Bug, I feel a lot of the same things you do with regard to DC. Especially with regard to Batman. But are you going to be able to stay away from Morrison and Quitely's Batman in June? I can't.

Are movies a good as they were in the 70s? Ask any major film critic or respected authority on film (including directors and writers) and they will tell you no, that the 70s was a better period for film. Why? Because it was the way the industry worked back then (they were willing to take chances and cared less for blockbusters) and what type of films the audience were willing to accept.

Yes, the audience dictates what type of films is to be made (just like they do comics or other art forms) but it doesn't mean they make the best choice. Just like in an election, the best candidate doesn't always win. Well, in films and comics the best aren't always produced or green lighted, and even if they are made they are sometimes not appreciated by the mainstream.

Now, I am not advocating a change in the way it is done. I think free market is the only way to dictate what should be on top, just like how I believe democracy isn't perfect but it is fucking better than the alternatives.

However, that isn't to say we can't complain about the direction an art form takes. I can complain about what movies are getting green lighted and which ones are the most popular nowadays, just like I can complain about the way comics are nowadays, just like I can complain about politics and politicians. Going with the political comparison, how the hell are you going to change the country or how people see a situation without debate? Well the same applies to art? How are you going to get people to look at a situation another way without debating it. And sometimes that debating involves criticizing another sides point of view.

You’re entire argument that you can only stop buying comic books as a form of criticism is a ludicrous as saying you can only use your vote to criticize a political official. Criticism is the ultimate tool of changing people opinions, even about comics.

2007 was a fantastic year for film? Why do you say that? I am curious. I can't even remember what the "good" movies were and that is why I'm asking.

I am getting to enjoy the non-continuity stories told in-continuity (when they are good). So although the latest Batman can't possibly be in any sort of continuity, it is highly entertaining, and very well done. Much better than the previous, over-hyped but just decent storyline. And come to think of it, I don't know if Morrison and Quitely followed continuity with New X-Men and I loved that run.

From a comic geek viewpoint, 2008 was a golden year with Dark Knight and Iron Man. But when the best picture of the year is Tropic Thunder (IMO), I can't really compare it with the 70's.

Also, lets look at movies again. Only an X amount of films will be released per year to the theatre. That is based on the number of movie-goers. If said movie-goers prefer torture porn, guess what? I am not seeing pretty much any horror movies that year because almost every horror movie will be a splatter film. If Michael Bay-style action movies are the trend, well there goes pretty much every action movie out there I was going to see.

So great, my choices are now limited. I could complain to the studios, but they probably wouldn't listen because they could argue there is not a demand for the type of films I want. However, if I complain to other people, I might be able to make a grassroots movement that makes people realize that, yes, there is better choices out there. That is what happened in the mid to late 60s in film; a number of film critics and film teachers argued and criticize what they perceived what is wrong with American film, and their criticisms and championing of offbeat filmmakers shaped the taste and opinions of the New Hollywood Generation (Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg, Friedkin, etc.).

However, what happened in the 80s? American Film took a down turn (and anybody who claims 80 films are great has no understanding of cinema). Sure there were some good films, but over all they had become bloated and pointless. Well, what should you do? Keep your mouth shut or tell people when they ask (or don’t even ask) that “Hey, things were better in the 70’s! Those were better movies!” And some people heard those complaints and were inspired by them to help start the independent film movement, leading up to the Sundance Film Festival. . Well, same thing applies to comic books. If I see something that I don't like, I criticize about it. I make my argument why I don't think it works as a piece of art. And if there is a current trend I don't like, well I criticize the trend, especially considering the fact that the market is pretty much dominated by two companies.

But personally, my post at 10:01:55 was exactly about what you are now saying. I just want better narratives. If I can't understand what you are saying how can I possible like it.

It reminds me of one of my favorite Charles Bukowski quotes, 'An intellectual takes simple idea and makes it complex, an artist takes a complex idea and makes it simple." I am looking for more artist in comics and less intellectuals.

Editor: Um, but the Green Goblin is alive right now. Also, we can't use Krypton because it's a DC

Gaiman: Fuck you! I'm Neil Fucking Gaiman! I'm a best selling author! They're making movies of my books, and they DON'T suck! You're lucky I acknowledge that funnybooks even exist anymore! Now crawl, worm! CRAWL!!!

