Official : Bendis gets both books

[Sighphi]

New intnerview, mostly the same points he has talked about so far though, starts at 3:43: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxo8Oyje2eA

so he is going to the same thing he did in marvel, then?

He is going to get his own imprint, Icon, he is going to turn the Planet into the Pulse, and they are going to be hanging out in the seedy part of town uncovering things.

Get ready for power dampeners that work on machines, aliens, gods, metahumans, magic, and everything else all at the same time for some reason. And for some one magical saying,"no more metahumans."

[Mister BoMan]

I was excited by Bendis being on Superman, but after the interview I heard, I will more than likely drop the Superman books.

[DragonPiece]

Well, we have the artist order for the book now

[The Dying Detective]

The interview can indeed rattle some nerves for a good reason but on the other hand I learned not to care because I know I can't control these things and just focus on what I can control. Anyway if he wants to explore some of the inequality surrounding America it's fine as long as he does not go overboard in the worse way possible which led to Marvel publishing dull as heck stories and Batgirl having the same things. I for one just prefer the wait and see approach over the annoying voices of YouTube.

[Atlas]

Wow,so you are cool with things that are insanely slanted in 1 direction aslong as you can wrap it up in "philosophy"?

You just gave 2 good examples of what I DO NOT want to see in these series.

That's moral relatavism for you. I'm learning there's a lot of people here who think this way. "Whatever, nothing really matters as nothing's really right or wrong since everyone decides what's right or wrong for themselves." Unless, of course, someone disagrees with their view of things, in which case that person and their opinions and beliefs are indeed "wrong."

I've seen this kinda crap in lots of other places on the Webs but didn't realize it was so prevalent here.

[Miles To Go]

Schedule for C2E2

Saturday, April 7th | 11:00AM – 12:00PM
Brian Michael Bendis & Mark Millar One-on-One: Industry Giants in Conversation
The C2E2 Main Stage presents a once-in-a-lifetime dream panel. Join two of the most iconic names in the comic book universe, on stage together! Be there for a candid one-on-one conversation with these two creative titans as they discuss their monumental careers and incredible creations.

Saturday, April 7th | 12:15PM – 1:15PM
DC Celebrates Action Comics 1000
Comic books reach an incredible milestone on April 18 as Action Comics, the book that created the superhero genre and introduced the world to Superman, reaches an unheard of 1000 issues! With a must-have comic book and commemorative hardcover on the horizon, meet some of comics’ greatest creative minds and hear about their contributions to the book spotlighting one of the most iconic characters in pop culture.

https://www.newsarama.com/39002-dc-c...undefined.uxfs

[Ascended]

That's moral relatavism for you. I'm learning there's a lot of people here who think this way. "Whatever, nothing really matters as nothing's really right or wrong since everyone decides what's right or wrong for themselves."

I dont think anyone is actually saying this.

It is a matter of moral relativism though, as meta-ethical moral relativism (as well as descriptive moral relativism) merely state that what is moral and just is based on regional and cultural traditions and history. There isn't much in the way of universal morality outside of the most ridiculous and extreme examples. Giving to charity is universally considered "good" while killing people without justification is universally considered "bad" (though no one can quite seem to agree on what justification is required to make killing justifiable).

Unless, of course, someone disagrees with their view of things, in which case that person and their opinions and beliefs are indeed "wrong."

Definitely no one is saying this. Or if they are, I missed the post.

I've seen this kinda crap in lots of other places on the Webs but didn't realize it was so prevalent here.

Lots of different opinions floating around the world. But tell me, if there is a universal truth to morality, where can I find it?

[Pohzee]

I dont think anyone is actually saying this.


It is a matter of moral relativism though, as meta-ethical moral relativism (as well as descriptive moral relativism) merely state that what is moral and just is based on regional and cultural traditions and history. There isn't much in the way of universal morality outside of the most ridiculous and extreme examples. Giving to charity is universally considered "good" while killing people without justification is universally considered "bad" (though no one can quite seem to agree on what justification is required to make killing justifiable).






