflicted, neurotic characters. They were sure of who they were and where their strength was needed.
    The characters evolved from their origins but a lot the traits inherent in those origins were still retained for the most part.

  3. #123
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    The initial Batman and Superman tales were not the norm for the characters as they evolved.

    The Batman originally used guns, something that would be anathematic to the character in time, as seen in Denny O'Neil's "There Is No Hope in Crime Alley."
    Yes, I know that their methodology became more tame in the 1950s. That's what I just said. But, at their roots, they were still born out of the angst and anger of their creators. Their original stories mirrored that. Their modern stories have mirrored that as well. Batman may no longer use guns (though there are actually still times that he does), but at his core, he is still willing to do what needs to be done to stop crime. He is driven because of this trauma and sadness inside of him that can never really go away. His whole crusade is born out of a need for vengeance. That's always been with the character, ever since he first showed up in 1939.

    I mean, if we're talking personal turmoil in comic book characters, I don't know if you could find a better example than Batman. He's pretty much the poster-child for that.

    And despite the violence of the earliest books, they were naive creations in that they offered simple solutions to problems and did so via characters that represented uncomplicated power fantasies. They're pure in that they inhabit a very black and white world.

    Batman and Superman were not conflicted, neurotic characters. They were sure of who they were and where their strength was needed.
    Again, that's an oversimplification and one that hasn't been true for decades if it was ever true at all. That's the point many posters, including myself, have been trying to drive home to you. There have been many times when Batman and Superman have NOT been sure of themselves and have doubted themselves, even back then. Not everything in their world is black and white. Many of the stories I've quoted in this discussion have been prime examples of that. One of the many themes explored in Superman comics for several decades now has been him asking himself "Am I doing what I should be doing and am I doing it right? Am I doing enough?" or "Is my methodology outdated? Am I really what people need right now?"

    I can assure you, nobody really sees that and thinks "Superman can't have self-doubt because he was a naive creation of the 1930s." That might be your perception but that doesn’t mean it’s anyone else’s. Most readers simply look at that and think "Superman's doubting himself."
    Last edited by Green Goblin of Sector 2814; 10-21-2018 at 10:47 AM.

  4. #124
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    The initial Batman and Superman tales were not the norm for the characters as they evolved.

    The Batman originally used guns, something that would be anathematic to the character in time, as seen in Denny O'Neil's "There Is No Hope in Crime Alley."

    And despite the violence of the earliest books, they were naive creations in that they offered simple solutions to problems and did so via characters that represented uncomplicated power fantasies. They're pure in that they inhabit a very black and white world.

    Batman and Superman were not conflicted, neurotic characters. They were sure of who they were and where their strength was needed.
    I tend to trust Alan Moore on this. He clearly believes Batman has become too dark:

    I’ve never really liked my story in The Killing Joke. I think it put far too much melodramatic weight upon a character that was never designed to carry it. It was too nasty, it was too physically violent. There were some good things about it, but in terms of my writing, it’s not one of me favorite pieces. If, as I said, god forbid, I was ever writing a character like Batman again, I’d probably be setting it squarely in the kind of “smiley uncle period where Dick Sprang was drawing it, and where you had Ace the Bat-Hound and Bat-Mite, and the zebra Batman—when it was sillier. Because then, it was brimming with imagination and playful ideas. I don’t think that the world needs that many brooding psychopathic avengers.
    I think some place too much emphasis on his choice of where he would take the character if he were to write him again. I believe he chooses this as a stark contrast, to emphasise he is more at home as a less serious character. Unfortunately this drive towards darkness seems unrelenting for Batman. To think The Killing Joke has pretty much been adopted as canonical is just mind-boggling.

    We seem forever doomed to have to listen to Dark Knight apologists who want him to be the character he has evolved into. I would love the Batman I appreciated in the 70s to come back but I doubt we will ever see that character. He was dark in a fantasy kind of way. Just on the edge of the darker character he would eventually become.
    Last edited by JKtheMac; 10-21-2018 at 10:35 AM.

