All I'm hearing right now is WHAAAAAA Geoff Johns is wrong, even though he's DC's CCO he's wrong Q_Q
Seriously how stupid does someone have to be to try to argue with DC about their own product? I get that the stories can mess up continuity significantly but if he says something then it's case closed. If you don't like it go ***** to him on his twitter
Originally posted by HalfamazingGeoff Johns isn't wrong. It's you, as a poster who twists his words and ignores his direct actions, who is wrong.
All I'm hearing right now is WHAAAAAA Geoff Johns is wrong, even though he's DC's CCO he's wrong Q_QSeriously how stupid does someone have to be to try to argue with DC about their own product? I get that the stories can mess up continuity significantly but if he says something then it's case closed. If you don't like it go ***** to him on his twitter
If Geoff Johns writes comics that completely retcon away PC Legion adventures and characters (I just gave you three huge examples), they are retconned, despite what he may have earlier suggested in a random interview. If Geoff Johns writes a comic then it's case closed. If you don't like that, then you can troll more and cry about it, sock.
No, his word takes precedence over the actual comics. This shit happened on Formspring when people were hanging on to Hickman's words after that Hyperion crap with him holding apart 2 universes. He told everyone to screw off and wait for the next issue but everyone was still going to him for answers. If someone went to Geoff Johns and he said the same thing, then that's what we go by.
Originally posted by Halfamazing
No, his word takes precedence over the actual comics. This shit happened on Formspring when people were hanging on to Hickman's words after that Hyperion crap with him holding apart 2 universes. He told everyone to screw off and wait for the next issue but everyone was still going to him for answers. If someone went to Geoff Johns and he said the same thing, then that's what we go by.
Not really?
On panel feats/events >>> a writer's statement. If a future book explicitly retcons or explains away the previous one, okay, but a writer answering questions, let alone on a forum or through Formspring doesn't override what's on panel. Otherwise you have shit like Superman being beyond Galactus and Classic Beyonder, nothing short of Galactus being able to stop World War Hulk, Sentry being unbeatable unless he wants to be beaten, and other nonsense.
If you have books or on panel evidence to prove your claim - I don't follow the LoSH one way or the other - then it's an easy task to prove ODG and srank wrong. But if you're just going by what Johns has said, well, the comics themselves are going to disagree with you (assuming they're correctly referenced in this case).
KMC rules even state that statements and the like aren't "proof" like feats and on panel evidence.
Geoff Johns could state that Green Lantern is the single most powerful hero in the DCU. Doesn't make it true.
The problem here is that One Dumb Go is assuming Geoff Johns statements of their pre crisis history is invalid because of a few minor difference like Supergirl and Lex Luthor. No one including Johns said it was 100% replica but both Post Crisis and the New 52 Legion have confirmed that the GDS which is arguably the biggest Pre Crisis Legion story is canon, that's enough to confirmed that the SA Legion's history is canon.
KMC states that statements in comics should be taken with a grain of salt, where does it state that if an actual writer, let alone the top guy in the company says something that it should be dismissed? If you don't agree, fine, but Show me where it states this and I'll drop the entire thing right now.
Originally posted by HalfamazingGeoff Johns gives an interview suggesting he's bringing back PC Legion. Years later, Geoff Johns subsequently writes stories that completely contradict hugely important milestones and vast swathes of PC Legion history. The former does not override the latter. That's against forum rules. That's also pants-on-head retarded.
No, his word takes precedence over the actual comics. This shit happened on Formspring when people were hanging on to Hickman's words after that Hyperion crap with him holding apart 2 universes. He told everyone to screw off and wait for the next issue but everyone was still going to him for answers. If someone went to Geoff Johns and he said the same thing, then that's what we go by.
And Hickman has absolutely nothing to do with this. Unless you want to keep being unreasonable.
So what? So if Hickman told some random internet troll yesterday that Hyperion held two universes off and survived their destruction solo, and three months later he writes a story where it's revealed the Black Swans saved Hyperion and amped him, we'd have to go with Hickman's earlier words?
Because that's exactly what you're trying to do here. And it's bafflingly stupifying. All this wasted effort to cling to some 1962 story with scenes like this:
Originally posted by Halfamazing
KMC states that statements in comics should be taken with a grain of salt, where does it state that if an actual writer, let alone the top guy in the company says something that it should be dismissed? If you don't agree, fine, but Show me where it states this and I'll drop the entire thing right now.
From the KMC rules:
An obscure interview given by someone involved in a story arc is not proof to refute feats. Neither is a random post by a supposed writer on a message board, blogs, tweets, etc. There have been too many of these so called interviews which go against what's shown on panel. Especially when there is no dialogue to refute what's happening on panel. Most writers are clear with the intentions of the plot and story arc.
