View Poll Results: Are you disappointed 5G will no longer happen?

Voters
107. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes! It sounded like a great idea!

    30 28.04%
  • No! Replacing established characters isn't the answer!

    77 71.96%
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 97
  1. #76
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    2,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    He's not a straight up port (never said he was), but he is the main basis. he also draws heavily from the Silver and Bronze ages. What modern developments does he draw from? There is Superdoom being a revamped Doomsday, but that's more of a metaphor for Siegel and Shuster losing their creation to a corporation and a "take that!" to the over emphasis on the Death of Superman story. Because he certainly doesn't have any major mainstream stories after that ("You're only relevant when you're dying")

    I wasn't saying nostalgia in general can be bad. But either way, it's nostalgia running things. Morrison gave us a revamped version drawing from older stuff but executed in a fresh way.. And some fans rejected it because he wasn't the "classic original" who was married. Despite the dissonance that the version who New 52 replaced was neither the original or the classic (perhaps a classic, but certainly not the). So when it came time for Rebirth, their nostalgia won out and it was their turn again.
    So the thing about Morrison's work is he is very, very cognizant to draw from basically all eras. The dude loves picking and choosing the best aspects of characters from myriad writers. It is one of the best things about his Superman, as it is for his Batman. I just don't see how Morrison's writing is some counterpoint to my statement. Morrison revels in the myriad continuity and character changes.

    A lot of then fans didn't like Morrison's Superman because it wasn't New 52 Superman, too. Rebooted to the same old status quo. I'm sorry Rebirth was bad for you because it didn't reboot Superman again. But I like Jon, so it was cool for me. Then again, I liked Chris, too. So it wasn't really a full nostalgia bomb, as we never really did get Post-Crisis Superman's son. It wasn't even nostalgia...it was just new. All they did was skip Clark and Lois' relationship building back to Pre-Flashpoint levels, honestly. And thank goodness for that because that is an over told, and well told, history. Didn't need part 20 of it.

    Jon Kent is not nostalgia. I'm not sure how you even came to that idea. We barely even got any of Clark and Lois as parents, either, in the old continuity. Relatively untread ground. Honestly, what nostalgia did Superman play to that you're miffed about, anyhow? The more I think about it the less I acknowledge your point.
    Last edited by Dred; 09-20-2020 at 01:39 PM.

  2. #77
    The Superior One Celgress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    11,769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Digifiend View Post
    Helps that Miles actually started out replacing a dead alternate universe Peter, and was merged into main continuity having already been established for four years. And Kamala didn't replace Carol at all. Carol took the vacant Captain Marvel title after the deaths of three of the four previous ones (Mar-Vell, Genis-Vell and Phyla-Vell), leaving her old Ms. Marvel mantle vacant, which Kamala took upon gaining her completely different powers - while Kamala originally idolised Carol, which is why chose the name, and Carol's one of her mentors (along with Iron Man), she's really just recycling an abandoned name. Riri, on the other hand, was introduced by Bendis in his Iron Man run, then a few months later, Tony got put in a coma and Riri, now codenamed Ironheart, took over the book. That introduction was too rushed, her taking over wasn't organic, and frankly she needed rescuing from the Scrappy heap by Jim Zub in Champions and Eve Ewing in her next solo book.....
    Exactly my point. I'm glad you summarized their different backgrounds as I'm too lazy lol.
    "So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."

  3. #78
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    So the thing about Morrison's work is he is very, very cognizant to draw from basically all eras. The dude loves picking and choosing the best aspects of characters from myriad writers. It is one of the best things about his Superman, as it is for his Batman. I just don't see how Morrison's writing is some counterpoint to my statement. Morrison revels in the myriad continuity and character changes.
    Then what post-COIE concepts did he utilize? Post some examples please. We know he utilized Batman's entire history, even if he focused mostly on pre-COIE stuff and his own stuff. But Batman has been in a stronger position than Superman for a while since he wasn't so drastically altered by COIE and his eras flow into each other far better.

