Cowman

Are you reading my mind?

I'd be able to forgive it (still think it'd be weird) IF the person was already there when the other person fell asleep. Like a husband or a boyfriend sleeping in the same bed or maybe if the person is sick and someone stays in the room with them.

But waking up to find someone you've known for a VERY short time standing over you..... naw, that's just frickin' creepy.

Well, considering the '79 movies starred Reb Brown and the 90's one didn't; I'd say that's game set and match, 1979.

The movies seem to be borrowing a lot from the Ultimate-verse plots, but keeping the 616 personalities. Which I approve of since just about everyone in the Ultimates was a total jerk or worse.

Spiderman was like that, but Peter wasn't. I too would love to see a wisecracking Spiderman, but Peter has always been the shy, socially awkward nerd. The powers and suit were what allowed him to tap into that other side of himself.

Oddly enough, I felt exactly the opposite. I don't know if it was the brighter shade of green or what, but Ang Lee's Hulk just didn't look as.... well.... Hulk-like as I thought he should. Perhaps because they kept the face so human and had one too many shots of him looking like a wounded puppy.

I always felt that if the Hulk was indeed Banner's inner rage given form; that thing would look like a ****ing monster. The newer Hulk had a craggier looking mug and his overall physique was a little more knotted and veiny.

Putting it overly simply, the Bana-Hulk looked more like the star of a Disney movie. Sure, he could be scary when he was raging, but he could also look all hurt and sympathetic. You could just picture some small boy tentatively handing him a candy bar as an act of friendship.

Norton's Hulk looked a little more like something you'd steer clear of even when he wasn't smashing stuff. Looking at him you wouldn't think, "Oh, now that he's calm you can actually see how vulnerable and human he looks". You'd think, "Oh, he's calm now. I'd better take the opportunity to get the **** outta here before he loses his temper again".

I enjoyed Ang Lee's Hulk well enough, though I prefer the newer movie if I had to choose. And considering I loathe the Transformers movies, I'm not sure what that means for my status as an apparent Michael Bay groupie. Though I will point out that big-time action and explosions are the least of Bay's sins. He has plenty others to call him on.

My problem isn't so much the different vampire rules (I may think they're silly, but as pointed out, vampire rules are extremely adjustable); my problem is mainly with the two main characters being horribly unlikable.

Even if the vamps in Twilight were more in line with the ones in other popular media, it still wouldn't stop me from longing to shove an icepick into Edward and Bella's eyes repeatedly.





P.S. While Dracula could walk about during the day; I THINK it mentioned him not being as powerful as he was at night.

Interesting observation.



Doesn't make LARPers look any less silly.

Man, that cover has me flashing back to the 90's in the worst way. From Harley's "we're-not-even-TRYING-to-deny-it-anymore" fan-service costume, to her dyed hair and KISS makeup, to the extra gear on Deadshot that would have Cable giving him envious looks.

It reminds me of the G.I. Joe Extreme toyline; where they all looked like steroid deformed wrestlers.

Or is it just you?


That's the question, isn't it?

The "continuity is confusing" crowd often SEEM to be the minority, but whenever I've been in an actual discussion about it, it usually ends up being split pretty near down the middle. So which crowd do you sell to.

DC seems to be trying to please both with this "soft reboot", but, to me, it seems more likely to alienate both camps rather than draw them in.

Marvel had a pretty good solution for this with the Ultimate universe. A continuity-light series that could be ignored if it wasn't your thing. DC picking and choosing their history for the DCnU is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

It just seems like a big mess to figure out and, even if it ends up successful, I'm afraid will leave a bad taste in fans' mouths. A lot of the Spiderman: Brand New Day stuff actually turned out to be kinda popular; but it didn't make the taint of One More Day any better.

What I'd like is an end to the reality altering mega-events. What I'd like is an improvement in the books without the cheap gimmicks. What I'd LIKE is for people to stop winging about how confusing the continuity is.


I started collecting X-Men comics in the mid to late eighties. I missed out on a couple of the really famous stories and had no idea of the background of a lot of the charactes.