Definitely no one is saying this. Or if they are, I missed the post.






Lots of different opinions floating around the world. But tell me, if there is a universal truth to morality, where can I find it?

I'm going to try to explain why moral relavism is wrong because it is a view that I once held. I took an ethics course last summer, and the first chapter was dedicated to dispelling moral relativism at both the individual and societal level. This frustrated me because I too thought that morality was relative. So I'll try to explain this as best I can with my very limited knowledge on the matter. If social relativism holds true, then ethics cannot function.


The argument against individual moral relativism is exemplified by Ted Bundy. If morals vary from person to person, who is to say that killing others is wrong? If there is no set universal universal morality, then by what grounds may we claim that murder is wrong?


One could say that the individual would be judged by society and the morals of societies are relative. However, this larger scale view breaks down the same way as it does on the individual level. If one society condemns genocide and another practices it, and morality is relative to each society, then it is impossible to claim that the actions of another society are wrong.


Therefore, for us to be able to determine right and wrong, we must hold morality to by universal and independent of time or place. We must determine morality based upon universal rules ("Treat other persons not solely as a means to an end, but as an end themself", etc.) There are many different theories as to how to determine right and wrong (deontological, utilitarian) but each one is built upon the foundation that it is universally true and applicable.

[Frontier]

Well, we have the artist order for the book now

I wonder if Bendis is going to tailor the story for each artist.

(For the record I'm basing my guesses off what I assume is the content based on the covers)

We've got Reis on the first issue which seems pretty Superhero focused.

Shaner is a very retro, classic, artist so maybe that's why he's on the Smallville issue.

Ryan Sook can do some crazy visuals so why not put him on a Krypton issue?

Kevin Maguire...from what I know of him he does good character-based stuff, so maybe that's why you'd have him on a Lois and Clark issue?

Adam Hughes seems like an out-of-the-box choice for the Death of Superman issue, assuming that's what his issue is covering.

And Fabok caps it off for the action-packed finale.

[Kuwagaton]

Yeah in any case Bendis is a huge appreciator of art so I think this is his wonderland. But to guess for specific issues from his collaborators, I think Reis is up for a modern day feel, since he's the new main artist. Shaner is uniquely spectacular with emotion, Sook did a great job with sci-fi action during Rebirth, Maguire excels when it comes to bringing dialogue to life (especially with humor), Hughes has a fantastic aesthetic style that lends itself to updating big moments, and Fabok can really showcase big superhero action as he did not long ago in JL.

[Soubhagya]

Lol

There is nothing political about truth and justice. Except those that pervert it for their ends. I can’t believe that people think liberals have one truth and justice and conservatives have another, and that a writer has to wade through that.

The American way? Yeah, that died a long time ago, the American way is “anything goes”. Society is not one homogenized mass.

Values like Truth and Justice is universal. But how to achieve that is where there is division of opinion. I am no expert on American Way. I just go with few simple ideals i am familiar with. Like freedom of religion and speech. Equality and other stuff which i don't know in detail. I guess that from the constitution which i have heard from second and third hand sources. Quite similar to the principles in Indian constitution with which i am more familiar.

These principles are also universal like Truth and Justice. The differences arise in how to achieve those ideals. Equality for instance is not political. But how to achieve that is the question which divides people into left and right and the center. Such questions have correct answers. Its not like art where there is subjectivity and there does not exist a correct answer.

And i will appreciate if people here point those out when Bendis is writing. Looks like he is going to try something which can be controversial. But i can participate in discussions when there's an actual controversy. Not like that Mr. Oz issue where Superman jumps in front of immigrants. That stuff is not political. Only people who are political perceive that as such.

Let us hope that when he is writing such stuff this does not get boring.

