Grey56's forum posts

#1 Posted by Grey56 (746 posts) - - Show Bio

So this is pretty anticlinactic. They're dumping their no longer viable Ultimate line and saving the handful of characters that people would actually care about (though aside from the Spider cast, I really can't see who that would be). Hardly seems worth a year of buildup and all this fanfare.

This is probably a fair summary. It's an honest business tactic. Marvel probably would like to save the viability of a few Ultimate properties and that's sound practice.

And whereas I'm not opposed to this happening (and don't truly have a horse in the race as I've never read anything Ultimate) - I am curious if there will be any easter eggs which make it more for the average reader/collector. Something like the alien suit; something which will contribute in a new original way for more than just the interim.

If that looks like it will be part of the scheme, I may buy. If not, this'll unfortunately make at least a half dozen skipped events.

#2 Posted by Grey56 (746 posts) - - Show Bio

Guess healing factors can't stop temporary death.

This. Also, I wonder what Stan Lee thinks of these modern day death issues.

#3 Posted by Grey56 (746 posts) - - Show Bio

Bottom Line Up Front: This incarnation doesn't mesh with either the intent of Grant and Bisley. It's arguable that it doesn't with what Giffen had in mind. For fans of the model that has been a part of canon for nearly 25 years - this new version will never satisfy.

Secondly, if you are busying yourself with discouraging people for voicing their dislike of a property they spend money on and take time out of their day to comment about - you're doing this hobby a disservice and you should probably check yourself as I sincerely doubt most of these brazen remarks would be offered in an interpersonal setting. If you like this new version of 'Lobo' - so be it.

I expressed these thoughts on @inferiorego 's review and would like to again thank him for taking the time to post his thoughts. Again, for the dicussion here - it is my own opinion (voiced by others, to give them credit) that a property is not made obsolete simply by the passing of years. In case anyone hasn't been watching Harley-Davidson stock, there is still quite a bit of folks out there who identify with the outlaw identity.

If this new property is supposed to be the same as the previous, then why go through the up front production cost of paying creators for a new vision? The answer is that this isn't the same. Unlike Dazzler going back to a Sex Pistols looks instead of her usual Farrah Fawcett - this isn't a uniform change. These are important distinctions.

Lastly, as it's been proposed, DC simply could have made a new character property (a villain to add to a rogues gallery) that represents everything this new incarnation does - perhaps even be another surviving Cznarian (gasp!) who is a brother or such that acts as a good foil to the character popularized over the last few decades.

#4 Posted by Grey56 (746 posts) - - Show Bio

Bottom Line Up Front: This incarnation doesn't mesh with either the intent of Grant and Bisley. It's arguable that it doesn't with what Giffen had in mind. For fans of the model that has been a part of canon for nearly 25 years - this new version will never satisfy.

Secondly, if you are busying yourself with discouraging people for voicing their dislike of a property they spend money on and take time out of their day to comment about - you're doing this hobby a disservice and you should probably check yourself as I sincerely doubt most of these brazen remarks would be offered in an interpersonal setting. If you like this new version of 'Lobo' - so be it.

I myself have been very vocal about this subject and disagree with @inferiorego though I appreciate his taking the time and effort to likewise express his opinion. It is my own opinion (voiced by others, to give them credit) that a property is not made obsolete simply by the passing of years. In case anyone hasn't been watching Harley-Davidson stock, there is still quite a bit of folks out there who identify with the outlaw identity.

Lastly, as it's been proposed, DC simply could have made a new character property (a villain to add to a rogues gallery) that represents everything this new incarnation does - perhaps even be another surviving Cznarian (gasp!) who is a brother or such that acts as a good foil to the character popularized over the last few decades.

#5 Posted by Grey56 (746 posts) - - Show Bio

Still hawking a book featuring the demise of a character that everyone buying and not buying the book knows to be untrue. I suppose it's a matter of principle for some and not others. And given that this site is dedicated to reviewing everything to then assist those of sharing this site - it's a fairly good justification.

Still, I do miss the times where third parties were harsh on these types on money-grabs; regardless as to how well written or how many extras there are in the last few pages. At the end of the day, it's still a farce - and not a new one at that.

#6 Posted by Grey56 (746 posts) - - Show Bio

-Sigh- Oh, Jean.

#7 Edited by Grey56 (746 posts) - - Show Bio

Jean's been gone now for 10 years. Ten. I had to count it out. I still think she's coming back. And no, I do not count this time traveling child form - I mean the real Red.

#8 Posted by Grey56 (746 posts) - - Show Bio

I must be either getting old, or too practical - because Clint's outfit is in no form as combat-able as his previous ones. I don't know if the jacket will carry some tactical explanation or not - but I hope so.

#9 Posted by Grey56 (746 posts) - - Show Bio

Does anyone believe that Etrigan may be gaining traction to join this title with his appearance in the new Swamp Thing annual?

#10 Posted by Grey56 (746 posts) - - Show Bio

You forgot the violence. Anyway, the stories are not about sex, they are about real people and the trouble that surrounds them.

Yup. I read Denver as well; thoroughly enjoyed every page of it. I've already got my pledge on hold. JP and Mrs. Connor really do great work.