X-punged's Page

More from X-punged

Forum Posts

Comments

Recommendations

Posted on: Almost There! Diamond announces preliminary OCT n...
at 11/12/2009 10:35am

[quote="Robin_Goodfellow":81i3lioc]
How do you cope with the real world?

... extensive prattling ...


Of ... more(+)

Robin_Goodfellow wrote:
How do you cope with the real world?

... extensive prattling ...


Of course, if that doesn’t worry you I have to wonder why you’re so concerned about getting the *full scope* on the fictitious politics of the Marvel Universe . . .

How do I cope?
By laughing at people who can't even have a simple discussion on comics without resorting to passive insults and foolishness. close(-)

Posted on: Almost There! Diamond announces preliminary OCT n...
at 11/11/2009 11:05pm

Dude...
At what point did I declare this was a DC vs Marvel battle for shamelessness?
Cause, I didn't.
Commenting on ... more(+)

BlyndeAssassin wrote:
Are you for real? I remember after the CRISIS even a few years ago, a bunch of DC titles had the ONE YEAR LATER banner slapped across their covers. Did that mean that you needed to read 'a whole collection of titles to get a clear understanding of what was happening' (as you put it about Dark Reign)....? No, of course it didn't. It was a brand to let people know that those particular titles were all participating in the 'OYL' push by DC. (while '52' was supposed to fill in that missing year). Dark Reign, just like ONE YEAR LATER is a brand, letting readers know that the book is under and umbrella of continuity. I read Dark Avengers and Thunderbolts. I don't read any other 'dark reign' title at all, and yet I have had no trouble following what is going on in the 2 books I read.

There was recently a Dark Avengers/X-Men crossover. I haven't read X-Men since Grant M. stopped writing them. I skipped the whole crossover, and yet I was not lost at all. I don't need to read every book that has DARK REIGN on the cover, becuase I am not interested in every character/every book.

So, yeah, BOTH companies have used 'branding' on their covers to convey a theme when they are not doing an event. It doesn't require you to read every title, because it is a theme, not an event. Please do not act like DC has never done it. Because they have. And when DC has done it, they haven't required you to read every single book to get what is going on. Just like that hasn't happened when Marvel has done it.

Dude...
At what point did I declare this was a DC vs Marvel battle for shamelessness?
Cause, I didn't.
Commenting on the disingenuous nature of the 'non-event' status of dark reign, is not praising DC.
And stating that dark reign didn't have a central series, doesn't mean that other titles' readability, such as the ones you denoted, was impacted.
(However, it has with X-men Legacy, which I was buying up until it became integrated into the 'dark'-ness. So after utopia, I have a poorer understanding of a series that I was following).
To clarify, what I did say was that the full scope of what's occurring in dark reign isn't to be gleamed from reading a couple of titles.
Nor is the comparison with one year later apt. One year later was more of a gimmick-based, as opposed to an interconnected, brand like dark reign. What DC did by shifting their timeline forward, was no more than skipping a section of time, but dark reign introduces the central story element of Osborn's rise to all affected titles. So there is some level of connectivity within banner titles.
Finally, none of what you wrote negates the suggestion that siege is the event series for dark reign, since it finally resolves the year long preamble built under that banner. close(-)

Posted on: Almost There! Diamond announces preliminary OCT n...
at 11/10/2009 6:28pm

Quite true.
In a way doesn't that make it worse?
As opposed to reading a center piece series, a whole collection of ... more(+)

comicsareliterature wrote:
Dark Reign is a theme running throughout the 616, it is not an "event", in the traditional sense, because there is no "event" title. It is simply a commonality experienced by Marvel's heroes and villains throughout the year. WWH, CW, SI, those were all "events" because they not only had multiple tie-ins and related minis, but there was a center piece mini series related to the theme that was important to the overall understanding of what was happening. Dark Reign doesn't have that.