    Morrison started his Superman as the Golden Age guy and brought him to a point where he resembles the Bronze Age incarnation before ending his run. All-Star is a love letter to the Silver Age incarnation. He rather pointedly doesn't reference much post-COIE stuff beyond Doomsday in either of his two major Superman works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    A lot of then fans didn't like Morrison's Superman because it wasn't New 52 Superman, too. Rebooted to the same old status quo. I'm sorry Rebirth was bad for you because it didn't reboot Superman again. But I like Jon, so it was cool for me. Then again, I liked Chris, too. So it wasn't really a full nostalgia bomb, as we never really did get Post-Crisis Superman's son. It wasn't even nostalgia...it was just new. All they did was skip Clark and Lois' relationship building back to Pre-Flashpoint levels, honestly. And thank goodness for that because that is an over told, and well told, history. Didn't need part 20 of it.
    They literally blew up New 52 Superman and brought back one of his 90s writers to bring in a married version that had a kid to replace him. And then effectively wiped out all traces of his existence. It pretty much was a nostalgia bomb, just nostalgia for a different era.

    You're right in that we didn't need to see him and Lois go through the motions again. You know all we needed? Just have him and WW break up, give him back his classic costume, and then do a time skip to after they have been married a few years and Lois is pregnant. That way the New 52 origin (the best modern version he's had) could still be in his past for those that liked it, that version just grew older and got married. But no, we're not even allowed to have that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    Jon Kent is not nostalgia. I'm not sure how you even came to that idea. We barely even got any of Clark and Lois as parents, either, in the old continuity. Relatively untread ground. Honestly, what nostalgia did Superman play to that you're miffed about, anyhow? The more I think about it the less I acknowledge your point.
    Jon specifically isn't, but the post-Crisis template and a married Superman is. We didn't get to see Clark and Lois as new parents either. If we're asking for natural story progression, shouldn't we see this whole process instead of awkwardly inserting a 10 year old kid into continuity so Damian can have a playmate?

    The Kents are back, and Clark's ties to the Legion are now severed again and given to Jon. Both of the former are holdovers from the flawed Byrne take that has had a strangle hold on the character for years and needs to be broken away from.

  4. #79
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    2,536

    Default

    So the instant kid age up thing is just a symptom of superhero kids. Most writers do not want to write babies. It happened first with Wally's kids, then Damian as Bruce's kid, and obviously Jon. Heck, it started with Bart but he's from the future so it's not like it was to avoid baby Bart.

    While I'm not opposed to Superhero with an infant/toddler or whatever, writers want the child to be a character and you start doing that with them as kids rather than babies. So we always get the funny comics universe explanation why this kid is aged up.

    Superman and Lois were already back together and all they really did was move past the guff. I guess they did throw out New 52 Superman. But a lot of New 52 Superman was absolute freaking garbage and they just mostly wanted to ERASE Superman x Wonder Woman rather than "just" break them up because it creates a muddy situation no one wanted. The Superman and Wonder Woman relationship was not well thought out, not well executed, and certainly had no forward looking involved in it and required a strip down. But the core of Rebirth Superman stories is mostly just new stuff in the first place.

    I do not have any on hand examples of Morrison's Superman referencing or embodying post-Crisis Superman on hand (well, you offhandedly said a certain part doesn't count...) but, aptly, I think his final arc is more inspired by Post-Crisis Superman than anything. It's literally named THE SECOND DEATH OF SUPERMAN. But hell...Morrison wrote a good bit of 90s Superman in the JL and DC One Million, after all. And the Zenith of the Post Crisis era in Final Crisis, where he came up with a ton of completely new meta-commentary defined Superman storytelling. It's not like that's an era he wouldn't draw from.
    Last edited by Dred; 09-20-2020 at 02:19 PM.

  5. #80
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    Superman and Lois were already back together and all they really did was move past the guff. I guess they did throw out New 52 Superman. But a lot of New 52 Superman was absolute freaking garbage and they just mostly wanted to ERASE Superman x Wonder Woman rather than "just" break them up because it creates a muddy situation no one wanted. The Superman and Wonder Woman relationship was not well thought out, not well executed, and certainly had no forward looking involved in it and required a strip down. But the core of Rebirth Superman stories is mostly just new stuff in the first place.
    I can't say I miss most of the post-Morrison developments in the New 52. Honestly, it doesn't matter the era it came from. That's basically the only recent Superman stuff we've had that I've loved. it being removed as the modern foundation of the character hurts, especially as it is completely unnecessary. Secret Origin seems to be the template again and it appears to be for Johns' vanity more than anything else, because neither that story nor any of Byrne's stuff are very good.