Taken from the Rules/Guidelines Thread:
An obscure interview given by someone involved in a story arc is not proof to refute feats. Neither is a random post by a supposed writer on a message board, blogs, tweets, etc. There have been too many of these so called interviews which go against what's shown on panel. Especially when there is no dialogue to refute what's happening on panel. Most writers are clear with the intentions of the plot and story arc.
Even Geoff Johns' statements don't take precedence over on panel occurrences. As far as the Legion goes, if several of their key moments have been retconned or altered, it effectively changes their history as a whole. Same concept with New 52 Batman and Green Lantern, the two properties which were left "unchanged" post Flashpoint. There's so many events that have been astronomically altered simply because of a single character not existing or being rehauled completely alone, to say nothing of reconciling the entire DCU.
In any case, if you do have on panel evidence to support these stories being canon, that's great, but Geoff Johns saying their kinda/sorta/mostly are isn't proof in of itself.
In other words, it doesn't state anywhere that writers statements are to be disregarded. So you essentially made that part up, nice. Since you have nothing else then I think we're done here. If Johns says is canon than that's it, go cry to him if you feel differently. And since you stated that you don't even read Legion then you really have no business discussing this.
Originally posted by HalfamazingSuperboy's actual first meeting with the Legion is not minor. PC teen Luthor's rivalry with Superboy and PC Supergirl's dozens of adventures with the Legion are not minor differences. Christ.
The problem here is that One Dumb Go is assuming Geoff Johns statements of their pre crisis history is invalid because of a few minor difference like Supergirl and Lex Luthor. No one including Johns said it was 100% replica but both Post Crisis and the New 52 Legion have confirmed that the GDS which is arguably the biggest Pre Crisis Legion story is canon, that's enough to confirmed that the SA Legion's history is canon.KMC states that statements in comics should be taken with a grain of salt, where does it state that if an actual writer, let alone the top guy in the company says something that it should be dismissed? If you don't agree, fine, but Show me where it states this and I'll drop the entire thing right now.
And as you can see from what Nibedicus and JakeTheBank posted, what's written on-panel by Geoff Johns carries far more weight and cannot be refuted by an earlier interview.
Originally posted by HalfamazingOf course, you go ahead and just decide that you'll just ignore the rule like a troll. Writer's statements do not override what's on-panel. Nuff said. Since you had nothing even from the beginning of this wretched excuse of a conversation then I think we're done here. If John writes a comic retconning Legion than that's it, go cry to him if you feel differently. And since you are obviously a sock then you really have no business even warranting a response.
In other words, it doesn't state anywhere that writers statements are to be disregarded. So you essentially made that part up, nice. Since you have nothing else then I think we're done here. If Johns says is canon than that's it, go cry to him if you feel differently. And since you stated that you don't even read Legion then you really have no business discussing this.
Originally posted by Halfamazing
In other words, it doesn't state anywhere that writers statements are to be disregarded. So you essentially made that part up, nice. Since you have nothing else then I think we're done here. If Johns says is canon than that's it, go cry to him if you feel differently. And since you stated that you don't even read Legion then you really have no business discussing this.
If you'd actually read the quote, you'd see that it very clearly states that interviews/statements from writers is not proof to refute actual feats and what occurs on panel. Not a terribly difficult thing to get from the rules. I didn't make anything up on that count, it's in the rules and the mods are pretty straight forward as far as dealing with statements go. Johns can say whatever he like at the end of the day, but if it's not supported by on-panel evidence or the comics themselves, it means little to nothing.
I may not read Legion regularly, but I know enough not to cite a writer's statement or opinion as being > what happens in comics. I certainly have the right to post my opinion on the matter in any case, as well. Again, if you do happen to have on panel proof that all of the PC Legion stories are indeed canon or at least the ones you're arguing in favor of, that's great and it would settle (or at least help to settle the argument).
Definitely no need to be snippy about anything, though. 👆
Originally posted by HalfamazingI dunno, how badly are you crying? I can't see exactly how many tears are dripping from your face from across the internet. But based on the complete breakdown and deconstruction you just suffered, I'm going to venture a guess of "Yes"???
Do people always cry this bad when they're wrong on this forum?
Anyway, excuse me while I laugh myself right out of this conversation.
As I explained Superboy's first meeting was changed due to Time trapper meddling with time. Looks like I've to post scans to shut some people up.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Edited for accuracy.Look at this pot calling the kettle black. I suspect that you have a David Fischer type relationship with all these random posters that you keep bringing up in our conversations.