Editor: Yes sir, Mr. Gaiman, whatever you say!

Fuck no. At least for me.

Plus, they insinuate that the Eternals are all hundreds of thousands years old. Ikarus is like a third generation or fourth generation Eternal, and is like 40,000 years old.

Just little things like that drove me nuts.

Felt good to admit that.

And yes, you can't criticize water for being wet, but you can criticize it if it constantly tries to douse you. The same with how you can criticize America for the last eight years and our "spend like it will never end" mentality we had.

And being a violent culture or a sexist culture or a jaded, cynical culture isn't a state of being, that is an ACTION. They choose to be that way. A state of being would be to criticize someone for their race or gender or age or something like that.

The Eternals wasn't bad, but it wasn't much of anything. Very little happened and it was dull. There was one really good Eternals limited series a long time ago, dealing with the romance of Thena and the Deviant guy, can't remember the name.

Ok, I'll stop after this, I swear. But the only movie listed I really liked from 2007 was King of Pong. I was underwhelmed by TWBB and NCFOM, both by filmmakers who I generally love. But Blood is no Boogie Nights and Country is no Fargo. Probably some will say Blood and Country are superior, but not me. Those movies were more artistic exercises and left me cold. Unlike the 90's work of their creators.

Brolin is a perfect choice to play Jonah Hex! That is awesome. And Malkovich as the villain? This should be another outstanding comic movie.

Save yourself, or you'll hate yourself in the morning.

Do you mean King of Pong of King of Kong? While I prefer Fargo, No Country for Old Men was a damned good movie. Maybe even great.

As for There Will Be Blood, I found it vastly superior to Boogie Nights. Truth be told, I am not that big of Boogie Nights fan. I find it trying to be a mix of Scorsese and Altman but with none of the power. But that is just my opinion.

That said, when I finally learned that Christopher Priest was white, I was shocked because his Black Panther just seemed so authentic. Moreso than Hudlin, who is black. So it can be done, but is often done poorly.

Thanks for the Kro i.d. That was a good one. The art was subpar by today's standards but the story was very good. Mostly everything I know about the Eternals came from that series.

Don't hate me, but I read that Thor and I liked it, but I didn't think it was the cat's meow. Loki's setup was pretty obvious and standard, though the fight scene was good.

I have heard that Wikipedia can be unreliable, though I have never found it to be so. And that listing is amazingly detailed. However, it makes no mention of him also being a novelist, writing the Prestige or other non-comic material. So I think that Priest the novelist/comic writer is more likely real than the comic writer who changed his name. Especially because, I think, he couldn't be a published author and legally change his name and publish under the name of another author. Otherwise, I could call myself Chuck Pahlaniuk and get published.

No wonder his Panther seemed so real. Sadly, judging by his Wiki description, he sounds like a jerk. I am so old I can actually remember Jim Owsley.

I remember lots of the stuff he wrote under his original name, liked most of it, like Power Man/Iron Fist, but that name change is really weird. Really. Weird.

However, I have one small quibble about your movie statemnents. I refer specifically to the following:

"That is what happened in the mid to late 60s in film; a number of film critics and film teachers argued and criticize what they perceived what is wrong with American film, and their criticisms and championing of offbeat filmmakers shaped the taste and opinions of the New Hollywood Generation (Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg, Friedkin, etc.)."

I don't know who fed you that line of bullshit, but that is not quite right. It is true that many late 60s through early 80s learned more sophisticated techniques and absorbed more foreign techniques and ideas into their work. However, the primary reason that American Cinema flourished in that period can be summarized n one word - "Television"

Due to the spread of TV, Movie sales dropped considerably until by the early 60s movies were no longer considered a great investment. By the late 60s, the only people primarily involved were people who loved movies. This created the atmosphere necessary for actual artists to flourish. Star Wars was the beginning of the end, although I will say the period between 1977 and 1982 still didn't have the full-on blockbuster mentality either.

gooseued: Yes, the 80s had many good genre flicks, and was kind of a golden age for sci-fi and horror movies (excluding the slasher films which became ubiquitous with the decade). But for action movies, I am still going to go with the 70s: French Connection, the Seven-Ups, Rolling Thunder, the Warriors, Taking of Pelham One Two Three, Dirty Harry, the Gauntlet, Death Wish, and, hell, even Apocalypse Now could be considered an action movie.