    I'm definitely not a fan of the SM/WW ship and do not miss it, especially for her sake. But the way they went about getting rid of it is hilariously over the top and stupid in a way only a mainstream Big Two comic can manage. People can break up and remain good friends, it's not like having that in their shared history is very detrimental compared to some of the other crap they deal with, especially as it would no longer be an ongoing thing

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    I do not have any on hand examples of Morrison's Superman referencing or embodying post-Crisis Superman on hand (well, you offhandedly said a certain part doesn't count...) but, aptly, I think his final arc is more inspired by Post-Crisis Superman than anything. It's literally named THE SECOND DEATH OF SUPERMAN. But hell...Morrison wrote a good bit of 90s Superman in the JL and DC One Million, after all. And the Zenith of the Post Crisis era in Final Crisis, where he came up with a ton of completely new meta-commentary defined Superman storytelling. It's not like that's an era he wouldn't draw from.
    He kind of had no choice but to deal with the post-Crisis status quo when writing JL and One Million because that's what he had to work with at the time. When revisiting One Million as part of his larger Superman meta arc in All-Star, he had Superman "die" without ever marrying Lois or moving on from his Silver Age persona.

    I wouldn't say his final arc is more inspired by post-Crisis. The way the crowd rallies around him and he's the Champion of the People, against Vyndktvx (the other dimensional representation of DC Comics claiming ownership of Siegel and Shuster's idea) has "Golden Age" written all over it. Plus the presence of Krypto and the Legion, both things that Byrne foolishly discarded. The whole story is a middle finger to the over-reliance on the DoS storyline DC has driven into the ground in recent years. When he says his names backwards it's BOTH Kal-El and Clark Kent, so the wrong headed "Superman is what I do, Clark Kent is who I am" is right out.

    I didn't say that element "doesn't count," more that that's all he really touches. Because not much else besides the marriage and some characters like Steel, Kon and Maggie Sawyer came out of that era. If you compare it to all the stuff that came before COIE that still endures, or even the expansion Batman had post-COIE, it just doesn't remotely compare.

  6. #81
    Fantastic Member Ropeburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    334

    Default

    When sales slipped on 5G, it would have been a hot mess bringing back the original characters. More questions than answers.

    Especially under Didio.
    Being a "Person of Interest" doesn't make you an interesting person.

  7. #82
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    2,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    I can't say I miss most of the post-Morrison developments in the New 52. Honestly, it doesn't matter the era it came from. That's basically the only recent Superman stuff we've had that I've loved. it being removed as the modern foundation of the character hurts, especially as it is completely unnecessary. Secret Origin seems to be the template again and it appears to be for Johns' vanity more than anything else, because neither that story nor any of Byrne's stuff are very good.

    I'm definitely not a fan of the SM/WW ship and do not miss it, especially for her sake. But the way they went about getting rid of it is hilariously over the top and stupid in a way only a mainstream Big Two comic can manage. People can break up and remain good friends, it's not like having that in their shared history is very detrimental compared to some of the other crap they deal with, especially as it would no longer be an ongoing thing



    He kind of had no choice but to deal with the post-Crisis status quo when writing JL and One Million because that's what he had to work with at the time. When revisiting One Million as part of his larger Superman meta arc in All-Star, he had Superman "die" without ever marrying Lois or moving on from his Silver Age persona.

    I wouldn't say his final arc is more inspired by post-Crisis. The way the crowd rallies around him and he's the Champion of the People, against Vyndktvx (the other dimensional representation of DC Comics claiming ownership of Siegel and Shuster's idea) has "Golden Age" written all over it. Plus the presence of Krypto and the Legion, both things that Byrne foolishly discarded. The whole story is a middle finger to the over-reliance on the DoS storyline DC has driven into the ground in recent years. When he says his names backwards it's BOTH Kal-El and Clark Kent, so the wrong headed "Superman is what I do, Clark Kent is who I am" is right out.

