Comic Book Questions & Discussion

Started by xJLxKing1,926 pages

Soo they just confirmed
The great darkness is likely Lucifer

Originally posted by xJLxKing
Soo they just confirmed
The great darkness is likely Lucifer

Well, yeah. Especially considering that Dan Watters( who wrote the Lucifer== The Great Darkness scene) also is one of the writers in this story

https://ibb.co/VYwr5g8

Originally posted by Galan007
I was just rereading the most recent Lucifer series, and it occurred to me that Lucifer and the GEB were implied to be the same entity:
https://ibb.co/18B0D6j
Lucifer: "Without perversion, all is unified. All is one in nothingness. Have you ever considered that perhaps that's why he made me the way I am? He needed shadow to give his light definition. Without elements of each other, perfect light and perfect darkness are one and the same."

Moreover, when some of Lucifer's avatars were depicted alongside him, we see the GEB's hand present:
https://ibb.co/Rvg5CCV

Dan Watters(writer of the series) confirms that the hand was indeed meant to represent the GEB:
https://ibb.co/8gjrw0v

So at least in Watters' view, the GEB is just one of Lucifer's many avatars/personifications. Granted, I'm sure DC has retconned this little factoid in current continuity, but I still thought it was interesting...

about to cum in my pants

Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Well, yeah. Especially considering that Dan Watters( who wrote the Lucifer== The Great Darkness scene) also is one of the writers in this story

https://ibb.co/VYwr5g8


Still stupid.
Originally posted by Astner
Because **** Alan Moore and his introduction of the Great Darkness where he specifically points out that it's not a fallen angel.

And **** Neil Gaiman's original introduction of Lucifer where he refers to the Great Darkness as a separate entity and the catalyst of the events that lead up to the current state of affairs.

Is it too much to expect a new writer to at the very least have read up on the first appearances of the characters he's writing about?

Originally posted by xJLxKing
Soo they just confirmed
The great darkness is likely Lucifer
I just read the stuff Phil posted, not the rest of the comic yet, but my takeaway was that GEB is all the badness. It spoke in the first person whether as Upside Down Man or Trigon or Lucifer and notably, as Trigon, seemed to reference Raven in the father/daughter sense.

So my read wasn't that GEB = Lucifer per se but that Lucifer is ultimately one form (maybe the greatest/purest) of GEB.

Also the scene reads like a clear homage to that s7 scene in Buffy where the First Evil takes the form of all the Big Bads as it monologues...

Originally posted by Astner
Still stupid.

why? because it didn't follow alan moore or neil gaiman it's automatically stupid?

Originally posted by Smurph
I just read the stuff Phil posted, not the rest of the comic yet, but my takeaway was that GEB is all the badness. It spoke in the first person whether as Upside Down Man or Trigon or Lucifer and notably, as Trigon, seemed to reference Raven in the father/daughter sense.

So my read wasn't that GEB = Lucifer per se but that Lucifer is ultimately one form (maybe the greatest/purest) of GEB.

Also the scene reads like a clear homage to that s7 scene in Buffy where the First Evil takes the form of all the Big Bads as it monologues...

They just can't help retooling the classics. Worse then George Lucas and the extra special edition alterations.

purists are the worst

they stifle creativity and want everything be a tribute to previous works

Originally posted by Smurph
I just read the stuff Phil posted, not the rest of the comic yet, but my takeaway was that GEB is all the badness. It spoke in the first person whether as Upside Down Man or Trigon or Lucifer and notably, as Trigon, seemed to reference Raven in the father/daughter sense.

So my read wasn't that GEB = Lucifer per se but that Lucifer is ultimately one form (maybe the greatest/purest) of GEB.

Also the scene reads like a clear homage to that s7 scene in Buffy where the First Evil takes the form of all the Big Bads as it monologues...


I like this interpretation

Originally posted by MrMind
purists are the worst

they stifle creativity and want everything be a tribute to previous works

Because the Mona Lisa could use a touch up, maybe add in a smile.

Name one good thing that was ever made better by adding to it.

Originally posted by MrMind
why? because it didn't follow alan moore or neil gaiman it's automatically stupid?

Because they purposelessly revise these characters to include them in stories where they don't belong.

Originally posted by MrMind
purists are the worst

they stifle creativity and want everything be a tribute to previous works


No. Creativity flourishes where there are restrictions. When you have to come up with creative solutions to problems and revise your writing accordingly.

I can't believe nobody mentioned how Aquaman saves the day when Supes and the rest of the League couldn't, in the latest Batman.

Originally posted by Astner
Because they purposelessly revise these characters to include them in stories where they don't belong.

Except Lucifer and GEB both appeared in main DC before
You are one of the few who thought vertigo cosmology and DC are separate
And what do u know, you turned out to be wrong again

Originally posted by MrMind
Except Lucifer and GEB both appeared in main DC before
You are one of the few who thought vertigo cosmology and DC are separate
And what do u know, you turned out to be wrong again

"Appeared". That's a far cry from adding story.

The closest they came to adding lore was Michael in John Ostranders Spectre. And the timeline to Carey's Lucifer made no sense, so that was written off as non Vertigo Michael.

Originally posted by MrMind
about to cum in my pants

YouTube video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4

Originally posted by MrMind
Except Lucifer and GEB both appeared in main DC before

I know Lucifer had a cameo in the Spectre comic, but that's it I think.

Originally posted by MrMind
You are one of the few who thought vertigo cosmology and DC are separate

What are you talking about? There's no such thing as shared Vertigo cosmology because Vertigo is a publisher for mostly self-contained stories.

Originally posted by MrMind
And what do u know, you turned out to be wrong again

There is no "Vertigo cosmology," there never was. Lucifer and Sandman shared a cosmology, but that's it. Preacher is not part of it, nor is 100 Bullets, both of which are Vertigo titles.

Originally posted by Astner
I know Lucifer had a cameo in the Spectre comic, but that's it I think.

What are you talking about? There's no such thing as shared Vertigo cosmology because Vertigo is a publisher for mostly self-contained stories.

There is no "Vertigo cosmology," there never was. Lucifer and Sandman shared a cosmology, but that's it. Preacher is not part of it, nor is 100 Bullets, both of which are Vertigo titles.

Not even sure Lucifer appeared in Spectre. I know Michael did for certain.

Pretty sure when Spectre was looking for the Presence he only met those two Angel duffus's. The one's who visited Dream for Hell's key.

He did.

- Spectre (1992) #57

Originally posted by Astner
He did.

- Spectre (1992) #57

Now that I see it, I remember.

Thanks. 👆

Either way Ostranders story doesn't really fit in with Vertigo, on account of Michael being captured at the time. Certainly not playing keeper to Spectre and serving The Presence, as Lucifer lounges on a beach (Vertigo Lucifer did have time to lounge around at a bar, but Michael was off the table).

Originally posted by Astner
I know Lucifer had a cameo in the Spectre comic, but that's it I think.

What are you talking about? There's no such thing as shared Vertigo cosmology because Vertigo is a publisher for mostly self-contained stories.

There is no "Vertigo cosmology," there never was. Lucifer and Sandman shared a cosmology, but that's it. Preacher is not part of it, nor is 100 Bullets, both of which are Vertigo titles.

when i said vertigo cosmology i meant carey/gaiman cosmology, thought i didn't have to clarify things that hard for you to understand