  5. #125
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    To think The Killing Joke has pretty much been adopted as canonical is just mind-boggling.
    Although even the Killing Joke becoming canon had it's silver linings, in that without it's horrible treatment of Barbara Gordon we probably would never have gotten Oracle or the other Batgirls.

  6. #126
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I don't think it's so much of a provocation so much as a showcase of the different kind of stories that you can use him in.
    Yes, and which would be a provocative move.

    Heroes in Crisis is provocative as a DC story whereas it would generate much less attention as a Marvel one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    You can have the "kid-friendly" Batman in cartoons or all-ages things which is just as valid as a Batman that is used in darker and more serious stories, and both can be equally as true to the character. Batman: The Brave and the Bold's version of the character is as equally valid as Batman in the Under the Red Hood movie, or Adam West's Batman being as valid as Nolan's Batman. And that is equally true for Batman stories.
    No one is saying that there isn't variety. The point is that the variety you see at DC is notable.

    You don't have "kid friendly" Daredevil and "gritty" Daredevil, for example. You just have Daredevil. The fact that there continues to be versions of Batman that are kid-orientated (as we still see in the Batman '66 books) and ones that are not (like Batman Damned) and yet they all co-exist in a DC multiverse speaks to how DC has adapted and keeps adapting to a changing world ("comics aren't just for kids!") while still keeping a foot in a more innocent era.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    (and it's not like Marvel isn't also as guilty as "look what they're doing to _____ now" stunts).
    It's not "stunts" on either side. And it's nothing either side needs to be guilty for. It's just stories.

    When Marvel does shocking things to their characters, it's simply not the same as when DC does it. With DC, there's always going to be the "Wow, these comics aren't for kids!" reaction. With Marvel, there's never that same level of surprise because there was never that initial aura of innocence about Marvel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    The characters evolved from their origins but a lot the traits inherent in those origins were still retained for the most part.
    The basic mythos remain intact and it's what makes them iconic. DC heroes are the stuff of legend while Marvel heroes have more prosaic profiles.

  7. #127
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Although even the Killing Joke becoming canon had it's silver linings, in that without it's horrible treatment of Barbara Gordon we probably would never have gotten Oracle or the other Batgirls.
    Hardly a justification of the darkness we have seen overburdening a character for decades as the direct market made its less mainstream sensibilities known. But this argument is old and will probably still be being thrashed out after I am gone from this world. I am more interested in how this demonstrates Prof. Warren’s thesis, that DC heroes are not born from this darkness and for many of us it does not sit well on the shoulders of Batman.

  8. #128
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    Yes, I know that their methodology became more tame in the 1950s. That's what I just said. But, at their roots, they were still born out of the angst and anger of their creators. Their original stories mirrored that. Their modern stories have mirrored that as well. Batman may no longer use guns (though there are actually still times that he does), but at his core, he is still willing to do what needs to be done to stop crime. He is driven because of this trauma and sadness inside of him that can never really go away. His whole crusade is born out of a need for vengeance. That's always been with the character, ever since he first showed up in 1939.

    I mean, if we're talking personal turmoil in comic book characters, I don't know if you could find a better example than Batman. He's pretty much the poster-child for that.
    But he isn't. He's a "dark" character because he, you know, spends a lot of time in a cave and he affects a scary persona, but for the most part, he's always believed in his crusade and has sacrificed for it. That's not inner turmoil. Wanting to fight for a better world and devoting one's life to becoming someone who can fight for the vulnerable is as altruistic as it gets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeeguy91 View Post
    Again, that's an oversimplification and one that hasn't been true for decades if it was ever true at all. That's the point many posters, including myself, have been trying to drive home to you. There have been many times when Batman and Superman have NOT been sure of themselves and have doubted themselves, even back then. Many of the stories I've quoted in this discussion have been prime examples of that. One of the many themes explored in Superman comics for several decades now has been him asking himself "Am I doing what I should be doing and am I doing it right? Am I doing enough?" or "Is my methodology outdated? Am I really what people need right now?"

    I can assure you, nobody really sees that and thinks "Superman can't have self-doubt because he was a naive creation of the 1930s." That might be your perception but that doesn’t mean it’s anyone else’s. Most readers simply look at that and think "Superman's doubting himself."
    For the sake of introducing a dilemma, of course Superman and Batman are going to question their methods or purpose on occasion.