I just got five words for you: Warriors, come out to pla-a-a-ay!

Laurie faces Walter at the air hockey table.

LAURIE:"Alright, if I win, you play for the Watchmen."

WALTER:"And if I win?"

INT. OWL SHIP -- NIGHT

An angry Laurie throws herself into the passenger seat.

COMEDIAN:"What happened?"

LAURIE:"I have to go torture Topknots with him Friday night."

COMEDIAN:"What? Are you kidding? Girls your age don't torture topknots."

LAURIE:"They do too. Where have you been?"

i understand the frustration of every writer trying to write "THE" batman story. i really do. but the thing is, it's been almost 25 years since BATMAN; YEAR ONE came out, so the character is in desperate need of the next "definitive" story. i think all that morrison and gaimen are trying to do is show the average rabid fan boy that batman does indeed have a history that started long before frank miller showed up and is going to have to embrace the entire history to move forward.

having said that, i go back to my original point. i think when you are dealing with the icons (superman and batman) the only way to go is to throw "continuity" out the fucking window. reading ALL STAR SUPERMAN makes it all too clear to me. sure, maybe you need continuity to make characters like aquaman, or thor, or the x-men or the hulk interesting. but when you are doing stories about modern myths that transcend the comic medium, like batman and superman do, the only "continuity" you need to stick to is the basic truths of their origins.

That is why I like Captain Britain & MI:13. It still exists within the Marvel Universe continuity, but it is far enough away that it isn’t bogged down by the need to make earth-shattering storylines or get caught up in all the drama of the latest crossover. Sure they have Dracula attacking England, a major crisis, but they milk it to make it feel like it is the most important event since the birth of Jesus. Captain Britain just does what old comics do: deliver good, interesting stories from month to month.

This is also why I liked the last issue of X-Force: a fucking mind-blowing issue, as emotional as the death of the Wasp in Secret Invasion but without feeling like a gimmick or shock ending (yes it was a gimmick and shock ending, but the phrase here is “without feeling’).

Besides, each DC character pretty much operates in his own city (Metropolis, Gotham, Coast City, Keystone City, etc.) so it would be easy for them to be self-contained and have their own continuity.

House of M - No more mutants! Except all the popluar ones.

Civil War - A war breaks out between the heros! But no one of not dies.

Secret Invasion - Some of Marvel's heros are Skrulls! But the biggest name was Spiderwoman.

Final Crisis - Seven issues of Morrison masturbating.

Age of Apocalypse was indeed super awesome. Um, urgh, I....liked Infinite Crisis.

As emotional as the death of the Wasp? But that wasn't emotional at all. Not the slightest. That's why it was lame.

Continentalop - As for writter trying to write the next definitive story for a character they need to look past what their personal favorite comic era is and look to what is the core of the character. Look at what the Nolan's came up for the Joker in The Dark Knight. That is the key, look at what makes the character work and leave all of the silver age and golden age silliness in the past.

gooseud - I'll probably get railed for this but I'll go on record and say the Infinity Gauntlet was an awesome mega cross over event. China is here.

Age of Apocalypse was indeed a big cross over and it was basically an out-of-continuity story, which is probably why it was so great. X-books tend to be very mired in continutiy. Madureira's art was a joy to behold.

While Secret Wars is dated, I still find it enjoyable. The Wasp was actually a prominent, entertaining character during this time. Spidey's black suit, She-Hulk joining the FF, the creation of Volcana and Titania, who then hooked up with Molecule Man (leading to great character development) and Absorbing Man (well, lots of smashing). The worst thing about it was the "X-Men are outsiders, we hate everyone and everyone hates us" thing.

Having said that, I will say one thing in defense of Secret Wars. It wasn't a crossover series, it was a self-contained 12 issue limited series that had consequences on the rest of the Marvel Universe: the Venom costume, Thing staying on Battleworld, She-Hulk joining the FF, Colossus having an affair with the alien girl resulting in the end of his relationship with Kitty Pryde, etc.

Secret Wars II, however, was a bloated crossover that just sucked.

Checkmate.