    I didn't say that element "doesn't count," more that that's all he really touches. Because not much else besides the marriage and some characters like Steel, Kon and Maggie Sawyer came out of that era. If you compare it to all the stuff that came before COIE that still endures, or even the expansion Batman had post-COIE, it just doesn't remotely compare.
    The problem with Morrison's Superman is literally no one else wrote him like that except kiiiiiiiind of Pak. It reads almost like an elseworlds compared to the rest of the Superman stories around.

    ...The Legion was around in Post Crisis. Separated from Superman but eventually brought back.

    I mean if you just list all the things that came from it, then say they don't count, I don't know what to say. Those counter. They are part of it. You answered your own question. It was only...20 issues, I want to say? And most of it was formed out of a pseudo-origin story telling which obviously wasn't a thing in most of Post-Crisis.

  8. #83
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    The problem with Morrison's Superman is literally no one else wrote him like that except kiiiiiiiind of Pak. It reads almost like an elseworlds compared to the rest of the Superman stories around.
    That's why I said specifically I was mad his version was gone, less so anything else. Barring that, I don't really have a horse in the New 52 vs. Rebirth race aside from disliking most of the output for different reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    ...The Legion was around in Post Crisis. Separated from Superman but eventually brought back.
    Removing the connection is something from which Superman or the Legion have never really recovered. it was eventually brought back, but too little too late. How many reboots have they suffered through since then? They went from one of the hottest books at DC in the 80s to a hot mess that never reached the same heights.

    At least here, an attempt was made to avoid that nonsense altogether and have the clear and concise connection back from the beginning. Ditto Krypto and Kara, at least on paper. The actual execution for the latter doesn't seem great from what I've seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    I mean if you just list all the things that came from it, then say they don't count, I don't know what to say. Those counter. They are part of it. You answered your own question. It was only...20 issues, I want to say? And most of it was formed out of a pseudo-origin story telling which obviously wasn't a thing in most of Post-Crisis.
    But isn't netting only like five things over a period that lasted 20 years or so not that great? You just said that was everything. Compared to the expansion of Batman's lore and cast that has endured, it's pretty pathetic. And honestly, a lot of those elements could have existed just fine if the pre-COIE version had progressed naturally instead of getting disrupted by COIE/Byrne, a move that did a lot of long term damage to the character.

    Steel is briefly present as part of the New 52 origin, so I forgot that. Beyond that, I don't really get what you mean by "They are part of it." The marriage, Kon and Maggie are not present during Morrison's Action run? So I'm not saying they don't count, they just aren't there. A post-Crisis flavor is largely avoided. Steel is present but in a very Golden/Silver Age style story, and I've already detailed why your statement that the final arc leans more towards post-Crisis than anything doesn't really hold up at all based on what's on the page.

    When given free reign on Superman twice, Morrison avoided some of the thought processes and characterizations that went into the post-COIE template that miss the point of the character completely. Other stuff like Doomsday or Steel being included were put through a different filter. As Morrison is the best modern Superman writer and gets the character better than anyone else at the company does, there is a reason he's doing this and he's right to do so. Unsurprisingly, Johns missed the point with his "critiques" of the New 52 era in Doomsday Clock.

  9. #84
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    2,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    That's why I said specifically I was mad his version was gone, less so anything else. Barring that, I don't really have a horse in the New 52 vs. Rebirth race aside from disliking most of the output for different reasons.



    Removing the connection is something from which Superman or the Legion have never really recovered. it was eventually brought back, but too little too late. How many reboots have they suffered through since then? They went from one of the hottest books at DC in the 80s to a hot mess that never reached the same heights.

    At least here, an attempt was made to avoid that nonsense altogether and have the clear and concise connection back from the beginning. Ditto Krypto and Kara, at least on paper. The actual execution for the latter doesn't seem great from what I've seen.