    But that doesn't mean they are self-doubting characters as a rule in the way that Marvel's characters typically are.

  9. #129
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    I tend to trust Alan Moore on this. He clearly believes Batman has become too dark:
    I agree with Moore. Killing Joke was not a healthy turning point for Batman.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    We seem forever doomed to have to listen to Dark Knight apologists who want him to be the character he has evolved into. I would love the Batman I appreciated in the 70s to come back but I doubt we will ever see that character. He was dark in a fantasy kind of way. Just on the edge of the darker character he would eventually become.
    The '70s Batman is my preferred version of the character as well.

  10. #130
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    Heroes in Crisis is provocative as a DC story whereas it would generate much less attention as a Marvel one.
    I can't see how a similar type of story for Marvel would generate less attention if it was promoted the same way.

    I guess because Marvel promoting shock-value deaths is old hat by this point ?
    You don't have "kid friendly" Daredevil and "gritty" Daredevil, for example. You just have Daredevil. The fact that there continues to be versions of Batman that are kid-orientated (as we still see in the Batman '66 books) and ones that are not (like Batman Damned) and yet they all co-exist in a DC multiverse speaks to how DC has adapted and keeps adapting to a changing world ("comics aren't just for kids!") while still keeping a foot in a more innocent era.
    I guess that's true. It's been a long time since we've seen Daredevil in cartoon since the 90's Spider-Man cartoon.
    When Marvel does shocking things to their characters, it's simply not the same as when DC does it. With DC, there's always going to be the "Wow, these comics aren't for kids!" reaction. With Marvel, there's never that same level of surprise because there was never that initial aura of innocence about Marvel.
    I think compared to the ages that follow it the Silver Age was definitely a more "innocent" period for Marvel comics, since for all the issues the heroes faced in that era they were not necessarily as complex or overwhelming as the personal issues that were introduced in later eras.

    Tony Stark's alcoholism wasn't in the Silver Age. Hank hitting Jan wasn't in the Silver Age. The death of Gwen marked the end of the Silver Age.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    Hardly a justification of the darkness we have seen overburdening a character for decades as the direct market made its less mainstream sensibilities known. But this argument is old and will probably still be being thrashed out after I am gone from this world. I am more interested in how this demonstrates Prof. Warren’s thesis, that DC heroes are not born from this darkness and for many of us it does not sit well on the shoulders of Batman.
    I think Batman can work well in darker stories and fine in lighter stories, but inherently he's also a character who's born from tragedy and murder, and I think he carries that with him even in his lighter depictions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    But he isn't. He's a "dark" character because he, you know, spends a lot of time in a cave and he affects a scary persona, but for the most part, he's always believed in his crusade and has sacrificed for it. That's not inner turmoil. Wanting to fight for a better world and devoting one's life to becoming someone who can fight for the vulnerable is as altruistic as it gets.
    But that can just as easily be spun in a way to create drama, as it has in the past.

  11. #131
    Ultimate Member JKtheMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bedford UK
    Posts
    10,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    But he isn't. He's a "dark" character because he, you know, spends a lot of time in a cave and he affects a scary persona, but for the most part, he's always believed in his crusade and has sacrificed for it. That's not inner turmoil. Wanting to fight for a better world and devoting one's life to becoming someone who can fight for the vulnerable is as altruistic as it gets.
    This was exactly why I was placing so much emphasis upon character driven stories. Batman stories are not at heart character driven. The origin story defines him so completely there is very little that can bear questioning. This is why most of the stories that do challenge Batman’s character are outside of mainstream continuity.

    This is very similar to Spider-Man. He also has such a strong identity that it is rarely challenged and when writers touch upon that core, like Slott hinted at with his Jackal story, it touches a nerve in the readers. Luckily everyone knows not to push those buttons too hard with Spider-Man. Even the controversy over MJ is born from Marvel insisting on the core character being unmarried for brand and not story reasons. The brand demands a simpler Spider-Man.

    For the sake of introducing a dilemma, of course Superman and Batman are going to question their methods or purpose on occasion.

