The rules about outside sources are abundantly clear, and have been for a while now. I'm not going to say "people who post shit should know better" because they do, and they post it anyway.
Ignoring the rules as a pattern of behaviour that will lead to bans. That includes posting irrelevant shit to troll, baiting people, and bashing people.
One thing that still needs to be clarified is stuff like interviews.
DarkSaint says "dismiss them all". I never liked that idea and thought our rules discriminated the obscure interviews only.
We often take comics too literally (statements or even the on-panel action scenes) or interpret them however we like, often to serve our bias/agendas.
Of course, we should still be careful with some interviews --- like DS' favourite example; Alan Moore saying that he met Constantine twice.
Interviews are like handbooks. When they align with on panel facts they can be used to help add depth and whatnot to the scene in question.
However, interviews alone are not enough to definitively argue for or against a particular showing, nor should they be used as the sole basis on which your argument in formed.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
One thing that still needs to be clarified is stuff like interviews.DarkSaint says "dismiss them all". I never liked that idea and thought our rules discriminated the obscure interviews only.
We often take comics too literally (statements or even the on-panel action scenes) or interpret them however we like, often to serve our bias/agendas.
Of course, we should still be careful with some interviews --- like DS' favourite example; Alan Moore saying that he met Constantine twice.
The easiest way to go about it is: No, an interview (obscure or not) will never have the same weight as an actual panel in a comic. It can be used as supplementary evidence to clarify something, sure, but it cannot, under any circumstances, contradict what is in/on the panels.
The comics themselves are the "Word of God", to use a phrase.
Originally posted by -Pr-
The easiest way to go about it is: No, an interview (obscure or not) will never have the same weight as an actual panel in a comic. It can be used as supplementary evidence to clarify something, sure, but it cannot, under any circumstances, contradict what is in/on the panels.The comics themselves are the "Word of God", to use a phrase.
do you think an associate editor has more credibility than an actual writer ?? just curious
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
do you think an associate editor has more credibility than an actual writer ?? just curious
As regards anything that happens outside of a comic, sure. Inside the comic, though? No.
I mean, I can harp on all day about how Hank Pym, as stated by the writer himself, was never supposed to hit Jan on purpose. But, the artist made it intentional, so in canon, it's intentional. For better or worse, the comic is the final authority.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
One thing that still needs to be clarified is stuff like interviews.DarkSaint says "dismiss them all". I never liked that idea and thought our rules discriminated the obscure interviews only.
We often take comics too literally (statements or even the on-panel action scenes) or interpret them however we like, often to serve our bias/agendas.
Of course, we should still be careful with some interviews --- like DS' favourite example; Alan Moore saying that he met Constantine twice.
Just for the record, it wasn't just Alan Moore lol.
Originally posted by carver9
I'm standing in my living room right now dancing. I knew I was right. I just subbed to him. When ABHI posted an image from the artist (the image he posted wasnt even legit), people rode it. Now we receive confirmation...I'm done. Thanks CAT for mentioning this.
Not that it matters. These are his own thoughts.
👆