[Last Son of Krypton]

DC Comics to Publish a New Lois Lane Series? Jim Lee Hints at it During #SXSW: https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/03...e-series-sxsw/

[Ascended]

I'm going to try to explain why moral relavism is wrong because it is a view that I once held. I took an ethics course last summer, and the first chapter was dedicated to dispelling moral relativism at both the individual and societal level. This frustrated me because I too thought that morality was relative. So I'll try to explain this as best I can with my very limited knowledge on the matter. If social relativism holds true, then ethics cannot function.

Well argued. I'm a Kant man myself. But I believe that morality and ethics are flexible to a point. As I said in my previous post, there are certain things on the far end of the moral spectrum that are (or should be) universally "good" or "bad" such as charity, slavery, etc. But past those few exceptions that serve to frame the subject, you need to take culture and region into account. And most of the stuff in the middle that is open to interpretation is, by human nature, tied to politics.

So to that end, I think there's plenty to be said about Truth and Justice (as it pertains to Superman) that can raise questions, some of them uncomfortable, and find answers that might not be to everyone's tastes. What *does* Clark think about the current political climate and the impact its had on truth and justice? How has he processed this war on the news media? Those things are tied tightly to the concept of the American Dream and our American values (insofar as Americans have shared values anyway) as well as Clark's private and public lives. The man certainly has something to say about all of it, and I believe not saying anything for fear of pissing off some easily offended extremist (either left or right) is foolishness. Hell, I figure if you say something that isn't pissing someone off, you're not saying anything worth hearing.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

From SXSW

Mostly the same stuff.

Bendis and Lee seemed excited to just exist in the same space. Everyone took at least one moment to fawn over Jurgens’ Death of Superman. Bendis pointed out that, while we recognize the impact Chris Claremont had on the X-Men, the property wouldn’t be anything like what we know today without him: “What Dan [Jurgens] has done with Superman is equally [important]. Decades of storytelling” have defined the character for readers and influenced countless stories and adaptations.

That’s something Bendis echoed, saying that “now more than ever we need Superman” — but not just any Superman. For Bendis, what we need is a Superman (and a Clark Kent) who’s burdened by a sense by public responsibility but who can rise to the challenge. Superman, he said, can be a powerful symbol for hope (and truth and justice) but only if we allow him to be.

The biggest decision Clark made for himself was to become a reporter. He chose that for himself. Why? Truth! There’s parts of truth that Clark can’t [punch his way to].” For Bendis, Clark being a reporter is a crucial aspect of the character; it’s how he solves the problems that he can’t when he’s in the suit. It shows the depth of his character and his commitment to making the world better. Miller agreed, saying that being a reporter shows his moral courage. “And that’s what I love about Lois Lane,” Bendis said. “She may be the bravest character in the DC Universe.” Miller agreed, saying, “She was always charging into combat, far ahead of Clark.

Like Jurgens’ Death of Superman, Miller’s take on the character in Batman: Dark Knight Returns had a tremendous impact on all of the panelists. Lee said that it helped him understand the character in a new way and figure out who his Superman is. Bendis echoed Lee, saying that Dark Knight “rattled him.” For all the influence of the story, it felt to most of the panelists that Dark Knight is something they’ve put on the shelf. It’s not that Superman that Bendis Welsh, and the others say we need so badly today.

One of the nicer surprises of the panel was how excited Bendis and Lee seem to be about each others’ work and for the chance to work together. They have a 10-page story together in the upcoming Action Comics #1000 that Bendis wrote “as big as I possibly could,” with Lee’s style in mind — less talky, more splashy — but that’s all he would reveal about the story.

When pressed on whether or not DC would finally give us another Lois Lane comic, Jim Lee hinted that there may be plans for the character: “Bendis is a prolific writers with a lot of ideas.” However, he couldn’t confirm anything; after doing his best to deflect, he just gave up and laughed, saying, “This is what publicity tells me to say when the tough questions came up.”

[Sacred Knight]

Agreed. His time with Superman the first time around was definitive for that time period. While my personal tastes have changed since then, I still believe helmed the last truly great time for the character of Superman, from a POV of both sales and relevancy within the verse.