Never bothered me.


I branched out into other Marvel books mainly based on the cover of the comic or the look of the character. I had even less knowledge about them than I did the X-Men.

Never bothered me.


I got into DC comics MUCH later; starting mainly with Batman and eventually switching over to Batgirl/Cassandra Cain. I'd never read 'No Man's Land' or 'The Killing Joke' or much of anything else.

Never bothered me.


In other words, this convoluted history that is supposedly poison to new readers was a complete non-issue for me. Most of the stories didn't require any detailed knowledge of the history.

But people are always crying about how the continuity is "impenetrable"; so we get DC surgically altering their history with the precision of a jackhammer. All for an almost non-existent problem and a sound-bite.

Throwing out chunks of your history isn't going to magically fix your comic book sales.

And here's another little trope that gets to me too.

"Oh, you don't like this new thing? That's just nerd-rage. You can't possibly be making an objective and reasonable decision. It's new; you don't like it; so you MUST be nerd-raging."


I mean, you realize this is 'One More Day' applied to an entire universe. DC keeps talking about reboots and the "New DCU" that will take care of all those pesky continuity problems that prevent new readers from getting into comics.

Except that it fixes nothing. Yeah, it's the new DCU; except that SOME of the stuff still happened. So now, instead of a new reader simply getting on Wikipedia or grabbing one of the 'Essential' trade collections from the library; they have to do in depth research to find out what history still counts.




Plus they took awesome Harley Quinn and stuck her in an idiotic looking corset with punk-rock dyed hair and knives!!

EDGY!!!



I'm not angry because DC is making a new continuity. I'm angry because it's unnecessary. Everything they talked about fixing (streamlined history, tighter universe cohesion, writing for the story and not the trade) could have been implemented without this "reboot".

Every time I read this catchphrase, I wanna stab something soft with an icepick.

Holy crap!!

I thought I was the only kid to ever have that record. My favorite parts were:

"Do you prefer the gun or the sword?"
"I'll take vanilla, if you don't mind."

and...

"And now I shall crush the life from your worthless BOD-eeeeeeeeee!!"

I prefer my comics to be fun.

I don't need to read about a hero getting older. I'M getting older. I got that particular plot point covered. I LIKE that I can still read about Peter Parker's adventures and Bruce Wayne Batmaning it up.

"Come read our exciting comic books, where the heroes of your childhood grow old and DIE! Just like all your real friends!!"

I've never felt the same frustration with the passage of time in comics that others seem to get hung up on. Who cares? I'm not looking for a dramatic documentary, I wanna see Spidey fighting cyborg raptors.

Now paying more attention to continuity and making sure the writers do right by the characters; THAT I can get behind. Having a little more cohesion between the titles would certainly be welcome.

The perma-death thing......

Well, I would change the rule from "dead is dead" to "no cheap deaths for shock value". My main problem with perma-death in the current comic industry, is that characters are FAR too often killed off for cheap shock value. And in those cases, I'm quite happy for the inevitable rebirths, since it means a good character isn't lost to some stupid plot twist.

I'm not big on any of the new looks, to be honest. They all seem to range from unnecessary (Superman, Flash), to '90's Flashback' (Harley Quinn).

I've always disagreed with this argument.

This notion that the heroes life HAS to be in danger for the story to have any drama, seems kinda ridiculous to me. Superman has met plenty of villains who can give him a run for his money without the help of kryptonite. However, given how powerful he is, the drama for a Superman story shouldn't always be about if he'll die, but if he can save everyone. He's not infallible; he might fail to save someone (a devastating failure in his eyes), he might fail to capture the villain.

You don't need the possibility of the hero's death to make a story interesting.

It actually makes me sadder about the whole thing. Those ARE good plans. If only they didn't feel the need to relaunch everything as well.

Is that considered ironic given what Wonder Woman's creator was into?

Wow.

Those are two of the most shallow interpretations of Superman and Wonder Woman I've ever seen.

Nah, that's just the style of the promotional stuff for Arkham City.

All the pictures have been black and white with splashes of color.