You got Rachel Summers, Nmrod, Cable, Stryfe, Bishob, Age of Apocalyspe, Dark Beast, Trevor Fitzroy, and a bunch of others. And almost every story involving Magik had her traveling to a possible horrible future for the X-Men or New Mutants.

Age of Apocalypse might have been well executed, but I guess I was just going through X-Men dystopian timeline fatigue.

Like, 'There. I named someone who must clearly set out to write a bad story.'

The origins of "nimrod" meaning an idiot might come from Bugs Bunny. Bugs would often ironically call Elmer Fudd a "poor little nimrod." So, for the less literate children watching it is natural to assume the would interpret "nimrod" to be some kind of insult.

Anyone remembers the vampire Nimrod who fought Dracula in Dracula Lives?

Plus, most young people usually have a bleaker look to the future, and also think they will inherit a world worse than what their parents had.

Personally though, I would love to see an optimistic future just once.Wouldn't it be nice if the future proved that Prof. X's quest was justified? I mean, if MLK somehow showed up nowadays, I think he would feel his sacrifices and toil were all worth it.

Or maybe he is: "I think that this - that this entire mutant thing is just such a ridiculous thing. Uh, it reminds me of an old Joke that takes place at a Catskills mountain resort..."

Best use of a GL ring ever was in Ganthet's Tale by sci-fi writer Larry Niven (the man of "Man of Steel, Woman of Tissue" fame). In it Hal is told to fly away at the speed of light and fire a green laser at another ring wielder. Because he was moving so fast the blast was color shifted along the light spectrum, going from green to yellow.

That was just awesome.

"Dracula on the Moon!"

Having said that, one of my biggest joys is when somebody takes a DC character, with all of their ridiculous physics breaking powers, and uses real world science with them. I don’t care so much that someone’s powers are completely unrealistic, I just love it when do real scientific applications (such as Superman following radio waves or the Flash saying something that isn’t heard until after he knocks out the villain because he was was running faster than sound), or at least they acknowledge how their powers breaks the rules of physics.

One of my favorite moments that a comic book character admitted that his powers were impossible and he knew it was in an old issue of the Atom when Ray Palmer and a friend of his had both shrunk down, and were standing and talking on an atom. Suddenly the friend realized something and said, “Hey, if we are now smaller than an oxygen molecule, how is it we can breath and talk?”

Ray Palmer replied, “I don’t know.” At least he was honest about it.

Question: I cut down my comic reading tremendously through most of the 90s, and pretty much stopped reading all things X-Men. My question is to those in the know when was the term "Weapon X" first applied? Barry-Windsor Smith's comic from 1991 was called "Weapon X" I know, but wasn't the experiment called Experiment X? I think Larry Hama came up with the Weapon X project in the early 90's, but I am not sure.

The reason I ask is why would Wolverine be called Weapon X when he first appeared and fought the Hulk he if had no memory and no longer had a connection to the Weapon X program. Was it a repressed memory; was members of Weapon X working with Department H; or was this just a fucking coincidence? Has this ever been explained.

I got to lie down. Whenever I think of Wolverine's origin I get a big headache.

What I especially love is that they are treating Dracula as an A-list villain, not some joke because he is based on a character from another medium. I read an interview wit Paul Cornell and he was talking about how he wants to put Dracula on the map as one of the big villains in Marvel, and how one of his motivations is that the members of the Dark Illuminati are not treating him with the respect he believes he deserves.

I read the first few issues of Thor, and it just didn't do anything for me... But, I'm sort of over JMS, so I may not have been approaching it with an open mind. Maybe I'll give it another whirl in collected form.

Same goes for Captain Britain.... I felt burned a couple of times by different iterations of Excalibur.... So took a pass on this one, but Dracula on the Moon? That's pure gold. And I love the idea of Dracula become a force to be reckoned with in the MU.

It's tough. At $3.99, I'll be taking even fewer chances on new series'.

That is why I don't think you need a comic book science scene with GL - it works better if you have a general guideline what it can do and let each writing staff explore it. Unlike Marvel, where I want to know where each character ranks on the strength chart (is Hercules stronger than Thor? And how many tons can they lift?).

Who says you can't come up with anything new?

Maybe one of the moderators or reviewers knows.

You gotta loosen up, man! Try the wood grain alcohol.

I guess I am still a little souther belle.