Comics are awesome.

[Dominic]

I know other people who are *avoiding* GL becaue of Johns, if not avoiding Johns. Multi-colored Lantern Corps are like every bad "fan-boys would like this" joke from the 90s. (Really, indigo *and* blue?)

What was "smart" about Parallax not being Hal? It read like every other, "this is what really happened", story, only more fannish. ("Oh no, we have to get Hal's corpse out of the sun, OMFG!!!!!!")

[

This brings up a point with me. If x writer wants to use Ted Kord Blue Beetle that frickin' badly...why don't they just write a story set in a time period where Ted Kord is alive? Isn't that the 'point' of having a history? This kind of thing bothers me 'tons.' Just because a character is currently Not Alive does not mean that, if you *really* want to use them, you have to bring them back to life. They 'were' alive! Tell the story then! Nobody will care!

Some would argue that having a "flashback" series would just be too confusing for some readers. But, in other cases, the writers are just being divas and want to use the dead character, (making them alive), in modern context. Kevin Smith's hissy-fit about Green Arrow is a good example of this.

Everything Hal Jordan did in that story was so far out of character that it robbed the story of any credibility. Details like the number of rings are trivial.

Having one's hometown get wiped out might actually make one a bit loony though. That much was credible.

I liked Hal plenty well before "Emerald Twilight". But, I was not, nor will I, take points away from the story for that reason.

There was no other way to do it, unless the audience would have been expected to accept the greatest mass murderer ever as the protagonist of Green Lantern. Parallax killed the entire universe and all of time for heaven's sake... it doesn't get much worse than that.

They could have just left Hal dead. That would have worked.

What really got me about "ReBirth" was that Johns did not seem to be saying at all "yeah, this is a completely retarded idea for a retcon". He seemed to think, or at least expected readers to think, it really was that kewl.

Simply pretending all of that never happened would have been worse. That would be an insult to the audience and all the Kyle fans who had followed the character for a decade.

How would just writing it out be less of an insult to fans than saying that it did not meaningfully happen? I can respect an honest, even failed, reboot like what happened with Superman, or even Hawkman, in the 80s. But, "Green Lantern" just reads like a child's play session.

And I loved seeing Kyle's girlfriend stuffed in the fridge.

The irony here is that while I agree with the general "girl in the fridge" arguement, I do not agree that the specific incident it is named for is a good example of it.

She had to die as part of Kyle's maturation. Kyle was a product of the 90s. He did not earn his powers. He did not even get them accidently as a result of some other meritorious action. (Hal got his powers by being a good man. Barry Allen got his powers because he was working late one night. Kyle went outside to urinate behind a club, and a blue midget gave him a ring. It was a perfectly written for its time.) Kyle was a twerp, and it took a shock to make him grow up. (Really, did anyone think she was not going to die when she showed up?)

It's like your complaint that 'nothing sticks' these days. Stories don't matter and character deaths don't matter, because they'll just be undone down the road. It's the same thing... why invest in a character if that character can be so easily tossed aside during an 'event' storyline meant to draw readers in. What's the point?

How this is done is more important than if it is done at all.

In theory, they should only be able to introduce/kill/marry-off a character once. The reason it does not mean anything when they kill characters off is that it rarely sticks. If the character's death/fall to lunacy is well written, and (hopefully) means something beyond just being a comic, I am fine with it. But, writers and editors need to consider if they are just making the character a joke in course of writing their "very special story". (Several of my friends and I cannot mention Sue Dibny, Speedy, or Northstar without breaking out into fits of laughter.)


Dom
-still does not get the idea of being emotionally attached to a character.

[Sparky Prime]

I know other people who are *avoiding* GL becaue of Johns, if not avoiding Johns. Multi-colored Lantern Corps are like every bad "fan-boys would like this" joke from the 90s. (Really, indigo *and* blue?)

Which are in the minority I'm sure. Seriously, Johns work is extremely popular right now, as is the Emotional Spectrum. I'll admit I've seen a few Power Ranger jokes over it, but it's not out of malice of the story or the concept. And indigo is a distinct color from blue.

What was "smart" about Parallax not being Hal? It read like every other, "this is what really happened", story, only more fannish. ("Oh no, we have to get Hal's corpse out of the sun, OMFG!!!!!!")

Again, it allowed the story to expand into new areas. Parallax was introduced as the first known Emotional Entity and it also explained why the Green Lantern rings didn't work against Yellow while Parallax was prisoner inside the GL Central Battery. And this has continued to be expanded upon.

[Onslaught Six]

-still does not get the idea of being emotionally attached to a character.

Generally, Dom, you and I agree on most things. We can say that much. But this is something that I just have to say you're unique on--and not just in this circle of peoples, but in general. Nearly everyone I've ever met sympathises with at least one character and gets emotionally attached. I've done it a lot with a lot of different stories. It just kind of happens, to a lot of us. I never set out to become attached to Burai's story in Zyuranger, but I did, and as a result, the Green Ranger is ten times more awesome than he ever was in Power Rangers.