Quite true.
In a way doesn't that make it worse?
As opposed to reading a center piece series, a whole collection of titles is needed to get a clear understanding of what's happening in Marvel's universe. Granted that in several events the entire wasn't told, civil war being the most egregious example, this avoidance of the appearance of an event, by eliminating a mini series, is just a cop out.
Of course, it can be said that the upcoming siege mini, is in fact the event series. And dark reign is just a year long preamble that provided cover for a company that overdoes the foreplay, and still leaves the reader unsatisfied. close(-)

Posted on: Your favourite/least favourite Marvel books of 200...
at 11/05/2009 10:48pm

No.
That's the sad part.
To parallel the Marvel discussion with DC:
Other than Supergirl haven't liked any of the ... more(+)

Phantom309 wrote:
So would you say you're more of a DC fan?

No.
That's the sad part.
To parallel the Marvel discussion with DC:
Other than Supergirl haven't liked any of the Superman(less) titles since Johns left. (Too early to tell about Secret Origin).
The Batman titles reaffirm the pattern of Winick's crapulence and Morrison's hype factor. And Dini's work has been sadly unremarkable. The newer titles(Red Robin, Batgirl) leaves me with limited optimism.
The team books are all terrible.
Flash Rebirth has been mediocre.
Have enjoyed Blackest Night, but it seems to be growing beyond its original parameters. Not a good sign.
So other than the Green Lantern affiliated titles, the bleh reaction is the same with DC.

What annoys me is the series of events that comics has become, rather than the serial nature of comics of times past.
Although the circulation numbers have shrunk through the decades, it appears that the current mindset seems to promote events that can be easily packaged as trades as opposed to building a continued line of history because the assumption that all that continuity is somehow onerous for new readers.
Strangely it wasn't in the past, and yet now with a smaller than ever core fan base, it seems the sole focus is drawing in the illusive new reader by continuously ignoring what's already been published.
I don't know about other readers, here but I'm not old enough to have bought any of the first issues of Marvel's sixties emergence (or reemergence of X-men in the seventies). But once having jumped into those ongoing titles in the eighties, I actually searched for earlier issues inso that Wednesdays were not solely the one day you went to a comic book shop. Hence there was a desire for the past stories as well as the new.
But now seemingly the drive is always the latest hyped event.
Fine.
But then the companies should drop the charade, and change the ongoing nature of comics to a collection of mini-series or graphic novels. Because the current methodology of comics publishing is not coherent.
Since story continuity is apparently something left only to us pedants with the attention span longer than a gnat... close(-)

Posted on: Your favourite/least favourite Marvel books of 200...
at 11/05/2009 4:42pm

Tough question.
Simply from not buying a lot of Marvel books.
And as it stands, the ones I do buy are on shaky ... more(+)

Tough question.
Simply from not buying a lot of Marvel books.
And as it stands, the ones I do buy are on shaky ground.
Just dropped Carey's X-men, which is the only x-book that didn't make me nauseous.
I avoid all things Bendis.
Never liked the Cap or Daredevil characters.
Dropped Hulk cause I don't like Churchill's new style. Pak's Hulk is on life support.
Spider-man's dead.
Don't read any of the cosmic titles.
Or any of the ultimate titles.
Nor any of the 'dark' titles, save Dakevine.
So other than that I think Marvel is doing a fabulous job separating me from my money... close(-)

Commented on: Best Shots: GLC, AMAZING SPIDER-MAN
at 2009-11-16 17:38:24

As one of those silly people who completely dropped spider-man after OMD, I was ruing the day when a scenario such as ... more(+)

 close(-)

Commented on: WEEKLY WEBBING with WADE WILSON???
at 2009-10-28 18:07:25

I hate you Joe Kelly.
This couldn't be in one of the multitude of Deadpool titles? Spider-man?
You suck.
I hope you ... more(+)

 close(-)

Commented on: WEEKLY WEBBING with WADE WILSON???
at 2009-10-28 18:07:19

I hate you Joe Kelly.
This couldn't be in one of the multitude of Deadpool titles? Spider-man?
You suck.
I hope you ... more(+)

 close(-)

Commented on: Unto Marvel comes the DOOM WAR
at 2009-10-12 23:31:40

So Deadpool is the new Wolverine?
One of my favorite characters, but enough with the ridiculous overexposure.

Commented on: Blackest Night: DAMN DIRTY ZOMBIES 7
at 2009-10-03 00:51:35

"Back to Kansas, while Martha's wayward sons carry on, she faces down BL Lois Earth 2."
This is some damn impressive ... more(+)

 close(-)

This user has not recommended any articles or features...