    But that doesn't mean they are self-doubting characters as a rule in the way that Marvel's characters typically are.
    Indeed the inevitable outcome of a Superman dilemma will be that he continues to assert his fundamental Superman nature. The very antithesis of a character driven story which necessitates character change.

    Again this was a problem for Alan Moore. He grew up with comics telling character driven stories and when DC’s editorial began to hold fast to the idea that change was not desirable for superheroes that inevitably meant Moore could no longer work with them. He is so far in the character driven camp that for him a plot driven story is not actually a story.

    This is not actually an uncommon viewpoint. The age old divide between dramatic contemporary fiction and genre fiction is built upon this fundamental issue. A misguided notion that genre fiction can’t truly be character driven. A claim that many genre editors also believe.

    It is no accident that Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow was written at DC. A story marking the end of an era for Superman. It is DC that are most wedded to the idea of the Iconic Hero concept. A concept I believe is fundamentally flawed.

    Modern TV has shown how character change can be embraced within serialised genre fiction. A notion born from TV’s adoption of the Marvel ethos, as it can be traced back to Buffy and Alias, both inspired by comic book continuity as continual change, which was the innovation that Stan Lee brought to comics.

  12. #132
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    But he isn't. He's a "dark" character because he, you know, spends a lot of time in a cave and he affects a scary persona, but for the most part, he's always believed in his crusade and has sacrificed for it. That's not inner turmoil. Wanting to fight for a better world and devoting one's life to becoming someone who can fight for the vulnerable is as altruistic as it gets.
    Really? Are you really making the argument that Bruce Wayne is NOT tortured and emotionally conflicted? Yes, he believes in his crusade, but at the same time, so does Steve Rogers, so does Peter Parker, so does Tony Stark.

    You really think Bruce hasn't felt the sacrifices that he's had to make and wishes he didn't have to make them? Look at how he reacted to the death of Jason Todd, refusing to take on another Robin for a long time afterwards because of his guilt. Look at what happened with the Superheavy arc where Bruce had to choose between having a life with Julie Madison and being Batman. And again even as recent as Batman #50, look at how Bruce was going to finally choose happiness with Selina only to have that taken away from him. There are a lot of other examples.

    There is absolutely a part of Bruce that loves being Batman and will place that over everything else, but then again, there's also a part of Peter Parker who loves being Spider-Man and will place his whole ideal of "with great power comes great responsibility" over everything else. Its a different kind of turmoil because Bruce is more driven by his mission than some other characters, but Batman still struggles with being Batman.

    For the sake of introducing a dilemma, of course Superman and Batman are going to question their methods or purpose on occasion.

    But that doesn't mean they are self-doubting characters as a rule in the way that Marvel's characters typically are.
    And again, what I'm saying is that there is no monolithic approach that one can take to this. There are Marvel characters who, a lot of the time, don't doubt themselves or struggle with their choices or express a reluctance to be heroes. Steve Rogers hardly ever questions his decision to become Captain America nor have I really seen a lot of personal struggle and self-doubt built into the character. Same thing with Tony Stark becoming Iron Man. The inner conflict in those characters comes from other things like Tony's alcoholism or Steve blaming himself for Bucky's "death." Thor being unworthy is one of the few times I've ever really seen the character express self-doubt, but even then its not so much that he doesn't want to be Thor. Quite the opposite actually. It more so has to do with him struggling with what has made him unworthy.

    But then on the same token, there are DC characters who doubt themselves all the time and are built around internal conflict over their choice to be heroes. Booster Gold pretty much became a superhero because he was a washed up loser and wanted to be loved, but still struggles with how he views himself and if he can live up to the "real" heroes. Wally West famously quit being Kid Flash in order to pursue a normal life only to be sucked in again. Victor Stone during the early part of the New Teen Titans run was pretty much angst incarnate because he viewed himself as a freak and a monster. The Doom Patrol was actually doing the whole "outcasts from society who wish they were normal" thing before the X-Men even existed. Wonder Woman also went through a period similar to the current situation with Thor when she lost her mantle to Artemis back in the '90s.