    But isn't netting only like five things over a period that lasted 20 years or so not that great? You just said that was everything. Compared to the expansion of Batman's lore and cast that has endured, it's pretty pathetic. And honestly, a lot of those elements could have existed just fine if the pre-COIE version had progressed naturally instead of getting disrupted by COIE/Byrne, a move that did a lot of long term damage to the character.

    Steel is briefly present as part of the New 52 origin, so I forgot that. Beyond that, I don't really get what you mean by "They are part of it." The marriage, Kon and Maggie are not present during Morrison's Action run? So I'm not saying they don't count, they just aren't there. A post-Crisis flavor is largely avoided. Steel is present but in a very Golden/Silver Age style story, and I've already detailed why your statement that the final arc leans more towards post-Crisis than anything doesn't really hold up at all based on what's on the page.

    When given free reign on Superman twice, Morrison avoided some of the thought processes and characterizations that went into the post-COIE template that miss the point of the character completely. Other stuff like Doomsday or Steel being included were put through a different filter. As Morrison is the best modern Superman writer and gets the character better than anyone else at the company does, there is a reason he's doing this and he's right to do so. Unsurprisingly, Johns missed the point with his "critiques" of the New 52 era in Doomsday Clock.
    His version was gone anyhow, though.

    His run on Batman was significantly longer and more planned out. Morrison had a year and a half on action comics where he was doing fun but overall ignored Superman comics. But if all you want is infinite retellings of Superman in his early days of Superman then you're probably unlikely to be happy because that's only a tiny fraction of potential Superman stories. You'd have to reboot the comic every year.

    Ah, yes, put through a different filter. That filter being Morrison writing it. Just as the Golden Age stuff he references is characteristically quite different, if obviously inspiring it through the lens of Morrison's writing. That something is different doesn't suit your argument both directions. His golden age references read nothing like a golden age story because it's completely recontextualized. I'm guessing you think this recontextualization is only vastly different for Doomsday and not for mild mannered early days Clark. For some reason. Because you want it to be, I suppose?

    And, I've said this before but you seem to be ignoring me, obviously there's going to be more content that seems a pastiche of the Golden Age stuff because the majority of his run deals with his early days as Superman. Obviously it's not going to reference an era that largely predicates on an experienced and present Superman throughout it. And Morrison doesn't need to do his take on that version of Superman in depth because...he already did his take on Post COIE Superman by writing Post COIE Superman frequently.

    I'm not sure what you're really implying about Morrison's tastes and what he did and didn't reference. Morrison likes basically any comic that isn't super edgy. You hating post COIE Superman doesn't apply to Morrison because of 20 issues of Action Comics. It's hardly his swan song on Superman. Morrison's Swan Song on Superman are FC and ASS. One's modern, one's silver age.

    And we shift it around to Doomsday Clock bashing for god knows what reason. Something that has absolutely nothing to do with any of the things we're talking about.
    Last edited by Dred; 09-20-2020 at 05:12 PM.

  10. #85
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    snip
    Where are you pulling this from? Where did I say I only want retellings of Superman's origin in his early days and he should be re-set every year?

    I would like Superman stories that draw from the early days as inspiration for Superman's core themes and characterization and emphasizes high concept, crazy stuff that he encounters that made him the coolest character going. I'm sorry, but I just don't see that in the post-COIE template. That doesn't mean I literally want him to be re-set every year and only fight the same villains he fought in the old days. I loved the Anti-Superman Army and the Multitude precisely because they seemed like they were from that era in spirit, but were wholly new. I wouldn't even mind Superman potentially getting married or having a kid if that origin or something like it was the template. But the only lengthy published version of a married Superman we have is building off the Byrne template, which I think is bad for the character and I can't call it natural progress (because it is the result of a reboot itself).

    So please don't put words in my (or other posters') mouth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    snip
    It's recontextualized for the modern age obviously. Nothing can be a perfect 1:1 comparison. But it leans heavier towards the Golden Age than any other version to start. That's why we have the little image of Superman flexing his chest and busting the chains under the title in the first issue. So Steel shows up, but he's interacting with a Superman that is more in line (if not 100%, because nothing will be) with Siegel and Shuster's than Byrne's.

