both companies do.. marvel has bn horrible in the last decade but there sales is high so its okay that there shi$#y writing attracts younger kids.
same for DC but they consistently bn inconsistent in continuity that it is a given and isnt looked down on as they would if it were marvel.
there crappy writing also attracts younger kids due to splash art and insane weekly cosmic story even though it is mostly crap.
upside is that they have other adult books and universe with better grasp on continuity and respect of characters like vertigo and wildstorm
marvel's one shots and mini series tend to be of a much higher caliber than mainline books (wolverine: switchback and spiderman: reign being, IMO, far better than "wolverine" or ASM titles).
both companies are loath to take chances, and for good reason, they normally don't pay out like splashpages and immature punchlines in every dialogue box. this might change though. the expanding market for the main books free up money for chance taking.
Originally posted by inimalist
marvel's one shots and mini series tend to be of a much higher caliber than mainline books (wolverine: switchback and spiderman: reign being, IMO, far better than "wolverine" or ASM titles).both companies are loath to take chances, and for good reason, they normally don't pay out like splashpages and immature punchlines in every dialogue box. this might change though. the expanding market for the main books free up money for chance taking.
In my experience one shots/minis tend to be better in general. Long running series develop a very cool mythology behind them at some point you have to dive into the ridiculously arcane continuity of a shared universe. Or maybe its because minis tend to get a big name behind them.
I think that's one of the reasons I tended to prefer manga and anime to comics as a kid. With one author things remain relatively straightforward in term of what actually happened. On the other hand when you have a dozen authors at once and hundreds in total deciphering the backstory can be quite a project.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In my experience one shots/minis tend to be better in general. Long running series develop a very cool mythology behind them at some point you have to dive into the ridiculously arcane continuity of a shared universe. Or maybe its because minis tend to get a big name behind them.I think that's one of the reasons I tended to prefer manga and anime to comics as a kid. With one author things remain relatively straightforward in term of what actually happened. On the other hand when you have a dozen authors at once and hundreds in total deciphering the backstory can be quite a project.
I agree with that, in fact I think having to work everything into continuity strongly limits the greatness of the finished product. I'd prefer there to be more one shots or elseworlds, where the characters establish their own universe and only share some common traits. So that they may all be "Batman" in essence, but they are not the same, for example.
This is an impossible subject to list. Just as the author of the article points out, most of the characters on that list are written with some of the most neglected and blatant inconsistencies. I'm not sure why people are surprised by the list...,the Author used a specific continuity of each character. Going by the versions they used there is no reason to believe that, Thor, couldn't easily take down Surfer and Superman. I'm just surprised that they didn't bother to list any telepaths or telekinetics . Nate Grey could destroy everyone on that list
Originally posted by King Castle
my only issue with continuity is that the character shouldnt be altered. i wouldnt mind if his history didnt coincide with everything in the comics but his powersets and origin should stay the same rather then changing from writer to writer which DC tends to do to there characters regularly.
Origins have to change a little bit, unless you want to go the Punisher or Constantine route of having everyone age in real time.
I don't mind powerset changes. "Shaking thing up" isn't so bad. What really irritates me is inconsistency within the character's powerset. Green Lantern comics tend to be really bad about that, so does Superman.
those are the ones i had in mind.
GL and superman powerset constantly changing to suit the story from week to week.
i am pissed that they altered superboy origin in less then a decade b/c a writer wanted to make his own take on the character and have his supervillian a part of the experiment none of it fit the origin of superboy clone
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Origins have to change a little bit, unless you want to go the Punisher or Constantine route of having everyone age in real time.I don't mind powerset changes. "Shaking thing up" isn't so bad. What really irritates me is inconsistency within the character's powerset. Green Lantern comics tend to be really bad about that, so does Superman.
Yeah, i think it's a good idea to always experiment with established characters. I don't mind when this is done by introducing a short series or title series, separate from the original. Most mainstream lines do this but sometimes a change has been known to affect the entire line. Like, All X-men versions adopting the bone claw idea. Or all spiderman series introducing the idea of organic webbing.
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
This is an impossible subject to list. Just as the author of the article points out, most of the characters on that list are written with some of the most neglected and blatant inconsistencies. I'm not sure why people are surprised by the list...,the Author used a specific continuity of each character. Going by the versions they used there is no reason to believe that, Thor, couldn't easily take down Surfer and Superman. I'm just surprised that they didn't bother to list any telepaths or telekinetics . Nate Grey could destroy everyone on that list
Yeah they had the Martian Manhunter on the list. And he's telepathic. That's why I think he should be on there instead of Professor X, for example. At least he has other powers also.
Originally posted by Robtard
If we're getting into the omnipotent level beings, wouldn't The-One-Above-All from Marvel be at the top?Followed by The Living Tribunal and Spectre.
I think the list specifically disqualifies super powerful beings. I liked the intro a lot:
"Here it is folks, the biggest debate on the whole interweb. Never has there been a more well thought out argument for a completely non-existent thing. Which superhero could beat up which other superhero. Never has a group of people spent more time drawing graphs, doing calculations, making charts, and writing computer programs to prove that the hero they love is in fact the toughest. These people do more literature searches than a graduate student writing their dissertation on literature. One can only imagine what world problems could be solved if comic book nerds would instead focus this same energy on say; poverty, healthcare, the climate, pollution, the economy, childhood obesity, cancer, sudden infant death syndrome, racism, genetic disorders, violence against women, the melting ice caps, sending a man to mars, depression, solving Goldbach’s conjecture, creating a unified field theory, un-raveling the mystery of DNA, figuring out what happened before the big bang, resolving religious tensions in the Middle East, finding peace on Earth, making cleaner cars, sustainable energy, nuclear fission, getting rid of hippies, and the million other things that would make this world a better place to live in."
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In my experience one shots/minis tend to be better in general. Long running series develop a very cool mythology behind them at some point you have to dive into the ridiculously arcane continuity of a shared universe. Or maybe its because minis tend to get a big name behind them.
I think a lot of the problem is the open ended nature of a monthly title anyways. Even for my favorite characters, I could probably come up with 2-3 really good, original and creative ways to tell stories about them, if pressed. I'm not a writer by any means, but my point is that with no clear "goal" or "end", the story just tends to run on and get repetitive.
The extended universe can go both ways too. Look at star wars, some of the stuff that has been done in the expanded universe is way more interesting than in Lucas' work (Boba Fett)
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think that's one of the reasons I tended to prefer manga and anime to comics as a kid. With one author things remain relatively straightforward in term of what actually happened. On the other hand when you have a dozen authors at once and hundreds in total deciphering the backstory can be quite a project.
interesting...
that got me thinking. Over at marvel now, its like every title is telling the same story, with only slight changes in perspective. I guess heroic age is supposed to change that, but before at least, it was like everyone had their finger in eachother's pie, such that there really was no way for artists to have a vision on their own books, even given the convoluted backstory.
Why are people putting Thor on top of, or near the top of lists?
He got Smashed by Hulk, and wouldn´t last 5 seconds against Superman.
Superheroes are interesting not due to their mega power, but because of the story told about them. Otherwise someone could dream up a superhero called "God man" who is a clone of God. Beat that shit.?