Blurred View's forum posts

#1 Posted by Blurred View (791 posts) - - Show Bio
For all the love, I think he's weirdly unfair to how Apollo and Midnighter were originally treated. Yeah, they were already together when they were first introduced and the Superman/Batman theme has also been pretty clear. There was a lot of heart in their original introduction, though. It showed you the before and after of them hooking up. Leaving the middle part untold worked pretty well. But I get Cornell wanting to try something different. Can't blame him for that impulse. I'm just unimpressed with him and don't think writing relationships is one of the things I would give him credit for being good at.
#2 Posted by Blurred View (791 posts) - - Show Bio

If Stormwatch is a love letter, Warren Ellis needs a restraining order.

#3 Posted by Blurred View (791 posts) - - Show Bio
Oh yes. You probably would be. I can't believe we're only halfway through this. I've already read and reviewed more books than I normally would in two months. I can't wait to cull my reading list in October. Man, I'm tired.
#4 Posted by Blurred View (791 posts) - - Show Bio

I think newer readers could've gotten the origins they wanted without writers turning whole issues into origin issues. A few books pulled that off, recapping how the character got started without focusing the whole issue on it. Some didn't give readers anything and are probably going to be worse off for it. Static Shock is pretty screwed right now, all things considered. 
The relaunch has been okay for me so far. A few pretty good books have come out of it. Only a few have really pissed me off. 

#5 Posted by Blurred View (791 posts) - - Show Bio

@JonesDeini said:

Word, I don't see myself dropping any of my Dark titles, my only wild cards are Demon Knights and JLD...JLD can really turn out flat out amazing or utter garbage, I foresee no middle ground for that book.

Yeah. I might like JLD. I might not. I really have no idea yet. And I guess I may stick with Animal Man since it connects to Swamp Thing. That trick of DC's is likely to work on me for the time being.

#6 Posted by Blurred View (791 posts) - - Show Bio

Looks cool overall. I think I will probably only still be reading Swamp Thing and Demon Knights by December, though. And I agree DC are taking a gamble on this "schedule over art" stance. So long as a new artist doesn't have a totally different style in the middle of a story, I'm okay with it. I like my stories to feel as consistent as possible.

#7 Posted by Blurred View (791 posts) - - Show Bio

@cody1984: Man, you seem to have a good handle on what you're doing. Things weirdly just got tense in this thread, and the topic's just not worth it. We're starting to get in this strange place where people aren't even quite arguing about the same thing. Plus, there's really nothing new to say here anyway. If you want to work on cleaning up some of these lists, I say go for it. Fill in the ones you can, leave alone the ones you can't and knock off the ones you feel confident are inaccurate. Perfectly valid thing to do, far as I see. If you mistakenly bump off a few valid ones, it's not the end of the world. Someone in the know will eventually just add them back, hopefully with the information to support them.

#8 Posted by Blurred View (791 posts) - - Show Bio

@IrishX: Oh, hey. No offense taken here or anything. We're just talking.

And I'm not saying anyone should run around deleting the blanks on sight. I'm saying make the effort to figure them out if you don't know off the top of your head. But if you're someone familiar with the character and you just cannot figure out what the substance of some entry is... what are the chances someone else familiar with the character is going to come along to do it? If you're there trying to sort through it all, you're obviously the only fan of the character who has been willing to step up to the task for however long the page has been around for. And that is assuming there's anything valid about the entry to begin with and it's not one of the many entries added because of something like... both characters appeared in the same issue one time but didn't really interact.

But this is just my stance on it. I think it'd go a long way to making these lists more informative and even encourage people to go the extra mile and give descriptions too when they add entries to a list that already has most if not all of its entries filled out.

#9 Posted by Blurred View (791 posts) - - Show Bio

@IrishX: No, no. I didn't take it personally. I just thought calling it abuse was a mischaracterization of what we're talking about here. Although, I do take you implying what someone of my wiki points should appreciate a little personal. Not a big deal, though. I'll explain that. What I appreciate is the effort people put into trying to improve areas of this site like the Friends and Enemies lists we're talking about. It takes far more effort to go through these lists adding in descriptions and sorting through which are valid relationships than it does for someone to add a name to the list sans description. So obviously, I don't agree with the idea of putting the burden on the people doing the harder work in favor of those who did just type a name and click. In fact, I argue that the people in the latter category didn't really even provide information. They provided clutter. If you add some obscure character relationship to the list but don't describe anything at all about it, you haven't informed me of anything. You've only added to the reason so many people ignore these sections and don't consider them credible sources of information.

There's no good reason to tie the hands of the seemingly few people who are willing to try to make these lists informative and credible. What's the risk here? That a valid entry (that's obviously blank and not actually providing any information anyway) gets knocked off the list? The tireless effort someone made by typing in a name and clicking goes to waste? Not seeing a big downside there, especially compared to the upside of these lists actually becoming informative and substantial for people to start paying attention to.

#10 Posted by Blurred View (791 posts) - - Show Bio

@IrishX said:

No. Just because you came up "empty-handed" in your investigation doesn't mean you should delete it. As Xerox and Pika said previously... It should not be deleted unless you know for a Fact that it's false information. I find it kinda sad that people abuse the ability to edit the wiki.

And how exactly is this "abusing" it? I'm sorry, but the standard of knowing for a fact that characters have no relationship is a bit too extreme. I mean, seriously. The only person who can delete an entry is one who is such an expert on both characters involved that they know with certainty every single friend or enemy the characters have? That is unworkable. Besides, that also puts the burden on the wrong side. It should be on the person adding the entry to explain and justify it. There's a good reason people tend to overlook these sections. They're mostly all messes of long lists with no explanations. They're littered by people using the slightest excuse to add characters to friends and enemies lists. The only way to salvage these lists is to do the hard work of sorting through them. And yeah, that will involve deleting some with no apparent reason for being there.

It's not abuse. It's not deleting someone's hard work. Someone typed in a name and clicked.