    And the context works for me because I don't like Byrne's or most of the post-COIE era. And it's ok to not like that era. Plenty of people don't just as there are plenty of people that do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    And, I've said this before but you seem to be ignoring me, obviously there's going to be more content that seems a pastiche of the Golden Age stuff because the majority of his run deals with his early days as Superman. Obviously it's not going to reference an era that largely predicates on an experienced and present Superman throughout it. And Morrison doesn't need to do his take on that version of Superman in depth because...he already did his take on Post COIE Superman by writing Post COIE Superman frequently.
    Your first response to me:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    Morrison's Superman draws from all sorts of modern developments. He's certainly not a port of Golden Age Superman..
    To which I replied that he wasn't a straight port and never was. Now you are saying he would be mostly Golden Age centered as a pastiche? I'm not ignoring you, you just flat out never said that. You HAVE said that the final arc in his Action leans more towards post-Crisis than anything else though. Is that no longer true?

    I'm also not sure I'd call his take “in depth” for post-Crisis. JLA was a team book after all that didn't explore Superman by himself or his world. FC just happens to have a married Superman, but in terms of the feeling he evokes and the high concept threat he's dealing with, he feels more like an earlier version rather than the generic nice farm boy he became.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    I'm not sure what you're really implying about Morrison's tastes and what he did and didn't reference. Morrison likes basically any comic that isn't super edgy. You hating post COIE Superman doesn't apply to Morrison because of 20 issues of Action Comics. It's hardly his swan song on Superman. Morrison's Swan Song on Superman are FC and ASS. One's modern, one's silver age.
    IDK, he had free reign on Superman and largely avoids a lot of the ideas that went into the post-COIE version's foundation (ex: Clark the most popular jock in school, not really caring about his roots because he was an American earthling, "Clark Kent is who I am", needing the Kents around into adulthood, etc) None of this shows up or is emphasized that I recall in FC despite the canon it happened to be in at the time. Is one two part chapter in a larger event and a member of a team book really "frequent?"

    He's said he's come around to concepts like the marriage and he obviously has no issue using stuff like Doomsday or Steel. But it's not like Post-COIE Clark and Lois are the first versions of those characters, or even the first ones to get married. Just observing the content of the work, there just doesn't seem to be a lot of love for the foundations of the post-COIE Clark, who is a fundamentally different (and IMO, far less complex and interesting) character than the one(s) who came before. I can't know if he feels the same way I and some others do, but you have to wonder why he's using some stuff around the Byrne “modern” Clark template but giving the thing itself a wide berth.

    Basically, it always seems a bit hypocritical to me for some to say Clark getting married is a natural progression and to chuck it away is regression. But the version who got married only came about due to a reboot and radical overhaul to his core character and mythos/history, so there was nothing natural in its foundations to begin with.

  11. #86
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    Jon Kent is not nostalgia.
    That's the thing, jon isn't. Superman himself was bad as protagonist figure. Jon was the one who carried the rebirth superbooks. Not clark.

  12. #87
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Double post.

  13. #88

    Default

    The replacements were the hook to me. The timeline shenanigans felt like a fusterchuck waiting to happen. I rather they let Doctor Who worry about that.

    Replacements are a fun novelty and a means to an end. They are a half measure the same way superhero mantles are but one we are stuck with for the foreseeable future.

    I was a big fan of Gods and Monsters universe so that also plays a role.
    Last edited by the illustrious mr. kenway; 09-21-2020 at 06:35 AM.

  14. #89
    Extraordinary Member Restingvoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    9,574

    Default

    I wanna say canceling the timeline is a disappointment but they're not gonna be able to maintain it anyway so yeah not really that disappointed.

  15. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dred View Post
    ... Morrison's Swan Song on Superman are FC and ASS...
    Heh. "FC and ASS" are pretty much how I view any version of Superman done by Golden or Silver Age purists or nostalgics. Including the much ballyhooed and overrated Morrison and Waid. It's why I'm glad the "Superman 2000" deal was shot down hard (and the parties involved more or less told to piss off), and why I don't want Waid to be given the chance to turn Superman into his Hand-Crafted Messiah.

Posting Permissions

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