[138 Scourge]

I keep trying to post, and keep realizing I'm just trying to start trouble. So I'll just say this about the whole Technicolor Dream Corps thing. I'd give it more of a shot if I could read a Johns comic without falling asleep. Other than "Rebirth", which actually put me off of comics for awhile.

I want a grey ring, myself, powered by not giving a good goddamn about anything in a comic that wears a ring right now.

Anyway, I have the last part of the "Marvel Apes" one-shots for this year, in which the Apes fight the Marvel Zombies. This is way more fun to me than talking about the rainbow rangers. It's ridiculous, but runs with it and strives to become as ridiculous as possible. And furthermore, it includes the line "Baboon Von Doom. That alone is reason enough to destroy your world."

Also, I'm seriously considering picking up Greg Pak's "Incredible Hulk" comic. I've read a couple issues, and it's just great stuff. Hulk's getting dangerously close to becoming a rainbow ranger pack of his own, but on the other hand I've seen promo artwork that seems to indicate that Dr. Doom and M.O.D.O.K. will be on the same team to fight a bunch of Hulks. So I'm interested automatically.

[Shockwave]

-still does not get the idea of being emotionally attached to a character.

That's because you read for different reasons than the rest of us. You're always looking for some deeper literary context or trying to sift out some larger "message" that a writer has to preach. Apparently the rest of us don't. We read for enjoyment, meaning it's character driven. We want to see interesting characters with some sort of emotional depth and interesting back stories and development that aren't just 1 dimensional literary tools. This is especially true for me as I really don't care what a writer is trying to "preach" and a work of fiction can instantly turn me away if it's too blatantly obvious and I'm being beaten over the head with it. If a writer does this they just come across as some asshole with an opinion and I quit giving a flying fuck about people's opinions the very SECOND I graduated high school (save for people I care about). I read strictly for entertainment, first and foremost it's GOT to be fun to read. If it's not, I'm out. Having said that a story that's fun to read is going to be one that has good characters that are fleshed out and developed and have an emotional depth to them. Sometimes characters get fleshed out to the point that they have as much development and back story as some real people and in those cases it's easier to get attatched to them. This about the best I can explain it, I hope it makes sense.

Shockwave
-Hopes I didn't come across sounding like a douchebag.

[andersonh1]

To put it even more simply, I have to care about a character in order to care about what happens to him.

[Dominic]

I have a hard time caring what happens if it is not going to stick. As I have argued elsewhere, sales and quality are two different things. If nothing else, sales might just indicate morbid curiosity.

I do not mind nuanced characters, so long as they are being used well, and we are not just getting stories about how the characters are just awesome. But, I have a hard time reading something if the writer does not have something to say. I read, and like, some filler. ("Clone Saga" is a good wxample of this.) But, but I am not going to argue how great it is beyond it being a better take on a badly done story from 15 years ago.

Dom
-and this is why I read Morrison.

[SynjoDeonecros]

Anyone here a fan of the Sonic the Hedgehog comic (Archie, not Fleetway)? Anyone manage to catch the latest issue of it? God, it was bad...Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic YouTube Poop references EVERYWHERE. Since when did the writers decide that "Insane Eggman" translated to "Fourth Wall Breakage on the Level of Deadpool"? If he starts mentioning Sleet and Dingo, and starts ranting about Chris Thorndyke, I'm going to bash Ian Flynn's head in with a Death Egg replica.

Actually, I might do that, anyway; if anyone's followed the "Mobius: 25/30 Years Later" story arc, you might want to know an interesting bit of trivia about it. According to Ken Penders, he intended ROTOR, of all characters, to be outed as gay, with that echidna scientist he hangs out with, Cobar, his boyfriend. Honestly, I didn't catch it until he pointed out the hints he gave in the first part of the series; after that, the hints were easy to spot (look especially for when Cobar calls Rotor crazy for thinking about going back in time to fix things; he not only calls Rotor "my dear", but also emphasizes he's calling Rotor that not only out of respect, but out of AFFECTION, as well). Unfortunately, when Ian took over writing duties, one of the first things he did to them was have them tortured by Shadow, and had Cobar killed off. Coincidence? I think not...

[Onslaught Six]

I have a friend who reads Sonic semi-regularly, if only because he's a fan of the games. (And for the record, he thinks SNOO-PINGAS is hilarious.) It also helps that he is not a furry.

Anyway, I just randomly thought of that issue of Transmetropolitan where there's (almost?) no words and Spider Jerusalem gives a teddy bear to a girl who, I think, was homeless. I always liked that one.

[Sparky Prime]

To put it even more simply, I have to care about a character in order to care about what happens to him.

I don't really have anything to add here, I just wanted to mention I totally agree with what Shockwave said and andersonh1 sums up here.

As I have argued elsewhere, sales and quality are two different things. If nothing else, sales might just indicate morbid curiosity.

If that's suppose to be a rebuttal to my comment about the popularity of Johns work on Green Lantern, I feel I should point out that I wasn't referring to sales, rather, I was talking about the vast majority of reviews and responses to those works I've seen. But since you mentioned it, the sales have been excellent as well...