    So, again, monolithic generalizations like this really shouldn't be relied upon because they are demonstrably false.
    Last edited by Green Goblin of Sector 2814; 10-21-2018 at 03:25 PM.

  13. #133
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    You don't have "kid friendly" Daredevil and "gritty" Daredevil, for example. You just have Daredevil.
    Well, actually there is. Silver Age Daredevil was pretty much as camp and silly and kid-friendly as you could get.



    In fact, Waid's recent run on Daredevil (which I loved) was in many ways a return to the camp and lighthearted DD stories of the Silver Age.

  14. #134
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    6,935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    Did I say that? If that was the case we wouldn’t have Kingdom Come. I am saying the way OML does this is uniquely Marvel. It is a risky move for a publisher that sees its properties as assets that shouldn’t be undermined or challenged fundamentally. While OML didn’t actually go that far it suggests the idea that Wolverine’s code of conduct, so essential for the antihero archetype, was not the thing that defined him. Instead it was the simple fact that he was a killer.

    It asks the question that Ungorgiven answers. Are antiheroes really heroes? Unforgiven suggests no, that they are a necessary evil in violent times, nothing more. OML suggests some redemption is possible but we never get the resolution so that’s just a sliver of hope in a dark world.
    No, OML does it in a way that's uniquely Mark Millar. It also wasn't the first time Millar had even done something like that with a popular character:


  15. #135
    Mighty Member LifeIsILL's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JKtheMac View Post
    No I wasn't. I was pointing at OML as an example of a story that examined the whole idea of anti-hero's inspired by the movie that did so in an even more direct manner. At no time was I suggesting that the antihero was a uniquely DC thing. I was suggesting that OML was a uniquely Marvel book because of the way it examined a major and highly popular character in a way that could be considered undermining and critical of the loner antihero archetype.
    You first mentioned that OML was a deep insight into the protagonist and questions his nature as a killer, in the fashion of a dystopian old western road-trip, while briefly reflecting on the character's past and his struggles. And what immediately came to my mind was DC's Jonah Hex and All Star Western comics. That's the perfect picture of what you described. And that was what I was responding to.

    Now, if you're talking about something else, about how Marvel was able to repeatedly (in reality...only sometimes) de-construct and rebuild their most popular character, and that this is an area that DC doesn't frequently cross with their most popular characters, then you may have a sound argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof. Warren View Post
    But he isn't. He's a "dark" character because he, you know, spends a lot of time in a cave and he affects a scary persona, but for the most part, he's always believed in his crusade and has sacrificed for it. That's not inner turmoil. Wanting to fight for a better world and devoting one's life to becoming someone who can fight for the vulnerable is as altruistic as it gets

    For the sake of introducing a dilemma, of course Superman and Batman are going to question their methods or purpose on occasion.

    But that doesn't mean they are self-doubting characters as a rule in the way that Marvel's characters typically are.
    I have always said that Batman is one of the most altruistic and nicest guys in the DC Universe. The popularized Jeph Loeb quote where he states that Batman is not a "good person" is him trying to get attention. You can't find many examples of Batman not being "good" in DC.

    DC characters always return to their core fundamental nature after whatever tragedy they have to face. Like Superman exiling himself into space after Brianiac brainwashed him to kill. But months later, he returns as Superman unchanged and unfragmented. Basically, putting it in simple terms:

    1. DC characters are pure and simple
    2. They face a problem, maybe a turmoiled villain who has been rejected by society
    3. They solve the problem using whichever methods they have
    4. They return to their glorious selves and simple lives.

    At Marvel on the other hand, we have the opposite.

    1. Marvel characters are an unhappy lot with issues
    2. They have to solve their own life problems.
    3. A villain or an external threat appears.
    4. They defeat said villain using whichever methods they have
    5. They become briefly happy, but eventually a new personal issue shows up

    But as you can see, this can also lead to a cycle of ridiculous melodrama and non-ending soap-opera. You can't have a happy Daredevil, a successful Spider-Man, a happy Iron-Man. Because if they do, then what else is there? You just know that some absurd element from their past or elsewhere will show up and just proceed to ruin their lives all over again.
    Last edited by LifeIsILL; 10-21-2018 at 03:54 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •